THE EFFECT OF FIVE FACTORS
ON UNIVERSITY FACULTY MEMBERS’
PARTICIPATION IN INSTRUCTIONAL

IMPROVEMENT

Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
ROBERT EUGENE YOUNG
1976

.. no ' “M
943218113 WPH' I

W" '-
' ' .‘z' .331- ‘R A R Y
Mia-55' gem 5””

um'emity’g

v7

  
 
 

I III; IIZIIIIJLIII I II I III "III I .

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
The Effect of Five Factors
On University Faculty Members
Participation In Instructional Improvement

presented by

Robert Eugene Young

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph. D degree in Educational Psychology

 

 

Major professor a

Date November 10, 19 76

0-7 639

 

 
  
   

  

supine by
I "0A6 & SONS‘
4 800K BIIIIIEIIY III}.

”any muons
Wu. IICIIIAI

 
   
 

ABSTRACT
THE EFFECT OF FIVE FACTORS

ON UNIVERSITY FACULTY NEMBERS'
PARTICIPATION IN INSTRUCTIONAL IMPROVEMENT

By
Robert Eugene Young

The number of programs and formal campus agencies devoted to
the improvement of college instruction has grown tremendously in the
past few years. These programs and agencies have employed a variety
of strategies in attempts to encourage faculty members to make special
efforts to improve their instruction. Yet. little empirical evidence
exists as to the effectiveness of these strategies.

The present research attempted to provide a partial remedy to
this situation. This study specifically tried to answer the following
questions: What approaches can be used to stimulate a university
faculty member's interest in instructional improvement? and which of
these approaches have the most promise of success?

The avenue taken to answer these questions followed three
basic steps. First, a review of the existing literature resulted in
the identification of five basic fggtgg§_related to faculty members'
participation in instructional improvement. Each of these factors
seemed to underlie similar strategies for encouraging instructional
improvement. For purposes of this research the five factors were
labeled: Perceived Need to Improve, Knowledge of Alternatives, Reward,
Peer Support. and Institutional Support.

Robert Eugene Young

A second step involved the Operationalization of these factors

 

such that each could be experimentally tested. Operationalization
involved choosing strategies under each factor which seemed to have

the most promise of success and which were used most frequently by
instructional improvement programs and agencies. For example, "time
released from regular duties," a strategy often used and often
reconmended in the literature, was one of the operationalizations chosen
for the factor of Institutional Support. Each factor was operationalized
by four separate strategies.

Finally experimental_procedures were design and implemented to

 

test the effect of the operationalized factors on a faculty member's
willingness to make special efforts to improve his instruction. The
research design and methodology required a sample of Michigan State
University faculty members to indicate the degree to which they would
be influenced to participate in instructional improvement by each of
the factors individually or in combination. Three hundred and seventy-
three faculty members each responded to a set of “situation descriptions"
which combined the five factors into a distinctive influence situation.
Each possible combination of factors and levels (present and absent)
was tested. The operationalized factors were not investigated jg_ngg,
rather they were studied through the use of a paper-and-pencil simula-
tion. The design and procedures allowed the determination, using
appropriate statistical analyses, of main and interaction effects of
the five factors and an assessment of the relative effectiveness of each
factor.

Results indicate that the operationalized factors of Perceived

Need to Improve, Knowledge of Alternatives, Peer Support, and Institutional

Robert Eugene Young

Support produced in a faculty member a greater stated willingness to
make special efforts to improve his instruction. The presence of
Reward did not, on the other hand, result in greater movement toward
teaching improvement. The only significant interaction of factors
occurred between Perceived Need and Reward and between Perceived Need
and Institutional Support. The presence of Reward was more effective
than its absence ley_when Perceived Need was also present, whereas

the presence of Institutional Support was more effective when Perceived
Need was absent. Perceived Need itself was enhanced when Reward was
also present and when Institutional Support was absent.

Perceived Need to Improve was by a large amount the most potent
factor, as measured by the amount of variance accounted for in subjects'
stated willingness to improve their instruction. This factor was respon-
sible for l5 percent of the variance, while Knowledge of Alternatives
and Institutional Support each accounted for one percent, Peer Support
for eight-tenths of one percent, and Reward for nine-hundredths of one
percent. Considered together the five factors accounted for 19 percent
of the total score variation.

These results have implications for both the practice of
instructional improvement and future research. The results also have
important limitations. The factors of Perceived Need to Improve,
Knowledge of Alternatives, Peer Support, and Institutional Support,
as operationalized in this study, can be recommended for use by improve—

ment programs and agencies with the support of some evidence as to their

 

potential effectiveness. The Perceived Need factor in particular
(as operationalized by formal evaluation of instruction, departmental

self-study, curriculum revision, and analysis of personal goals for

Robert Eugene Young

teaching) merits consideration as an important component in any

effort to encourage faculty members to make efforts to better their
courses and teaching skills. Reward, on the other hand, should perhaps
not be emphasized as a factor used to stimulate instructional improve-
ment. A number of possible explanations for this result (offered in
the report of this study) do suggest, though, that Reward may in fact
be effective under certain circumstances and that strategies which
emphasize it should not be completely abandoned.

Future research should attempt to investigate these five factors
in institutions dissimilar to major research universities Such as
Michigan State University. Factors should also be tested ifl_!i!2
where faculty members are actually subjected to the influence situations
described by the situation descriptions used in this study. Additional
operationalizations of the five factors considered in this research
and additional factors not considered might be tested in order to
expand the number of strategies and factors for which some evidence
exists as to their effectiveness in stimulating instructional improve-
ment. Finally, individual and sub-group characteristics should be
investigated for their mitigating effect on the influence of each factor.

The principal limitation of the study concerns its simulated
nature. Faculty members were askgg_to indicate the degree to which
they would be influenced by the factors and combination of factors.

They were not actually submitted to the influence situations described

to them. This condition prevents direct statements about the actual
behavior of faculty members in these situations. But (as argued in the
research report) evidence as to how college teachers §Qy_they would
respond to certain factors provides at the very least a general direction

for future instructional improvement practice and research.

THE EFFECT OF FIVE FACTORS
ON UNIVERSITY FACULTY MEMBERS'
PARTICIPATION IN INSTRUCTIONAL IMPROVEMENT

By

Robert Eugene Young

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Counseling, Personnel
Services and Educational Psychology

1976

To the memory of my father
and all he wanted for me

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A project of the magnitude of a doctoral dissertation requires
the cooperation of many, many people. To acknowledge all those special
individuals who have made a contribution to this one would be impossible.
But, each knows who he is and the important role he has played.

I would like to publically thank the members of my doctoral
committee for their guidance and encouragement throughout my program
and my research:' Professor James Phillips, Professor Louis C. Stama-
takos, Professor Harvey F. Clarizio, and Professor Walter G. Hapkiewicz,
Dissertation Director and Committee Chairman. To Professor Hapkiewicz
I owe a special debt for all he has given to me as a teacher, advisor, .
and friend. Any success that I might have realized as a doctoral
student is in great part due to this man.

The great balance of my appreciation must go to my wife Marjorie.

No one has had a more patient and supportive partner. Her contribution

to my personal and professional development can never be recompensated;

it can only be continually acknowledged.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES ......................... Vii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................ V111
Chapter
I. PROBLEM AND OVERVIEN .................. I
Introduction to the Problem .............. l
Rationale for the Study ................ 6
Overview of the Study ................. 8
Previous Research ................. 8
Operationalization of Factors ........... 10
Design and Implementation of Experi-
mental Procedures ................. IO
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................. l2
Identification of Factors ............... l3
Factor Number One: Perceived Need to Improve ..... I7
Operationalization of the Factor--
Perceived Need to Improve ............. 20
Evaluation and Feedback ............ 20
New Goals for Teaching ............. 23
Factor Number Two: Knowledge of Alternatives ..... 26
Operationalization of the Factor--
Knowledge of Alternatives ............. 28
Factor Number Three: Reward .............. 3T
Operationalization of the Factor--
Reward ....................... 34
Factors Number Four and Five: Peer and
Institutional Support ................. 36
Peer Support: Factor Number Four .. ........ 38
Operationalization of the Factor--
Peer Support .................. 40
Institutional Support: Factor Number Five ..... 4l
Operationalization of the Factor--
Institutional Support ............. 42
Summary ........................ 43

iv

 

Chapter

III.

IV.

VI.

Li

Chapter Page

III. VARIABLES AND HYPOTHESES ................ 44
Variables ....................... 44
Research Hypotheses .................. 45

IV. METHODOLOGY ...................... 48
General Method ..................... 48
Advantages ..................... 49
Limitations .................... 51
Experimental Design .................. 53
Sample ......................... 55
Instrumentation .................... 55
Situation Description Construction ......... 57

Factor Operationalization ........... 57

Situation Description Writing Scheme ...... 53

Response Scale--Dependent Variable ......... 55

Pilot Testing ................... 68
Administration of Experimental Procedures ....... 59
Statistical Analysis .................. 59

V. RESULTS ........................ 7]
Data Summary ...................... 71
Statistical Results .................. 77
Research Hypotheses .................. 32

v1. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS .............. 94

Discussion of Results ................. 95
Perceived Need to Improve ............. 95
Knowledge of Alternatives ............. 99
Reward ....................... 99
Peer Support .................... 105
Institutional Support ............... 103
Interaction Among Factors ............. 1‘0
Relative Effectiveness of Factors ......... IIO

Limitations ...................... 113
Limitation l .................... ‘13
Limitation 2 .................... 1‘5
Limitation 3 .................... 1‘5

Implications for Research and Practice ......... II7
Implications for Research ............. 117

Research Implication l ............. ‘17
Research Implication 2 ............. I19
Research Implication 3 ............. 119
Research Implication 4 ............. 121
Research Implication 5 ............. I21
Implications for Practice ............. 122
Practice Implication l ............. ‘22
Practice Implication 2 ............. 123

Chapter Page
VI. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS (continued)

Practice Implication 3 ............. 123
Practice Implication 4 ............. 124
Practice Implication 5 ............. 124
Practice Implication 6 ............. 125
APPENDICES

A. Pilot Study .
Instructions to Participants ............ 126
List of Participants ................ 127

B. Research Instrument

Cover letter .................... 129
Directions ..................... 130
Set of Situation Descriptions (Example) ....... 131
Follow-up Reminder ................. 135
Situation Descriptions (128) . J'. . . . ... . . . . 136
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . 137

vi

Table

5-4.

LIST OF TABLES

Page
Variable matrix with means for willingness to make
Special efforts to improve instruction ........ 73
Coefficient Alpha estimates of reliability for each
set of situation descriptions ............. 76
ANOVA for main effects and interactions on stated
willingness to make special efforts to improve
instruction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 79
Eta2 estimates of the amount of variance in subjects'
willingness to make special efforts to improve instruc-
tion accounted for by each factor ........... 83

vii

 

 

Figure
4-1.
5-I.

5-2.

LIST OF FIGURES

Page
Design and data matrix ................. 54
Interaction of a) Reward and b) Institutional Support
on Perceived Need to Improve .............. 90
Interaction of Perceived Need to Improve on a) Reward
and b) Institutional Support .............. 92

viii

CHAPTER I
PROBLEM AND OVERVIEW

Introduction to the Problem

 

The improvement of college teaching has become a "movement"
in higher education (Gaff, 1975b). For a host of reasons, many
revolving around the current financial retrenchment of American
colleges and universities, programs devoted to instructional improve-
ment and innovation and the professional development of college‘
teachers have proliferated across the country (Young, 1976).

These programs employ a variety of strategies to achieve their
purposes. Predicated on the assumption that teaching is a learned
configuration of knowledge, attitudes, and abilities, a typical
instructional improvement program might employ growth groups to
help faculty members clarify personal goals for teaching, individual
consultation and group workshops to generate ideas and develop teach-
ing skills, and small grants to promote experimentation.

Most programs have been characterized by their work with
ggly_those faculty members who themselves perceived a need to improve
and are willing to expend the necessary effort to upgrade their course
materials and teaching abilities. As the movement expands,\however,

a dissatisfaction has been expressed with this limitation on the
potential impact of these instructional improvement activities.
Programs that satisfy themselves with "volunteers" may not reach those

instructors who most need this type of assistance. Gaff (1975b) argues:

It may be possible to launch a program with
volunteers who have intrinsic interests and
pursue their own agendas, but that is no
basis to sustain a program (p. 134). Unless ,/
greater numbers become involved, including
those who are most in need of help but who ,
elect not to participate under completely I
voluntary arrangements, the idea will not
achieve its full potential (p. 178-179).

1.

Popham (1974), in a article critical of present instructional
improvement efforts in higher education, suggests that institutions
will have to go beyond the low profile, usually voluntary, approach onto
more formal and required activities in order to reach most faculty.

He states, "I would seriously doubt whether many of the tokenistic

and half-hearted efforts currently underway will lead to any genuine
improvements in the instruction capabilities of many faculty members"
(p. 13). The problem becomes how to work effectively with those
faculty who do not voluntarily participate in instructional improvement
activities.

Gaff (1975a) suggests that limited participation is not due
to a lack of interest on the part of faculty or institutions but rather
to conditions that characterize the current academic climate. These
conditions include the lack of pre-service preparation for college
teachers, absence of in-service activities and resources for improvement.
and the inadequacy of academic policies to promote teaching and its
improvement.

The recent research by Spitzer (1975) gives evidence to
Gaff's assertion. Eighty-four percent of the faculty members in
Spitzer's study reported possessing either a "very large" or "consider-
able" commitment to instructional improvement. But only five percent

indicated that they would participate without additional incentives.

 

 

In In
of p
addi
teac
adve
ever
and

reqz

imp
tha
qua
jus
hai
the
SPE
tr-
Rev
Fr;
0p)
Fri
do

Iii

In many universities, research and service activities enjoy support

of promotion and compensation policies while teaching does not. In
addition, the availability of funds outside the university means that
teaching and efforts to improve it often compete at a sizeable dis-
advantage with these other activities. Spitzer's findings suggest that,
even though faculty members see themselves as committed to teaching

and instructional improvement, additional inducements seem to be
required.

With this situation in view, the emphasis in instructional
improvement programs has been on providing opportunities and incentives
that will encourage individuals and groups to attempt to upgrade the
quality of their teaching. Although Popham's criticism applies
justly to many existing instructional improvement programs, there
have been some efforts to go beyond volunteers and begin to enlist
the participation of greater numbers of faculty (Gaff, 1975b). Very
specific strategies for promoting improvement have been proposed and
tried in many different types of institutional contexts (Brown and
Hanger, 1976; Bergquist and Phillips, 1975b; Criteria, 1975; Eraut, 1975;
Francis, 1975; Gaff, 1975b; Munson et a1, 1975; Group for Human Devel-
opment in Higher Education, 1974; Ack, 1973; DeBloois and Alder, 1973;
Freedman, 1973; Centra, 1972; Noonan, 1972; Eble, 1972; Sanford, 1971;
Johnson et a1, 1968; Hall, 1964; McCarthy, 1964; Neuberger, 1964;
Miller and Wilson, 1963).

Many of the approaches in fact have a considerable history in
the literature of instructional improvement (Gray, 1930; AAUP, 1933;
Haggerty, 1937; President's Commission on Higher Education, 1947;

Tead, 1949; Blegan, 1952; Dobbins, 1956; Garrett, 1957; Sheedy, 1957;
Grundstein, 1969; Crawford, 1961).

 

 

cases the
underpinl
educatio
of impre
systemat
deve10pm

strategi

The problem with these approaches, though, is that in many
cases they are merely propositions, with little theoretical or empirical
underpinnings and little evidence as to their efficacy in higher
education. If evidence has been collected, it usually takes the form
of impressionistic reports. Few attempts have actually been made to
systematically test strategies of instructional improvement and faculty
development. Diamond (1976) describes the situation with respect to
strategies for instructional improvement: 5?

On many campuses the decision as to how [limited]
funds [for teaching improvement] are actually
going to be used is based on hunches, the sales-
manship of an advocate to a particular approach

or technique, or on a cursory review of the
literature. Rarely has the time been taken to
explore the impact of various approaches . . .
While one campus may institute a program of
faculty seminars and workshops, others may stress
the use of microteaching and individual faculty consul-
tation, the implementation of a faculty grant
program, a faculty evaluation program, an outstand-
ing teacher award, the establishment of a support
center emphasizing media production, or in some
instances, the systematic design of courses and
curricula. Some campuses may have the option of
implementing several of these approaches (the list
is certainly not complete). The resources avail-
able, however, rarely permit a comprehensive
approach using all the various options. Thus, the
administration must answer the question, if we
can't do everything, what can we do? (p. 3).

The research that has been done is usually of the survey variety.
Spitzer (1975) questioned faculty members at the State University of
New York at Albany to determine their attitudes toward instructional
improvement and to find out reasons for participation and resistance
in improvement activities. Studies by Norris (1953) and Almira
(1968) surveyed faculty at New York and Michigan colleges of
education respectively to determine which approaches to faculty

development and the improvement of instruction were thought to be helpful.

 

 

Also, N

improve

to survl
Centra':
nation-i
New YorI

developn

necessar
that hav
a better
IWNNh
mental cl
virtuallg
in higher
studies -'
manipulai

1
V Exneri
detail Ia
UdIize an
In INStrLN

Investigaz

Also, W.F. Kelly (1950) has synthesized 20 studies of in-service
improvement of college teaching.

In studies not yet completed Centra and Neff have proposed
to survey faculty development practices and programs (Smith, 1975).
Centra's investigation, funded by the Exxon Foundation, will be
nation-wide. Neff will gather information at State University of
New York institutions on the potential value of a number of faculty
development programs and the priority they have in SUNY system.

These studies, though, do not produce the kind of evidence

necessary to determine the effectiveness of the kinds of strategies

 

that have been proposed. To guide practical efforts and to provide
a better understanding of the important variables involved when work-
ing with faculty on instructional improvement, research of an experi-
mental character is needed. This kind of investigation has been
virtually non-existent. In their review of research on teaching
in higher education, Trent & Cohen (1973) observed that "experimental
studies in which significant variables have been systematically
manipulated are exceedingly rare" (p. 1052).
The action-research pursued by Jack Linquist for the Union

of Experimenting Colleges and Universities, to be described in more
detail later, may represent the only comprehensive attempt to concept-
ualize and test strategies for eliciting college faculty participation
in instructional improvement and innovation. But as he began his
investigation, Lindquist (1974a) lamented:

It would help us sort out these different

strategies if we had good evidence about the

outcomes of each . . . (p. 2). Unfortunately

there is not much evidence to go by, especially

regarding the comparatively new practice of -

systematic teaching improvement programs in
postsecondary education.

 

leading

by conc:
developr
Improvil

evidenc.

college:
Horld u,
IDSIl‘uc'

Strategi

Bergquist and Phillips (1975a), who have become among the
leading commentators on faculty development, reinforce Lindquist's view:

In the recent past, efforts at faculty development
have been largely cosmetic in nature or based,

at least in part, on faulty assumptions about the
way in which faculty, as well as students, learn,
change, and grow. We are left with very few
guidelines for new programs in faculty develop-
ment . . . (p. 181).

Bergquist and Phillips attempt to answer their own challenge
by conceptualizing some of the components of an effective faculty
development program and suggesting specific techniques to use in
improving instruction. But, they too are able to cite little systematic
evidence for the effectiveness of these activities.

This situation is not a new one. After World War II, as
colleges and universities prepared for the influx of veterans of
World War II, a flurry of activities were undertaken in the areas of
instructional improvement and faculty development. Eckert (1951)
observed at that time:

A survey of the available literature reveals a
growing concern for the problems [of improving
college and university faculties]; it also
underscores the dearth of scientific studies

of these problems. Many methods of inservice
education have been advocated, but only in rare
cases do these proposals rest on more than the
personal preferences or the considered judgment

of individuals' making the recommendation.
(p. 176)

Rationale for the Study

 

A serious problem faces the instructional improvement movement.
Few programs go beyond working with volunteers. And, those that
do attempt to reach great numbers of faculty members propose and attempt

strategies for which little data exists as to their effectiveness.

In other words, at this stage we have relatively little experience

in designing and implementing approaches for enlisting the participation
of faculty in instructional improvement activities and even less
knowledge of their outcomes.

The obvious, though not Simple, solution to this problematic
situation requires that approaches not simply be proposed but that they
be empirically and systematically tested as well. The questions become:
1) which strategies work? and 2) how do we produce evidence necessary
to make recommendations to those who would go beyond the volunteer
approach? The research project reported in this volume has attempted
to address itself to these basic issues.

The problem in its entirety cannot be solved by any one research
study. But, hopefully the present investigation builds on what
previous writing and research there has been and produces information
useful to the practical efforts of instructional improvement. If
more solid evidence can be produced on the question of which strategies
prove effective in inducing faculty to participate in improvement
activities, programs of faculty development will be able to proceed
more systematically and more assuredly. Programs that have not chosen
to go beyond working with volunteers, for thought that any efforts
would be futile, may be encouraged to attempt riskier activities.

Much in demand have been effective approaches for overcoming faculty
resistance to change.

In addition to this boon to faculty development programs,
each bit of systematic evidence contributes to a better theoretical
and empirical underpinning for the emerging fields of faculty develop-

ment, instructional improvement, and educational change. Models of

improvement and change (of the type developed by Lindquist), supported
by evidence, would give considerable legitimacy to these activities as

a formal part of postsecondary education. It is hoped that this
research may lead to further conceptualizing and empirical investigation
in the general areas of faculty behavior and the improvement of college

teaching.

Overview of the Study

 

The principal problem to which this research is addressed
can be stated succinctly: what approaches can be used to stimulate
faculty members' interest in instructional improvement activities?
And, which of these approaches have the most promise of success? This
section briefly describes the plan used to pursue an answer to these

questions.

Previous Research

 

As a first step the existing literature on the topics
of instructional improvement and faculty development was reviewed to
identify those strategies which seem to have the most promise based on
previous experience and research. The term "strategy" refers to
those practices which a university might employ to stimulate faculty
members to improve their courses and teaching skill. Examples
would include student evaluation of instruction, faculty workshops
and seminars, released time to pursue improvement projects, etc. From
this review a small number of psychological, sociological, and organiza-
tional phenomena or factors, which serve as the basis for many of
these strategies, were identified. Psychological factors included

Perceived Need to Improve, Knowledge of Alternatives, and Reward.

 

I-O

Peer Sgppgrt and Institutional Support represent the sociological

 

 

and organizational factors identified. Some strategies no doubt
make use of a number of these type of factors. The five factors
identified are described in detail in Chapter II of this report.

Identifying and testing these more general factors hopefully
make the results of such a study more generalizable. If, for instance,
Reward is found to have a significant impact on whether or not a
faculty member participates in instructional improvement activities,
then strategies which make use of this factor can be used more confi-
dently. Lindquist (1974a) suggests that notions about how people change
tend to group into recognizable and separate categories. It is the
assertion of this research that strategies of faculty development
and instructional improvement can be clustered according to the more
basic psychological, sociological, or organizational factors that
underlie them.

Strategies and factors to be studied were identified from the '
instructional improvement and faculty development literature, despite
its limitations, rather than directly from the more robust theory and
research in general and social psychology and sociology. This approach
was taken for at least one important reason. If the results of this
research are to be useful to practical programs of instructional
improvement and to future conceptualization and inquiry in this area,
then it seems wise to select variables for study which already have
some familiarity and acceptance to practicioners and which have some
literature and research (albeit a small amount) devoted to them.

Because of the inadequacies in the existing theorizing and

empirical research on college faculties, the literature on teachers at

 

the ele
strateg
psycholc
example
individi
in non-e
I975; Ca
of previ
and fact

and facu

I

the factc
At this 5
Strategie
For Ingta
represent
Pursue ar

T
by IHStru
InchaDte

D

‘EEBNIJIQQ
Ft;
I0 I681; the

to make 5P9.

10

the elementary and secondary levels was searched for effective
Strategies of teacher improvement and change. Also, sources in general
psychology, social psychology, and sociology were consulted. For
example, the effects of Peer Support (one factor to be considered) on
individual behavior has been extensively studied in "lower" schools and
in non-education contexts (e.g., Hartup, 1970; Schmuck and Schmuck,
1975; Cartwright and Zander, 1968). In each case these two categories
of previous research serve principally to further define strategies

and factors initially identified from the instructional improvement

and faculty development literature.

Operationalization of Factors

 

The second phase of the study involved operationalizing
the factors chosen so that they could be studied experimentally.
At this step factors, which were initially extracted from a study of
strategies, were transformed back into these practical approaches.

For instance, the factor defined as Institutional Sppport can be

 

represented by the strategy of "released time from regular duties to
pursue an instructional improvement project."

The major ways in which each factor has been operationalized
by instructional improvement programs is described in Chapter II.
In Chapter IV the four specific operationalizations chosen for

purposes of testing each factor are presented.

Design and Implementation of Experimental Procedures
Finally, experimental procedures were designed and implemented
to test the effect of the factors chosen on faculty menbers' willingness

to make special efforts to improve their instruction. The research

11

design required a sample of faculty members to indicate the degree
to which they would be influenced to participate in instructional
improvement by each of the operationalized factors. These faculty
members were asked to respond to four "situation descriptions," each
of which combined the five factors into a distinctive "influence
situation." In this way each influence situation became a treatment
in a completely crossed factorial design.

Treatment effects were determined by appropriate analysis
of variance. Interactions among factors and rank order of factors
as to their effectiveness were also determined from the data of
this study. These results provide one type of indication as to
whether or not the factors chosen for study have a significant impact
on faculty members' willingness to participate in instructional
improvement activities.

The independent and dependent variables and the research
hypotheses to be investigated are presented in Chapter III. In
Chapter IV the methodology used in the study is detailed. Results

are described in Chapter V and discussed in Chapter VI.

 

enp'
uni'
teal
lit:
pos
hav.

I97i

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

As stated in Chapter I there exists little direct theory or
empirical research to recommend strategies for stimulating college and
university faculty members to commit themselves to becoming better
teachers. There has recently developed, though, a rapidly accumulating
literature on faculty development and instructional improvement in
postsecondary education in which strategies for solving this problem
have been proposed (Brown and Hanger, 1976; Behymer and Blackburn,
1975; Bergquist and Phillips, 1975b; Criteria, 1975; Eraut, 1975;
Francis, 1975; Gaff, 1975b; Munson et a1, 1975; Richardson, 1975; Toombs,
1975; Group for Human Development in Higher Education, 1974; Martin,
1974; Ack, 1973; DeBloois and Adler, 1973; Freedmen, 1973; Centra, 1972;
Ebel, 1972, 1971, 1970; Noonan, 1972; O'Banion, 1972; Eble, 1971;
Sanford, 1971; Almira, 1968; Borders-Patterson, 1968; Johnson et a1,
1968; Lee, 1967; Soffen, 1967; Pullias, 1963; Commack, 1964; Gustad,
1964; Hall, 1964; McCarthy, 1964; Neuberger, 1964; Miller and Wilson,
1963). Also, prior to this present era there have been periods of
formal concern for the improvement of instruction and the development
of college teachers and some writing and research on conditions
and strategies for facilitating each (Gray, 1930; AAUP, 1933;

Haggerty, 1937; Wilson, 1945; Weaver, 1948; President's Commision on
Higher Education, 1947; Tead, 1949; Kelley, W.F., 1950; Eckert, 1951;
Kelly, F.H., 1951; Blegan, 1952; Norris, 1953; Corman, 1955; Dobbins,
1956; Garrett, 1957; Sheedy, 1957; McCoy, 1958; Grundstein, 1960;

12

 

 

 

 

   
  
 

Crawford, I;
the most in
appear to b
that have b;
sociologica

The

techniques I

 

or M
the upgradir
development
on elementa
general psy
and empiric
This has b;
“Id elabon
“We centr
Fo
determine
effective
represeNt
Ilitions

descri bed

Strategie
teachIng

under a f

13

Crawford, 1961; McCall et a1, 1961). AS argued in the first chapter,
the most important contribution to be made at this time would

appear to be an empirical test of the most promising of the strategies
that have been proposed, looking particularly at the psychological,
sociological and organizational phenomana which underlie them.

The purpose of this review is to look at strategies and
techniques of instructional improvement and to identify those phenomena
or factors which may be effective in stimulating faculty to approach
the upgrading of their teaching. The search has focused on the faculty
development and instructional improvement literature. But, research
on elementary and secondary teacher improvement, as well as more
general psychological, sociological, and organizational theorizing
and empirical investigation, has been brought to bear on the problem.
This has been done particularly as this information provides support
and elaboration for the strategies and factors identified in the
more central college and university faculty literature.

For each factor identified an attempt was also made to
determine which of the strategies associated with it might be most
effective in facilitating instructional improvement. These strategies
represent the Operationalizations of each factor. (Specific operational-
izations chosen to test each factor and the methodology of the study are

described in Chapter IV).

Identification of Factors

 

Potentially there exists many basic factors and many operational
strategies which might be used with faculty members toward the goal of
teaching improvement. It would seem, though, that most can be grouped

under a few general categories. In fact, a number of category schemes

 

 

 

have been i
1915; Gaff.
Toombs, 197'

Per

   
  
  
  

instructionc
faculty ment
and institu
Richardson,
This

proven usefu
and faculty
chosen for 2
under one 0'
Lin

and Knowl ed
SOWEWhat di

0f HaVEIOCI

Innovation:

take DIaCe

Each aPpro

IndIVidua]

thoUpht to

IRdivdea]

14

have been formally proposed (Bergquist and Phillips, 1975a; Francis,
1975; Gaff, 1975a, 1975b, Munson et a1, 1975; Richardson, 1975;
Toombs, 1975; Lindquist, 1974a; DeBloois and Alder, 1973).

Perhaps the most familiar is the distinction between
instructional development (of courses), personal development (of
faculty members), and organizational development (of departments
and institutions) (Bergquist and Phillips, 1975b; Gaff, 1975b;
Richardson, 1975; Toombs, 1975).

This carving-up of strategies into three categories has
proven useful to authors and practitioners of instructional improvement
and faculty development. As will be seen, the strategies and factors
chosen for study in this present research might very well be fit
under one or another of these rubrics.

Lindquist (1974a), working within the Strategies for Change
and Knowledge Utilization (SFCKU) project, has provided another,
somewhat different, way of grouping strategies. Using the work
of Havelock (1971, 1973) on the dissemination and utilization of
innovations as a basis, he suggests that change can be thought to

take place in at least four distinct ways: through Problem-Solving,

 

Social Interaction, Research and Development, and Legitimate Authority.

 

 

Each approach depends on somewhat different assumptions about
individual behavior and the nature of organizations. Each can be
thought to represent a distinctive approach to seeking change in
individual and/or organizational behavior.

Lindquist's conceptualization has important advantages over
other category systems. First, it has a more substantial theoretical

and empirical basis. Each approach has been built on more general

 

knowledge c
provide the
anessive l
mminem
has attemp‘
strategy i:
In a
higher edu.
a comprehe
Again begi
comPonents
more effec
Impose di
these inte
The
each app“
orgaOIZat
It comes
advantage
Strategy
prObIem-r
Support,
this We
Nichole
the part
need to

a CeItai

15

knowledge of human and group behavior. Havelock's ideas, which

provide the bedrock for Lindquist's scheme, were originally based on

a massive review of over 4,000 diffusion and change studies, including
many in education (Havelock, 1971). More importantly the SFCKU project
has attempted to collect evidence of the success or failure of each
strategy in a number of different institutional contexts.

In addition to proposing four distinct approaches to change in
higher education, Lindquist suggests that they compliment each other in
a comprehensive approach to instructional improvement and innovation.
Again beginning with Havelock's notion of "linkage" of innovation
components, he argues that particular combinations of strategies will be
more effective than approaches used in isolation. Although other authors
propose distinct categories of strategies, they do not make it clear how
these interact to facilitate instructional improvement.

The Lindquist system does, though, have limitations. First,
each approach invokes more than one psychological, sociological, or
organizational phenomenon. This is certainly not a weakness when
it comes to practice. But, for research purposes it would be
advantageous if only one unique factor could be associated with each
strategy. For example, the first strategy proposed by Lindquist--
Problem-Solving--invokes a perceived need to change, peer group
support, and institutional assistance. In the way the term iS used in
this present research, each of these may be considered a separate
psychological, sociological, or organizational £29395 which underlies
the particular operational strategy. For research purposes, these
need to be distinguished if we are to know which specific factors prompt

a certain faculty member to approach instructional improvement. The key

 

variable

I
little d
improved
institui
critica

activit

test i
go be:
toteg
Lindc
IDDrI
soci
pro;
imp

whi

ch

16

variable in each of Lindquist‘s strategies needs to be identified.

Second, the set of strategies is incomplete. There is
little direct emphasis given to what may be called support for
improvement, direct or indirect, particularly peer support and
institutional support. As will be argued later, these factors seems
critical in any attempt to enlist faculty for teaching improvement
activities.

Because of these limitations, any new attempt to generate and
test factors which underlie instructional improvement strategies must
go beyond Lindquist's work and that of the others who propose
categories of strategies. The research reported in this volume uses
Lindquist's work as a foundation. But, an attempt has been made to
improve on it by 1) identifying the unique and essential psychological.
sociological, or organizational phenomenon in each approach and 2)
proposing additional factors which focus on support for instructional
improvement. By these efforts a set of factors have been identified
which can be empirically tested. .

The remainder of this chapter describes the five factors

chosen for study: Perceived Need to Improve, Knowledge of Alternatives,

 

and Reward (suggested by Lindquist's work); and Peer Support and

 

Institutional Support (proposed by other writing and research in the

 

areas of instructional improvement and faculty development). The first
three have been considered as psychological factors, while Peer Support

and Institutional Support are sociological and organizational factors.

 

 

 

I
Solving a
is the i
research
change I
the dis«
or thin
present
become
offers
the 1*

8eQue

both

Innc
adve
to
of

CO

17

Factor Number One: Perceived Need to Improve

 

Lindquist refers to his first change strategy as the Problem-
Solving approach. The critical variable or factor in this approach

is the identification of the need to change. In the case of this

 

research, this need would be to improve one's instruction. The

change process involves the desire to reduce the need or resolve

the discrepancy between how a faculty member wants to behave

or thinks he ought to in his teaching and how he is now behaving. The
presentation of some kind of data which points out this discrepancy
becomes the action component in this strategy. Lindquist (1974a)
offers that "change occurs when a catalyst . . . intervenes in

the life of the campus or professor to stimulate and assist a fairly
sequential problem solving process . . ." (p. 2)

For Lindquist and the SFCKU project this approach involves
both stimulating and assisting faculty members to seek improvement or
innovation. But, as mentioned in the previous section, it seems
advantageous to identify a single, unique element of each strategy
to distinguish it from others for research purposes. In the opinion
of this investigator, the key to this approach lies with the first

component: stimulating, via the presentation of discrepant information,

 

a perceived need to change. The assisting component is not unique
to this approach, rather it seems more central to other strategies to
be discussed below, such as Knowledge of Alternatives and Peer and
Institutional Support.

As conceptualized by Havelock (1971), the Problem-Solving
model of innovation and change involves development of a perceived

need, diagnosis of the need into a solvable problem, seeking alternative

 

solutions.

Again, it s

 

a need to c
This study I
facilitate
”the first
consciousne
disinterest
critical an
improvement
The
Come from L
and 9|”0up b
Francis, 19
illd 0Id wag
"unfrozeng
0r Improver
aCtl'Vities
0Id ways 0
become "l‘e
”"SEIIIing
Wants his
from Stu d6
behal/ior I
the direcy
behallIor 1

thing EISI

18

solutions, and, finally, acting on the most promising alternative.
Again, it seems to this researcher that the first component--developing
a need to change--is the unique and essential key to this approach.
This study focuses on it as a major factor underlying attempts to
facilitate instructional improvement. Francis (1975) suggests that
"the first task of instructional development must be to raise that
consciousness, to attract attention, to unfreeze traditional faculty
disinterest in the methodology of instruction and to establish a
critical awareness of the necessity and desirability of instructional
improvement" (p. 722).

The theoretical basis for this phenomenon can be thought to
come from Lewin's idea of "unfreezing-moving-refreezing" of individual
and group behavior (Lindquist, 1974a; Bergquist and Phillips, 1975a;
Francis, 1975; Lippitt et al., 1958; Lewin, 1951, 1947). Old ideas
and old ways of behaving are challenged by new information and become
"unfrozen." There is a realization that something needs to be changed
or improved. Movement can then result in the direction of more preferred
activities, as new attitudes and capabilities are substituted for the
old ways of behaving. These new ideas and performances eventually
become "refrozen" as fixed and reliable characteristics until new
unsettling information is presented. For example, a professor who
wants his lectures to be complete and stimulating, but receives feedback
from students that this is not the case, may find his belief and
behavior become "unfrozen." To resolve the discrepancy he "moves" in
the direction of improving his lectures or trying a new method. This
behavior then becomes "refrozen" until students (or someone or some-

‘thing else) tell him again that his teaching behavior is not what he

 

wants it to
and institu
First Law,
change over
Ant
human DEIIdl
Zajonc, 19¢
Festinger't
Festinger,
QEtS trans
nation (a
Ia COgniti
dissonance
Il975a) pr
discrepam
I0 the dii
the dISSOI
I" his te;
Changes 0
“039? to
I
ChICIErin
Study of
a Cataiyg
Taking th
of the SF
of dISCre

19

wants it to be. Francis (1975) again offers that "individuals, groups,
and institutions, obeying the psychological equivalent of Newton's
First Law, tend to remain in a given stage until pressure toward
change overcomes inertia" (p. 722).

Another explanation derives from consistency theories of
human behavior (Osgood et a1, 1955; Festinger, 1957; Heider, 1958;
Zajonc, 1960, 1968; McGuire, 1966; Abelson et a1, 1968). In particular
Festinger's cognitive dissonance ideas (Festinger and Aronson, 1968;
Festinger, 1957) explain how a perceived need to change or improve
gets translated into actions aimed at change or improvement. Infor-
mation (a cognition) which challenges previously held intentions
(a cognition)results in some attempt to resolve the psychological
dissonance created. Taking a dissonance position, Berquist and Phillips
(1975a) propose that "an individual must have experienced some
discrepancy, dissonance, pain, or stress before he will commit himself
to the difficult task of change" (p. 185). A faculty member can reduce
the dissonance created by information telling him that he is behaving
in his teaching counter to his intensions or beliefs by making some
changes or improvements designed to bring behavior and intention
closer together.

In one application of this idea to reform in higher education,
Chickering (1969) presented faculty with survey feedback from his
study of student development. He found that this information became
a catalyst for change on many of the campuses involved (Bonham, 1975).
Taking this particular lead, Lindquist included the approach as part
of the SFCKU project and, indeed, has found that the interjection
()f discrepant information does stir faculty concern for teaching

‘improvement (Lindquist, 1974a).

20

Operationalization of the FactoruaPerceived Need to Improve

 

There are at least two general ways in which instructional
improvement programs have tried to elicit a perceived need for
improvement. Both involve presenting data of some form to faculty

members in order to bring how one wants to teach into a discrepant

 

relationship (within the person) with how one is now teaching.

 

Evaluation and Feedback

 

The first might be called the evaluation and feedback approach.

 

Information gathered about one's present teaching behavior might
indicate that personal teaching goals and standards have not been

met. A number of authors cite evaluation of instruction and feedback
of results to professors as a condition related to the improvement

of college teaching (look and Haggerty, 1936, President's Commission

on Higher Education, 1947; Eckert, 1951; Reeves, 1948; W.F. Kelly, 1951;
Reeves, 1948, Almira, 1968; Musella, 1968; Eble, 1970, 1972; Rous, 1970,
1972; Centra, 1972; DeWolf, 1974; Miller, 1971, 1974; Aleamoni, 1975;
Criteria, 1975; Eraut, 1975; Munson et a1, 1975; Blackburn and Clark,

1975). This information might take the fonn of an evaluation of present

 

teaching practices by studentstppeersi and oneself.

One of the goals of most student evaluation systems is to
provide faculty members with feedback on their teaching performance.
The hope becomes that the teacher will be stimulated to improve in
those areas where students rate him as deficient. Centra (1972a, 1972b,
1973a) has gathered evidence that students' ratings do indeed lead to
improvement where there is a significant discrepancy between students'

assessment and a professor's belief about how he was doing. He states

 

:4 a Na.» « 1a.... . Karon .. Ivy—Tu . . H.. Siva.
fl" \
. ... . , Wu

 

 

21

that "the greater the discrepancy-«where discrepancy reflected the
extent to which students rated teachers less favorably than the teachers
apparently expected--the greater the likelihood of change" (p. 21).
Centra cites Heider's (1958) equilibrium theory to explain his

finding. Aleamoni (1973) has reported results similar to Centra's.
Students' evaluations of their teachers have also been shown to lead

to improved instruction at the secondary school level (Tuckman and
Oliver, 1968; Bryan, 1963) and elementary school level (Gage, Runkel,
and Chatterjee, 1963).

Colleagues can also provide useful feedback (Centra 1972a,
1975; Batista, 1973). Although the evidence shows these judgments
not to be reliable enough to be used in personnel decisions, colleagues
can be the best source of information on a faculty member's command
of his subject matter and his course objectives, materials, reading
assignments, and examinations (Centra, 1975). Colleague assessments,
if discrepant from one's goals and standards, should also generate
a Perceived Need to Improve.

Considering self-rating, research suggests that there usually
exists a large discrepancy between self-assessments made by faculty
members and those made by students, colleagues, and administrators.
Instructors generally rate themselves more favorably (Centra, 1972a,
1973a; Blackburn and Clark, 1975; Choy, 1969). Thus, self-evaluation
of teaching performance glpgg_would seem to have little promise for
improving instruction. But if supplemented with student, colleague, and
administrator evaluation and feedback, and possibly audio or video-

tape playback, it can be an effective source of information.

 

7'!“ r.‘ swab-nulls»; .rrm
L . .
4

n s i Maggi “Help“

..\

 

22

Bergquist and Phillips (1975a) recommend an evaluation
approach, where the discrepancy between current operations and desired
outcomes is assessed. These authors state that "an attempt at
instructional improvement on the part of the faculty member will take
place only if he evaluates his own performance as inadequate or below
his own personal standards" (p. 185). In addition to the standard
types of evaluation they propose an instructional diagnosis process,
in which the professor l) contracts for what he would like to accomplish
as a teacher, 2) agrees to have data collected concerning his performance,
and 3) receives feedback which he uses to determine whether he has
accomplished his goals and to plan corrective action. A contract
system has also been proposed by Buhl and Greenfield (1975). In this
approach the instructor is helped to understand evaluation and
feedback in terms of his own goals.

Another type of evaluation and feedback procedure involves a

departmental or institutional study which indicates how well

 

curricular or instructional goals are being met by the unit as a whole.
If important goals and objectives are not being met, this information
may enlist an individual's Perceived Need to Improve the parts of

the curriculum or program for which he is responsible. Student
achievement on graduate school tests and reports from employers

provide good sources of data. Although a number of authors have
proposed this approach in the past (Reeves, 1948; President's
Commission on Higher Education 1947; W.F. Kelley, 1951), it seems to
have been largely ignored of late in the literature of instructional
improvement. Lindquist (undated), though, provides examples of change
that takes place after this type of information is collected and reported

back to the faculty.

 

Err ., . ... wt». .. .... ......ea. ,
. x. . ... ‘f5.1\ I. a n.- Iii
.m x

 

 

23

New Goals for Teaching

 

A second general way of eliciting need to improve involves

information or changes which suggests new goals for teachipg. New

 

goals often require new behaviors discrepant from those in a faculty
member's present repetoire. New goals can come in the form of a
cooperative decision (e.g., on the part of a department) or an
individual decision to change or improve instructional practice.
Gaff (1975b) cites the thinking of Nevitt Sanford and his
colleagues at the Wright Institute and other faculty development
programs who use this approach as a basis for their work (Sanford,
1971; Freedman and Sanford, 1973; Noonan, 1972, 1974; Bevan, 1974;
Ack, 1973). A major proposition of this approach suggests that:
Change . . . requires a challenge to [the

faculty member's] habit patterns, one strong

enough to stimulate new forms of behavior but

not so strong as to overwhelm him. In child-

hood there are many such challenges, but in

adulthood this may require a change in social

roles or relationships that tend to protect

people from growth (Gaff, 1975b, p. 17).
This means that confronting a faculty member with new goals which
upset the present equilibrium and necessitate new forms of activity
may be an effective strategy for instructional improvement and change;

a strategy which elicits the Perceived Need to Improve.

Involving faculty in the development of new forms of curriculum

 

might represent one means of presenting new instructional goals and
challenging habitual patterns of teaching behavior (Bergquist and
Phillips, 1975a; Gaff, 1975b; Brawer, 1968; Noonan, 1971, 1972).
Assistance in clarifying presently latent or ambivalent goals,
rather than suggesting new goals for teaching might be another productive

strategy. Of all the means of eliciting a Perceived Need to Improve,

24

this type of self-examination, aimed at self-insight, might be
the most potent. Sanford and his colleagues at the Wright Institute
have developed an interviewing procedure to help college teachers
clarify their values and beliefs about teaching and their role in it
(Sanford, 1971; Sanford and Freedman, 1973). Ack (1973) and his
associates at the Menninger Foundation use a similar approach. After
thinking about and articulating his beliefs about teaching and learning,
and after looking into his background and experiences to discover the
origins of these beliefs, a faculty member decides for himself how much
change is needed and in what areas. Both groups have worked with a
considerable number of faculty members at a variety of institutions
and have reported that this strategy has been successful in stimulating
instructional improvement efforts.

Sanford (1973) suggests that "attempts to produce change
by behavioral or mechanical means will not be effective nor long
lasting unless they are understood, accepted, and integrated within
the person" (p. 9). This may mean that other factors such as
Reward orPeer Support, which relie on behavioral mechanisms,
may not be effective stimulants to instructional improvement unless
there is first an accepted realization that change is necessary.
Purdy (1973) reinforces this view with his insight that "support staff
and resources for faculty . . . are vital to improvement but only
gigg: the faculty themselves have decided to take advantage of them"
(p. 56). This suggests that this first factor may interact with another
to be presented 1ater--Institutional Support.

Although this factor and the operationalizations described

(evaluation of instruction, institution or department self-study,

25

curriculum revision, and analysis of values and beliefs about teaching)
appear to be promising for explaining participation in instructional
improvement, there are problems and limitations inherent in attempts
to elicit a Perceived Need to Improve. Defensiveness as a reaction
to discrepent information may be the most serious. A number of faculty
development authors express this concern (Bergquist and Phillips, 1975a;
Gaff, 1975b, Ack, 1973; Alexander, 1973; Sanford, 1971). Specifically,
the research on cognitive dissonance suggests that discrepancy may not
only be resolved by new behavior in the direction of the new informa-
tion (Festinger and Aronson, 1968). Other, less desirable, reactions
may take place. Assessment data or sources might be discredited or
new goals may be rejected, resulting in a retrenchment to present patterns.
Gaff (1975b), in his syntheses of the ideas of other authors.
suggests that stimulation for change via discrepant information may
exist on a continuum. Beyond a certain point on the continuum, a
person can be overwhelmed. When this occurs, a reaction against the
information and intended behavior change will likely result. But
if pursued carefully, this approach will result in change in the
desired direction, in this case toward instructional improvement.
Bergquist and Phillips (1975a) and Gaff (1975b) suggest
steps that can be taken to minimize counterproductive reactions by
faculty. Feedback from students, peers, or non-personal means (such
as video-tape) or reports on student achievement and curricular
success should be given in a non-evaluative, descriptive, and helpful
manner. Also, rather than providing faculty with only one source
of information, data from many sources could be provided. Messages

consistent across student ratings, colleague assessments, and self-

26

assessment procedures will be most likely harder to ignore than
discrepant information from only one of these sources.

Another important limitation results when a faculty member
perceives the need to change, but either is not aware of alternative
forms of behavior (e.g., new methods), does not have the assistance
necessary to make necessary changes (e.g., expert consultation), or
is prevented from changing. Little or no improvement will occur if
a faculty member perceives any or all of these to be true. Wilson
and Gaff (1970) suggest that "the main problem for educational reformers
lies not in convincing faculty members of the need to change, but
rather in mobilizing existing sentiment into action" (p. 11). A
comprehensive approach to teaching improvement, though, depends on
more than one factor. The other factors to be identified in this
research hopefully compliment efforts to elicit a Perceived Need to
Improve and mitigate, in part, this limitation. It has also already
been suggested that this factor may be an important pre-condition to

the effectiveness of the other factors.

Factor Number Two: Knowledge of Alternatives
Lindquist (1974b) has observed that "most college and university
members are isolated from new teaching-learning information" (p. 326).
The second model for change which he proposes is explicitly designed
to remedy this problem. It begins not with the identification of a

need to improve but rather an awareness of innovations or alternatives

 

to present instructional practices. Francis (1975) states that
"participants move from questions of whether or not instructional
development is worthwhile or feasible to questions of what specifically

can be done" (p. 724). Putting faculty members in touch with new ideas

27

represents the action component of this strategy. The approach focuses
on an individual's perception of a response to knowledge coming from
outside (Grimes and Doyle, 1971). Knowledge usually takes the form

of products or practices made available to the person for his consider-
ation. Again following from Havelock (1971), Lindquist calls this
general approach Social-Interaction or Communication of Innovations.

AS a factor to be studied in the present research, it has been labled

Knowledge of Alternatives.

 

As adapted by Lindquist (1974a), the Social-Interaction Model
concerns the communication network and stages by which potential
users of information gain awareness and interest in an idea, evaluate
its relative advantages, and then adopt or reject it. But, consistent
with the approach taken in this present research, the awareness
component has been singled out for study as a more general factor
underlying instructional improvement. Gaining knowledge of new
ways of behaving appears to be the unique aspect of this general
approach. An attempt has been made in the present research to determine
if new knowledge results in faculty member's participation in instruc-
tional improvement.

Other faculty development authors also emphasized this factor
and propose strategies based on it (Kelley, W.F., 1950; Norris, 1953;
Almira, 1964; Eble, 1972; DeBloois and Alder, 1973; Group for Human
Development in Higher Education, 1974; Eraut, 1975). Bergquist and
Phillips (1975a) recommend the infusion of educational methods and
technology into the improvement process. Gaff (1975b) suggests that
faculty members will change when, among other things, they have

knowledge about alternative ways of behaving, such as information about

28

alternative teaching-learning practices. Finally, Smith (1976) proposes
a communication model based on the ideas of Havelock (1971) and
Lindquist (1974b).

In his discussion of methods for changing elementary and

secondary school teacher attitudes, Lorree (1971) proposes information

 

input as one approach. The assumption is that newly acquired

information or knowledge alters the belief system of the individual.

Operationalization of the Factor--Knowledge of Alternatives

 

This factor--Know1edge of AlternativeS--can be operationalized

in a number of ways. Group presentations (seminars and workshops,

 

conferences, courses, etc.), individual consultation with experts on

 

teaching and learning, and written materials have been the standard

 

techniques for transmitting information on instructional methods to

faculty members. Personal communication with other faculty or university

 

staff represents another major source of new ideas. Any means by which
information (which may be used to pursue instructional improvement)
can be passed to college teachers falls under this basic approach.
There are, though, some qualifications that need to be made if

this factor, and strategies it might spawn, are to be applied
successfully. First, Lindquist (1974a) stresses the interpersonal
nature of the linkage. He offers:

Because interpersonal interaction tends to be the

strongest way to communicate new information,

especially to people who are not particularly open

to change, the linking agent works interpersonally

herself, one-to-one when possible, and links

persons to persons more often than papers and
articles to persons. (p. 5)

29

More generally he makes the observation that:
Only the small percentage of people who are very
open to change will improve on the basis of
impersonal messages. The rest of us have to talk
with our colleagues, talk with data-gatherers,
talk with detached consultants before we are
ready to take new actions (p. 14).

This interpersonal aspect of change will be proposed as a
separate factor below. But, it is noted here because of its possible
importance to the Optimal uses of the Knowledge factor. If Lindquist)
is right, communicating innovations in a personal context (e.g., group
presentations, individual consultation, and communication with colleagues)
may lead to more change than information presented impersonally (e.g.,
written information). If information communicates alternatives
accepted by important reference groups (e.g., colleagues), then its
effectiveness may be further enhanced (Havelock, 1971, Loree, 1971).

The particular source of the information may also be important
(Lorree, 1971). In addition to the implicit support involved, the
information itself may take on a different value and provide a
differential impetus for approaching improvement activities depending
on its source.

Second, the effect of knowledge of new methods and techniques
may depend, in part, on the attractiveness of these alternatives.

In addition, as suggested earlier, knowledge of new teaching procedures
may not move a faculty member toward improvement unless he has perceived
a need to change and use that information. Knowledge which is consistent
with the needs of an individual will most likely have more impact

than that which is not (Lorree, 1971). McCall (1961) concludes from

a study of the problems faced by faculty members that "an orientation

30

or in-service program can be effective . . . only to the extent that
it treats adequately those matters that [a faculty member] perceives
to constitute problems" (p. 1).

Third, college faculty members may resist borrowing ideas,
especially when evidence indicates that the methods are no better than
what they are presently using (Lindquist, 1974a).

Finally, faculty members may both perceive a need to improve
and know of alternatives to their present practices but be blocked
by lack of institutional support and/or by lack of Skill needed to
pursue a particular alternative.

Lindquist refers to his third major change strategy as
Research and Development, an extension of Havelock's (1971) third and
final innovation model. This approach fbcuses on the design and
testing of new instructional procedures. They key to the change
process is the research and development process itself; once a program
demonstrates its merits and is diffused to potential users, the
assumption is that the idea will be adopted.

This strategy for instructional improvement has not been
considered in this present research. In the assumptions it makes
about change, it appears to have similarities with other approaches.
Research and Development typically begins with the formation of a
problem based on a perceived need to change. The diffusion and
adoption components then seem to follow the Social-Interaction Model.
Designing one's own instructional procedure and gathering one's own
evidence about its success or failure may make the procedure more attrac-

tive and more likely to be adopted. But, there seems to be no unique

31

and generalizable psychological, sociological, or organizational factor
identifiable in the strategy. This strategy may be the most basic of
Havelock's three models but only because it relies on the essential
factors of the others (Grimes and Doyle, 1971).

DeBloois and Alder (1973) make the following comment about
the Research and Development approach to instructional improvement in
higher education:

Several research and development centers [e.g.,
Indiana, Oregon System, Michigan, Michigan State, Syracuse,
Brigham Young] have adopted processes (or models) to pro-
duce validated instructional materials which are then
disseminated nationally to individuals who are anxious
for innovation. However, the centers have proven only
modestly successful in bringing about wide change among
less motivated professionals in their own instruction.
The research and development products are often viewed
with suspicion, little known, or sometimes ignored.

This is not to disparge the research and development
centers, but rather to suggest the need for another kind
of effort to accompany the research and development of
validated instructional processes (p. 2).

Factor Number Three: Reward
The fourth and final strategy proposed by Lindquist (1974a)
relies on Legitimate Authority. This approach does not depend on

evidence or pgrsuasion, as did the previous strategies, but rather on

 

pressure of formal policy via academic governance, personnel policy,
or administrative fiat and reward andppunishment for adherence to or
violation of that policy.

Under this model specific curricula or methods of instruction
or a code of teaching responsibility (M.S.U., 1969) or code of
professional ethics (Von Blum, 1974) might be proposed and legislated

through the governance or administrative systems. The assumption is

 

 

5..”4111. ,. .....rwsrlNI. a. : hi
,. .
it...

 

32

that once legitimate authorities give approval, most faculty will
choose to implement the new procedures and not defy the authority. The
anticipation of reward and/or punishment becomes the key variable.

The Legitimate Authority model, though, does not have to
emphasize threat of punishment. An institution might easily relie,
instead, exclusively on positive opportunities and reinforcement
(Zeckhausen and Zeckhausen, 1975). Learning theory indicates that these
mechanisms tend to increase motivation more than do threats and
punishment (Lindquist, 1974a; Skinner, 1971).

For purposes of the present research, Rgggpd has been considered
the important factor underlying the Legitimate Authority approach.

When Reward is emphasized, the central avenue to promoting improvement
activities involves making good teaching an important criteria for
professional advancement. An evaluation of some sort provides evidence

of teaching effectiveness]

upon which decisions of salary, promotion,
and tenure are made in accordance with this fbrmal policy. Since
college and university faculty members, like all humans, seek reward, it
can be assumed that they will do what they can to maximize their
chance for success under the policy (Luthans, 1965).

If the policy emphasizes teaching, professors can be expected
to participate in those activities which will help them improve their
instructional capabilities. Korn (1974) comments:

There is, of course, the motivation inherent in the

tasks of teaching and research: the discovery of truth,
the creation of ideas. This intrinsic motivation is strong

 

1Evaluations of teaching used only for diagnosis and feedback to the
instructor would fall under the Problem-Solving--Perceived Need to
Improve category.

33

for most faculty. However, it is obvious that extrinsic

incentives have a significant effect as well. The

evaluating and rewarding of teaching by a promotion

committee could prevent the dedicated researcher from

ignoring his teaching and assure the dedicated teacher

that his efforts will not cost him his job (p. 132).

Gaff (1975b) argues that although intrinsic interests
rather than extrinsic demand should be the basis for any improvement
program, "when external motivation is used . . ., the carrot--not
the stick-~is the most common form of incentive" (p. 7). Many faculty
development and instructional improvement authors agree with Gaff (1975a)
that lasting change can only be brought about by supporting and
reinforcing positive efforts of faculty members (Haggerty, 1937; Wilson,
1947; Kelly, W.F., 1950; Eckert, 1951; Norris, 1953; Corman, 1955;
Commack, 1964; Gustad, 1964; Weeks, 1964; Balyeat, 1965, 1966; Almira,
1968; Johnson et a1, 1968; Shank, 1968; Eble, 1972; Ack, 1973; DeBloois
and Alder, 1973; Group for Human Development in Higher Education, 1974;
Eraut, 1975; Criteria,-l975).

Hodgkinson (1971), in an article concerned with academic
incentives, recommends that rewards be increased for those jobs that
must be performed at the highest level of competence. This principle
underlies our entire economic reward system. Thus, if teaching and
teaching improvement are activities to which we want to assign great
competence, then reward becomes necessary to attract the kinds of
people and the type of effort desired.

There exists a paradox, though, concerning the academic
reward system. In their recent survey of American college and university
faculties, Ladd and Lipset (1976) found that three-quarters of faculty

members sampled hold a greater commitment for teaching than they do

for research. A similar percentage felt that teaching effectiveness,

34

not publications, should be the primary criterion for pay and promotion.
This is consistent with research on this subject by Spitzer (1975)
and Gaff and Wilson (1971). Yet, according to the same Ladd-Lipset
investigation, higher education as an institution values research more
than teaching when it comes to dispersing salary and promotion awards.
Many faculty desire to be rewarded for their teaching effec-
tiveness and are dissatisfied with the inordinate emphasis on research
(Spitzer, 1975; Gaff and Wilson, 1971). But, the reward system changes
slowly, if at all. According to Spitzer (1975) many faculty find
this over-emphasis on research and lack of incentives for teaching and
teaching improvement to be among the chief barriers to participation

in improvement activities.

Operationalization of the Factor--Reward

 

What kinds of rewards will be effective with a college faculty?
This will depend eventually on the individual faculty member involved,
but a few general ideas have been offered which can be applied to this
group as a whole. First, Korn (1974) proposes that "in general, what
is needed to improve teaching effectiveness are incentives that are as

highlypyalued as the incentivespprovided for research" (p. 132).

 

Rewards for teaching and teaching improvement need to be commensurate
with rewards for activities that compete for faculty time and effort.
Brandis (1964), in an article titled "The Rehabilitation of Undergraduate
Teaching" argues:

If a university is serious about the rehabilitation

of the teaching function, the first step is to make the
rewards for excellence in teaching equal to those for
excellence in research. The university cannot by edict
order teaching to be as prestigious as research. But, it
can treat them equally in terms of pay and rank. No doubt,
if this were done, a good deal of prestige would quickly

35

accrue to teaching. It cannot be over emphasized that this
step is the Sine ua non of the rehabilitation of university
undergraduate teach1n§_(p. 58).

As a second means of reward for instructional improvement

Gaff (1975b) offers that recognition may be as effective as any

 

material reward which could be given to faculty for participating in
improvement activities:
Faculty members are a peculiar breed in that,

more than most workers, they have an intrinsic interest

and are highly ego involved in their work. Perhaps

more than anything they want to be recognized and

appreciated for their professional competence (p. 91).

Thus, in addition to (or even in place of) more tangible
rewards (such as salary increases and academic promotion), formal
praise and recognition (such as awards or citations from colleagues,
students, and administrators in prominent forums) may be an effective
means of motivating approach toward instructional improvement.

Of the types of reward common in colleges and universities,
there is evidence that salary may be the most favored. Shank (1965)
studied the reward structure at six Michigan universities and found
salary most important, followed by academic rank and fringe benefits.
In Spitzer's (1975) study at SUNY at Albany, salary increment was
favored by 35.1 percent of the respondents as an effective incentive
for instructional improvement. The highest ranking reward in this
study was "counting instructional improvement efforts on a par with
research and publication in decisions of promotion and tenure (58.2%).
Merit award was next highest (44.9%), followed by administrative
commendation (24.6%).

It is intersting to note from Spitzer' 5 survey that less

than five percent of the faculty questioned felt that no additional

36

incentives were needed to encourage instructional improvement. This
fact has been recognized by an eleven college project recently funded
by the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education which
seeks, among other things, to study ways of rewarding faculty for

special efforts to better their teaching (Criteria, 1975).

Factors Number Four and Five: Peer and Institutional Support

 

Lindquist's Problem-Solving strategy involves not only
stimulating a perceived need to change but also assisting the faculty
member to arrive at and carry out a solution to the perceived problem.
In describing the Problem-Solving approach, it was suggested that the
stimulating component compromised the unique and essential element of

that strategy. and that assistance in making necessary changes was

 

more central to other approaches. The Social Interaction model

seems to provide one aspect of that assistance--knowledge of
alternative ways of behaving. But, as mentioned as a limitation to
the knowledge approach, the faculty member may not have the resources
or abilities necessary to pursue these alternatives. Support for
improvement becomes another aspect of assistance and, of itself, an
essential variable in determining whether faculty will approach the
improvement of their teaching.

The Group for Human Development in Higher Education (1974), in
one of the seminal works on faculty development, cites a lack of
success for much of the previous work in faculty development and
'instructional improvement. They propose, instead, the creation and
sustenance of a "pedagogical culture." Comstock, writing for the

Group, states:

37

What has not been done is to develop an

adequate system of supports resting on a network

of new kinds of relationships between a teacher and

his or her colleagues, students, administrators,

and experts on the process of learning (p. 18).

Buhl and Greenfield (1975) reinforce this position by observ-
ing that "institutional environments largely determine whether
faculty members find it worthwhile to devote their time to increasing
learning effectiveness" (p. 111).

A study done for the Project to Improve College Teaching also
has found that the nature of a college's environment relates significantly
to the improvement of instruction on the campus (Gaff and Wilson, 1971).
These authors conclude that "the policies and practices of the institu-
tion and the people with whom faculty work closely are environmental factors
which have a considerable impact on college teachers“ (p. 476). Purdy
(1973) adds that "we are just beginning to see that the whole college
environment can influence the outlook of the people who work in the
institution" (p. 57).

Finally, Gustad (1960), writing more than 15 years ago,
suggests that the pre-requisite for a program of faculty development is
a working environment perceived as adequate for faculty accomplishment
and reward for achievement. This includes work aids, provisions for
material, facilities, and services, etc.

When instructional improvement authors concern themselves with

the sociology of higher education and organizational development of

collegps and universities, issues of peer and institutional support,

 

as well as formal policies and reward structures, become their focus
(Bergquist and Phillips, 1975a; 1975b; Gaff, 1975a, 1975b; Boyer and

(Irocket, 1973). Organization development approaches assume that

38

individual change must receive support from group policies and procedures
if it is to be sustained. Gaff (1975b) states that:
Teaching and learning-are individual but

not solitary activities; they occur within a social

context. The climate of the institution, the relation-

ships between faculty, administration, and students, and

the policies and practices of the school effect the

characteristic of teaching and learning. The improvement

of instruction requires attention to those social and

institutional factors as well as to individuals (p. 7).
Rewards for teaching and teaching improvements have already been
discussed; but in this research Peer and Institutional Support,
deriving generally from the faculty member's social and organizational
environment, are considered factors of equal importance in whether or

not he will make special efforts to improve his instruction.

Peer Support: Factor Number Four

 

Peers can be thought to provide the bearing necessary for a
professor to commit himself to the risk and effort involved in
improving his teaching. Unless group norms sanction teaching and
actions to improve it, a faculty member must act independently and
possibly forego the respect and reward of his colleagues. Peer
expectations and reward may have more effective importance for how a
faculty member spends his time than those expectations of the larger
institution (Borlund, 1974). Institutional expectations are emphasized
in the college or university's reward structure, but peer expectations
and the rewards gained from living up to these expectations are a
phenonemenon of one's most valued group of associates.

In his study of socialization after childhood, Brim (Brim and
Wheeler, 1966) observes that an adult person "learns to take his

part in society according to the realistic expectations of others

39

rather than attempting confrmity to idealistic norms" (p. 29). To

this Gaff (1975b) adds: "As much as an individual may want to change
and develop, it will be difficult for him to do much unless he has

the support and encouragement of his associates" (pp. 26-27). Finally,
Sanford (1971) states that "even when a professor is ready to change,
however, he finds that he has made commitments and must defend what

he has done, while also dealing with the expectations of family

and colleagues who, often at some pain, have grown used to him as

he is (p. 361). These lines nicely describe the importance of Peer
Support.

Hodgkinson (1971) suggests that one way to activate faculty
is to decrease the level of threat that accompanies certain activities.
If this can be accomplished, people will move into new tasks with
greater feelings of security and well-being. Probably the best way
to diminish threat is through the development of supportive peer groups.
Bergquist and Phillips (1975a) also cite the need for non-threatening
and supportive environments for faculty.

Many instructional improvement authors cite the support of
important associates as an important condition of teaching improvement
in higher education (Kelly, W.F., 1950; Eckert, 1951; Norris, 1953;
Sheedy, 1957; McCoy, 1958; Pullias, 1963; Almira, 1968; Johnson
et a1, 1968; Gaff and Wilson, 1971; Eble, 1972; Group for Human Devel-
opment in Higher Education, 1974; Eraut, 1975). Theorizing and study
on the effects of peer groups outside of higher education also attest
to the crucial role played by peer group norms and expectations (and
the support or lack of support they imply) in influencing human
behavior (Hartup, 1970; Schmuck and Schmuck, 1975; Cartwright and
Zander, 1968; Lewin, 1951; Guba, 1951).

4O

Operationalization of the Factor-~Peer Support

Peer Support may take the form of "colleagueship" among

 

members of an academic unit, where members assist each other in
identifying and trying out new content materials and instructional
techniques (Group for Human Development in Higher Education, 1974;
Reisman, 1959). In his study of community college faculty, Purdy (1974)
found that the type of relationships that existed among faculty was
Significantly related to the use of innovative or experimental techniques.
Where there existed a high degree of colleagueship, there was found
a high degree of innovativeness. Purdy attributes this to the
trading of ideas and the existence of support for trying new approaches.
A similar approach to using Peer Support as a stimulant to instructional
improvement exists when colleagues (particularly older, established
colleagues) set an example of innovation and change in their teaching
(Sheedy, 1957). Purdy (1974) observes that "faculty would often ignore
information or innovative practices . . . unless a colleague had
tried [it] and gave a personal recommendation“ (p. 55).

Peer Support is also operationalized when an individual
behaves in such a way as to adhere to group norms and expectations.
If reference group members expect Special efforts to be made to
improve instruction, then the likelihood increases that these efforts
will actually take place.

Finally, if there is an articulated concern among group

 

members for the quality of instruction and encouragement to
continually improve it, then the influence will be strong on a faculty
member to also be concerned and do his part to maintain the quality of

teaching in the unit (Alexander, 1973; Ack, 1973).

41

An important issue concerns who is the most effective peer
group for any individual. Borlund (1974) suggests that influence
rests with the lowest organizational level at which a commonality
of goals are perceived. This means that a faculty member's closest
colleagues, most likely his fellow department members, will provide
more effective support than more diverse and widely separated colleague
groups. In fact, in Spitzer's (1975) study a significant number of
faculty (20%) felt "lack of departmental concern" to be a hinderance
to their attempts to improve instruction.

Borlund reports, interestingly, that faculty members who were
most experienced with innovative practices needed the most support.
This could be a result of this group continually taking new risks

and expending efforts at some personal and professional cost.

Institutional Support: Factor Number Five

 

Support can also take a more direct form. The institution
for which the faculty member toils can provide or withhold resources
necessary for improvement activities.

Institutional Support, as an approach to teaching improvement,
has similarities with the Reward and Peer Support models. All are
organizational approaches, but here the emphasis is on institutional
action directly related to improvement activities, not on formal
policy backed by a system of rewards or reference group expectations.
Again many authors mention this type of support as an important condition
for instructional improvement (Haggerty, 1937; Kelley, W.F., 1950;
Eckert, 1951; Norris, 1953; Corman, 1955; Pullias, 1963; Hall, 1964;
Almira; 1968; Johnson et a1, 1968; DeBloois and Alder, 1973; Eble, 1972;

Group for Human Development in Higher Education, 1974; Eraut, 1975;

42

Lisensky, 1975; Criteria, 1975; McCall, 1961; Siehr, 1961) Little
theorizing or research, though, has been done on the gffgg§_of

direct Institutional Support (e.g., released time, funding, consultation,
etc.), despite the fact that a considerable investment is made in

these activities by colleges and universities each year.

Operationalization of the Factor--Institutional Support

Instructional development requires, at the very least, time
and some expense. An institution can foster these activities if it

provides the necessary released time and supplementary financing

 

 

(e.g., small instructional improvement grants). Instructional improve-
ment can also necessitate a certain amount of expertise on the faculty
member's part and technical consultation where he does not have time

or skill (Alexander, 1973). A school that invests in continuing

 

professional development and teaching-learning resources is in a position

 

 

to encourage improvement and innovation (Stickler, 1951, Alexander
and Yelon, 1972). Without this type of assistance faculty members
may perceive a futility in moving toward better teaching.

Spitzer (1975) asked faculty which types of Institutional
Support they thought would be effective in encouraging faculty members
to engage in improvement activities. Released time and instructional
improvement grants were most favored (43.2%). A third of those
responding also thought additional graduate assistants would be
important. The released time finding is significant because Spitzer
also found that time constraints represented the biggest hindrance to
improvement (60%). Lack of administrative support and guidance (27.4%)
and organization (15.1%) and administrative structures (10.2%) were

also mentioned as hindrances. Finally, financial constraints were

43

reported to be a barrier to participation in teaching improvement (21.1%).
It is interesting to note that whereas almost every faculty

member surveyed by Spitzer felt that he possessed a "very large"

or "considerable" commitment to instructional improvement, only

about one-third felt the same about other faculty and one-sixth about

administrators.

Summar
This section has reviewed strategies for instructional
improvement. Using those proposed by Lindquist (1974a) as a spring-
board, an attempt has been made to identify those psychological,
sociological, and organizational factors which might be related to
faculty members' participation in improvement activities. Five factors

seem most promising: Perceived Need to Improve, Knowledge of Alterna-

 

 

tives, Reward, Peer Support, and Institutional Support. Theoretical and

 

empirical justification has been provided for each factor. Qualifications
were suggested, and each was operationalized by suggesting approaches
which have been taken by institutions to use the factor in their instruc-
tional improvement efforts.

This conceptualized set of factors is by no means unique.
In addition to being abstracted from Lindquist's strategies for change,
they are similar to the conditions which other authors list as important
for change among faculty in higher education (Gaff, 1975a, 1975b; Berg-
quist and Phillips, 1975a, 1975b; Group for Human Development in Higher
Education, 1974). The present review, though, has attempted to state
them more precisely and to cite existing support for their potential

efficacy in instructional improvement programs.

CHAPTER III
VARIABLES AND HYPOTHESES

Variables
As its primary objective this research intends to evaluate the
effectiveness of the factors identified in Chapter II: Perceived Need
to Improve, Knowledge of Alternatives, Reward, Peer Support, and

Institutional Support. These five factors constitute the independent

 

variables to be studied.

For purposes of the research each factor or independent
variable will be either present or stated as pppgp§_in the influence
situations to be presented to subjects.

Perceived Need to Improve (PN). Presence of this factor

 

suggests to a faculty member some sort of dissatisfaction with his
teaching and the need to change or improve. Absence tells him that
he sees no particular need to change or improve at the present time.
Knowledge of Alternatives (K). Presence of the factor indicates
that information on new approaches has been provided to the instructor.
Absence suggests that he is not aware of teaching approaches different
from those he is now using.
ngg d (R). The presence of reward suggests that some
positive inducement has been or will be made for the improvement of
instruction. Absence means that incentive is generally not provided

for teaching improvement.

44

45

Peer Support (PS). When peer support is present the faculty

 

member will be told that he has the backing and encouragement of his
close colleagues or that he is acting in accordance with group norms
or expectations. At the absence level, the opposition or indifference
of peers to instructional improvement will be indicated.

Institutional Support (IS). Presence of this factor means

 

that the university has provided or will provide time, money, and
other resources necessary for instructional improvement projects.
Absence will be suggested by a stated lack of this type of support.

Each of these factors has been given specific operationalize-
tions in the situation descriptions that were developed. Operationaliza-
tions chosen and the procedure for preparing situation descriptions are
described in Chapter IV.

The "effect" of interest in this research is a university
faculty member's stated willingness to make special efforts to improve

his instruction. This constitutes the dependent variable of the study.

 

 

The way in which this variable has been operationalized and measured

is also described in Chapter IV.

Research Hypotheses

 

Following from the previous research and writing reviewed in
Chapter II and from experience with these factors as they are
operationalized in campus instructional improvement efforts, the
following hypotheses were made:

Hypothesis 1. The presence of a Perceived Need to Improve

 

 

will result in a greater stated willingness on the part of a faculty

member to make special efforts to improve his instruction.

46

Hypothesis 2. The presence of a Knowledge of Alternatives

 

 

to present instructional practice will result in a greater stated
willingness on the part of a faculty member to make special efforts

to improve his instruction.

Hypothesis 3. The presence of Reward for instructional

 

improvement will result in a greater stated willingness on the part

of a faculty member to make special efforts to improve his instruction.

Hypothesis 4. The presence of Peer Support for instructional

 

improvement will result in a greater stated willingness on the part

of a faculty member to make Special efforts to improve his instruction.

Hypothesis 5. The presence of Institutional Support for

 

instructional improvement will result in a greater stated willingness
on the part of a faculty member to make special efforts to improve

his instruction.

Hypothesis 6. There will be no difference in the amount

 

of variance in the dependent variable (willingness to make special
efforts to improve instruction) accounted for by each of the five
factors (Perceived Need to Improve, Knowledge of Alternatives,
Reward, Peer Support, Institutional Support). The impact of each of

the factors will be of the same order of magnitude.

Hypotheses 7-10. There will be a separate significant
two-way interaction between Perceived Need to Improve and each of
the other factors (Knowledge of Alternatives, Reward, Peer Support,

and Institutional Support). More specifically, each factor will be

47

more effective when a Perceived Need to Improve is present. Also,
the converse was predicted to be true: Perceived Need will be

more effective when each of the other factors is present.

The existing literature suggests that each of the five
principal factors identified for study (independent variables) would
have a significant main effect on subjects' stated willingness to
improve instruction (dependent variable). Previous research and
writing does not, though, indicate a particular rank ordering of
these factors in terms of their effectiveness in stimulating instruc-
tional improvement efforts. It was considered quite possible that
there would be a difference in the amount of variance accounted for by
each factor. But, no prediction could be made as to which factors would
be most and least potent.

In Chapter II it was proposed that Perceived Need to Improve
may be an important prerequisite to the effective influence of the
other four factors (p. 24 and p. 29). Previous writing and research
suggest that if Perceived Need is present, the presence of the other
factors will result in more stated willingness to improve instruction
than when Perceived Need is absent. Existing literature also supports
the idea that Perceived Need to Improve will itself result in more
movement toward instructional improvement if the other factors are
present (p. 26). Although it is reasonable to assume that there may
be other interactions between and among factors, the existing literature
indicates none in addition to those between Perceived Need and the

other four factors.

'CHAPTER IV
METHODOLOGY

A somewhat unique methodology was used to test the hypotheses
proposed in the previous chapter. To the knowledge of this researcher
it has been used in only three previous studies (Hapkiewicz and Schmidt,
1973; Miller and Lutz, 1966; Johnson and Stanley, 1955) and never to
investigate the problem addressed by this thesis. But, as will be
explained, the approach has several advantages which make it the best
Of all possible ways to have pursued this study. It also has significant
limitations, which will be discussed. This chapter also includes
descriptions of 1) experimental design, 2) sample, 3) instrumentation
(construction of sets of situation descriptions), 4) administration

procedures, and 5) statistical analysis.

General Method

 

The basic research approach involved assessing the judgments
Of faculty members as to which factors and combinations of factors
might be influential in whether or not they would participate in
instructional improvement activities. Rather than actually submitting
faculty members to the strategies which Operationalize each factor
jp_yjyp, subjects were simply ggkgd_what effect a particular combination
of factors would have on their willingness to improve instruction.

The empirical work was carried out by developing a set of
"situation descriptions", each of which combines the five factors

previously identified (two levels of each--presence and absence) into

48

49

different "influence" situations which a faculty member might face.
These situation descriptions were constructed in terms of a complete
factorial design, a situation for each possible combination of factors
and levels. Situations descriptions developed in this way can be
regarded as experimental treatments and, if administered according

to an appropriate experimental design, allow statistical determination
of main and interaction effects Of the factors tested (Miller and
Lutz, 1966). The Specific design and analysis to be pursued in this
study allowed 1) determination of which factors are perceived

as effective in facilitating instructional improvement, and 2) determ-
ination of which factors account for the variability Observed in

these perceptions (Hapkiewicz and Schmidt, 1973).

Advantages

 

The advantages Of this methodology are numerous (Miller
and Lutz, 1966), particularly when studying a group such as college
faculty members. First, the systematic construction of situation
descriptions, according to an experimental design in which situations
are conceived as treatments, provides the advantages of any factorial
design (Cox, 1959). These include a high degree of precision in
estimating main and interaction effects.

Experimental design provides the Opportunity to evaluate
several factors and their interactions simultaneously rather than
in separate experiments. If done jp_yjyp, five factors would most
likely be a prohibitive number to build into a single treatment.
This approach allows, in the case of this study, the testing of
thirty-two distinct treatments. Lindquist (1974a) has suggested that

change strategies be combined when working with college faculty.

50

This methodology provides one way to do so economically, at least
for research purposes. In addition, the factorial approach allows
the definition Of a framework within which a range of conclusions
can be drawn and onto which further experimentation can be built.

If certain main effects or interactions are found to be Significant,
these can be further analyzed. The most promising might be studied

1.2119.-

The idea that each situation description presents a pglpi;
stimulus influence situation would seem to be a second major benefit
Of this method. Human beings are hardly ever influenced by only one
factor, but rather are subject to complete situations. Underlying
the approach is the assumption that faculty members view and respond
to their professional work in multi-dimensional terms. This assumption
suggests that higher-order interactions may be present in faculty

responses to different pressures fOr instructional improvement.

A third major advantage concerns the methodological definition

 

of experimental stimuli according to a standard framework. Operationally
defining the content of experimental treatments is often difficult.
The approach used helps remedy this problem by allowing an apriori
definition of Situation characteristics and specifying a manner of
combining factors into situation descriptions. In this way the logical
complexity of a situation can be defined before response measures are
taken.

The fourth advantage, and possibly the most important one
for this research, is a practical one. It would be very difficult
to get faculty members to submit themselves to the strategies

tested in this research, short of a long-term, action-research project

51

such as that undertaken by Lindquist (1974a). It proved feasible,
though, to persuade a group of faculty members to respond to a small

set of situation descriptions describing certain treatment conditions.

Limitations

 

The experimental procedure represents, in essence, a paper

and pencil simulation of a number of influence situations. This

 

simulated approach provides for the advantages mentioned above.
But, it also presents some limitations to the conclusions that can
be made from the results.

The foremost limitation concerns the fact that operationalized
factors were not actually being tested for their effectiveness. Rather
faculty were agkgd whether or not they would be influenced by the
factors. From the results one technically can comment only on these
faculty judgments, not on the application Of the factors themselves

1 vivo.

Simulation, though, has become a well-accepted tool in
behavioral and social science research (Abelson, 1968). The
simulation method, according to Crano and Brewer (1973), carries
"the potential for representing gppg_of the complexities Of natural
settings without abandoning the manipulative control required for
cause-effect interpretations of results" (p. 115). They go on to
argue that:

. the value of simulation techniques lies
in providing an arena for the testing of theory
which does not share many of the weaknesses of
other research settings . . . Any theory designed
to explain and predict the Operation Of real social
systems will have implications for relationships in
many different settings. Thus the outcomes of
simulation can provide a probe for such theories,
and a potential setting for weeding out among

 

 

QUES

real

of e
a re]
them
leads

Pratt

52

competing theories, even though there is no logical

basis for direct generalization from simulated

social interactions to real social systems. In

addition, the simulation experiment provides advan-

tages over real-world theory probing in allowing

for cause-effect analyses and controlled replication

Of variable manipulations (pp. 115-116).

The eventual outcome to the line Of inquiry suggested by
this thesis must be a determination of which factors contribute
most to participation in instructional improvement. This must
ultimately be decided in the "real world." But as Crano and Brewer
suggest, a first step may legitimately consist of "weeding out"
potential explanations in a simulated context which allows a balance
of complexity and control not possible with other methods. As
described in Chapters I and II there has been little empirical research
Of any kind and virtually none Of an experimental nature done on the
questions raised by this research. Thus, despite the "one step from
reality" nature of the present study, it contributes needed information.

No direct generalization can be made from faculty judgments
of effectiveness to effectiveness jp_yjyp, But, knowing which factors
a representative group of university professors think would influence
them to participate in instructional improvement provides valuable
leads for furture study (simulated and real-world) and suggestions for
practice.

Despite this limitation, the advantages Of the methodology
for the particular purposes of this study suggested that the approach
be tried. It may prove to be a useful technique for further research
in this area of faculty behavior and instructional improvement. The

field is now in as much need of promising methodology for research and

evaluation as it is for substantive results.

53

Experimental Design

 

The five factors Of interest have been investigated

experimentally in this study. Since the desire was to determine the

 

separate effect of each factor and any interactions between and
among them, a 25 factorial design was employed. Subjects were
considered as replicates randomly assigned to treatment cells of
the design. The design and data matrix appears in Figure 4-1.

Each cell in the matrix represents a distinct combination
Of the factors and levels investigated in this study (five independent
variables with two levels each). Thus, 32 separate treatments result
from the design. These "treatments" consist of written situation
descriptions corresponding to the particular combinations of factors
and levels. A later section describes these situation descriptions
and the specific procedure for constructing them.

To ensure reliability Of response, four situation descriptions
were developed for each combination of factors and levels. This
was done to provide a sufficient number of observations per treatment
to Obtain a stable estimate Of mean response for each combination.
Thus, 128 situation descriptions were developed. The item construction
phase of this study, to be described below, had as its result 32 sets
Of four situation descriptions.

Subjects, considered as replicates, were randomly assigned
to treatment cells. This resulted in each individual subject being
asked to respond to the four situation descriptions which represented
one unique combination Of factors or treatment.

Previous studies using this metholodgy have asked each

subject to respond to either all or one-half of the total number Of

54

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l
n +* pN**
i
+ - K + _,
+
+ -
" I
-R-r-P6Fu-¥5
+
+
+
' . S621°°°564o
* + Presence Of ** Variables: 5‘
factor PN-Perceived Need to Improve
- Absence of K -Knowledge of Alternatives
factor R -Reward

PS-Peer Support
IS-Institutional Support

FIGURE 4-1. Design and data matrix

55

situations (usually referred to as "items" in these studies). This
allows a measurement on each treatment for each subject--a repeated
measures design. Because Of the limited number of subjects available
to these previous researchers, and because of their easy access to
the subjects they did have, this approach produced necessary advantages.
But because of the relatively large pool Of faculty subjects available
at Michigan State University and because Of Obvious access problems,
the random assignment method seemed more appropriate for the present
study. It was assumed to be infinitely easier to persuade a large
number of faculty to respond to four situation descriptions than it
would a smaller group to answer 64 or 128 questions.

TO insure a sufficiently powerful analysis, 20 subjects
were assigned to each cell of the design matrix. It was assumed
that there would be some attrition due to an expected failure Of some
subjects to return their inventory. A 50 percent return--at least 10
in each cell--provides sufficient degrees of freedom and statistical
power to perform a meaningful analysis Of the data. The statistical

analysis is described in a later section of this chapter.

Sample
The 640 subjects (32 treatment cells x 20 subjects per cell)

needed for this experiment were drawn from the population of "tenure
system" faculty members at Michigan State University. This population
consists of 1,802 full-time faculty members, tenured or eligible

for tenure at some time in the furture. It does not include those
administrators at the Dean's level and above who also hold faculty
rank. Although this population includes a number Of individuals who

teach very little or not at all, and excludes those part-time and

56

temporarily-appointed faculty members not in the tenure stream, it
does represent the core Of the teaching faculty at Michigan State
University.

A random sample was taken from a list of these faculty members
produced by the Office of the Provost. From this group of 640 faculty
members, random assignment to treatments (sets of four situation
descriptions) was made.

The sampling procedure allows generalization of results to
the population defined--MSU tenure system faculty. But because this
population is characteristic of teaching faculties at many other
institutions, the results may be thought to apply more widely than

this campus alone.

Instrumentation

 

As previously mentioned, the empirical work of the study
was accomplished by sets of situation descriptions designed to
test the factors identified in Chapter II: Perceived Need to Improve,
Knowledge of Alternatives, Reward, Peer Support, and Institutional
Support. For the purposes of this research, two levels of each factor
were considered. Each factor was either present or stated as apggg§_
in each situation. Situation descriptions were developed according to

5 factorial experiment (see Figure 4-1). Using this

a complete 2
procedure 32 different treatments or unique combination of factors
become possible. Four variations have been constructed for each unique

combination, thus 128 descriptions were developed in total (Appendix B).

57

Situation Description Construction

 

The task of constructing situation descriptions involved

1) preparing several representations or pperationalizations for each

 

factor and 2) creating a writipg scheme for drafting uniform situations

 

which could be responded to by faculty members meaningfully. The
content of each situation description was then selected from the list
of alternative representations corresponding to each unique combination

of factors.

Factor Operationalization

 

The factor representations have been drawn from the literature
Of faculty development and instructional improvement (which is reviewed
in Chapter II), conversations with faculty and those who work with
faculty on instructional improvement, and the experience of this
researcher as an instructional developer. In Chapter II much of the
needed Operationalization has already been accomplished by listing
the approaches under each factor whichseem to have the most promise
in influencing a faculty member to participate in instructional
improvement.

Each factor was operationalized in four different ways for
purposes Of preparing a sufficient number of descriptions for each
unique combination. The following statements served as the basic

components for writing the complete situation descriptions.

Perceived Need to Improve (PN)

 

1. Evaluation of teaching performance - combination of student
evaluations, peer evaluations, and self-evaluation.

Presence (+) - A recent evaluation of your instruction (a
combination of colleague, student, and self-
evaluations) indicates to you that you are

Absence (-)

58

not succeeding with your teaching responsi-
bilities as well as you would like.

A recent evaluation of your instruction
(combination Of colleague, student, and

self-evaluations) indicates to you that

you are succeeding with your teaching

gesponsibilities about as well as you would
ike.

Evaluation of departmental or institutional instructional program.

Presence (+) -

Abesence (-) -

Involvement in

Presence (+) -

Absence (-) -

A recent study by your department shows that
majors (present and graduated) did not partic-
uarly like the courses offered by the depart-
ment (including your own). Reports from
graduate and professional schools and employers
indicate that they were not taught as much as
they might have been about their discipline.

A recent study by your department shows that
majors (present and graduated) liked the
course offered by the department (including
your own). Reports from graduate and profes-
sional schools and employers indicate that
they were taught their discipline well.

new curriculum or use of new teaching technology.

Because of a rescent curriculum revision by your
department, a number of your courses will need
to include new content and the use of new
instructional methods.

Your department has recently agreed to
maintain its present basic curriculum,
therefore the content covered and the instruc-
tional methods used in your courses will not
necessarily have to be changed in the immediate
future.

Clarification of goals for teaching.

Presence (+) -

Absence (-) -

After some thinking about your own educational
philosophy and personal goals for teaching,
you have decided that the classroom approach
(lecture, discussion, etc.) you are now using
is not consistent with either your goals or
philosophy.

After some thinking about your own educational
philosophy and personal goals for teaching,
you have decided that the classroom approach
(lecture, discussion, etc.) you are now using

59

is consistent with both your goals and
philosophy.

 

Knowledge of Alternatives (K)

1.

Group presentations: seminars, workshops, conferences, courses, etc.

Presence (+) - From your attendance at faculty seminars on
various instructional topics, you have some
knowledge of teaching approaches different
from those you are now using.

Absence (-) - You have not been able to attend any faculty
teaching seminars (your chief source of infor-
mation on instructional matters), thus you
have virtually no knowledge of teaching
approaches different from those you are now
us1ng.

Consultation from an expert on teaching and learning.

Presence (+) - A knowledgeable instructional improvement
consultant has given you some ideas for
teaching approaches different from those
you are now using.

Absence (-) - You have had no access recently to knowledge-
able instructional improvement consultants
(your chief source Of information on instruc-
tional matters), thus you have virtually no
knowledge of teaching approaches different
from those you are now using.

Written materials.

Presence (+) - You regularly read written information on
new curricular trends, instructional
materials, and teaching techniques, thus
you have some knowlege of teaching
approaches different from those you are
now using.

Absence (-) - You have not read recently the written infor-
mation that comes to you on new curriculum
trends, instructional materials, and teach-
ing techniques (your chief source of infor-
mation on instructional matters), thus you
have virtually no knowlege of teaching
approaches different from those you are
now using.

6O

4. Personal communication from colleagues.

Presence (+) - A fellow department member has recently
told you about some instructional pro-
cedures different from those you are now
using.

Absence (-) - You have recently gotten very few ideas
from your fellow department members (your
chief source Of information on instruc-
tional matters), thus you have virtually
no knowledge of teaching approaches different
from those you are now using.

Reward (R)

l. Reward as great for teaching and teaching improvement as for
research and publications and public and university service.

Presence (+) — Your department and the university reward
special efforts at instructional improvement
as highly as they do other activities (i.e.,
research and publication, public and university
service).

Absence (-) - Your department and the university do not
reward special efforts at instructional
improvement as highly as they do other
activities (i.e., research and publication,
public and university service).

2. Public recognition

Presence (+) - You know from past experience that faculty
members will be given special public
recognition by colleagues, administrators,
and students (e.g., mention in university
publications, invitation to make presen-
tations) for special efforts to improve their
teaching.

Absence (-) - You know from past experience that faculty
members will not be given any special public
recognition by colleagues, administrators,
and students (e.g., mention in university
publications, invitation to make presentations)
for special efforts to improve their teaching.

3. Salary, promotion, and tenure.
Presence (+) - In the past your department and the

university have rewarded individuals'
special efforts to improve courses and

Absence (-) -

4. Special awards

Presence (+) -

Absence (-) -

Peer Support (PS)

 

61

teaching skills by counting these
activities when it comes to determining
salary increases, promotion, and tenure.

In the past your department and the
university have not rewarded individuals'
special efforts to improve courses and
teaching skills. These activities have
not been counted when it comes to determ-
ining salary increases, promotion, and
tenure.

for outstanding teaching.

To encourage the improvement of instruction,
special awards for outstanding teaching
are given by the university in each department.

As has been the practice at some other
institutions, the university gives no

special awards in each department for

outstanding teaching.

1. Colleagueship - working together to improve instruction.

Presence (+) -

Absence (-) -

Presence (+) -

Absence (-) -

There has been a "colleagueship" built
around teaching in your department.
Members assist each other in identifying
and trying out new content materials

and methods of instruction.

There exists little "colleagueship"

built around teaching in your department.
Members do not assist each other in
identifying and trying out new content
materials and methods of instruction.

Peer group norms and expectations as standards for one's own actions.

There exists an expectation among members
of your department that you should make
special efforts to improve your courses
and teaching skills.

There exists no expectation among members of
your department that you should make Special
efforts to improve your courses and teaching
skills.

 

Emilee... wetsuitumsdei. 4113
, e .

62

Colleagues set an example by trying new instructional procedures.

Presence (+) - Since you have been a member of the faculty,
a number Of your colleagues have made
special attempts to improve their instruction.

Absence (-) - Since you have been a member Of the faculty,
very few of your colleagues have made
special attempts to improve their instruction.

Articulated peer concern for instructional improvement.

Presence (+) - Your colleagues are concerned about the quality
of instruction in the department and encourage
special efforts to improve it.

Absence (-) - Your colleagues are not particularly concerned
about the quality of instruction in the
department and do not encourage special efforts
to improve it.

Institutional Support (IS)

 

1.

Time released from regular responsibilities.

Presence (+) - The university will give faculty members
released time from regular duties to pursue
special instructional improvement projects.

Absence (-) - The university cannot give faculty members
released time from regular duties to pursue
special instructional improvement projects.

Financial support.

Presence (+) - The university will provide special financial
support (e.g., small instructional grants) to
assist faculty members with special attempts to
develop or improve course materials and

I teaching skills.

Absence (-) - The university cannot provide special
financial support (e.g., small instructional
improvement grants) to assist faculty members
with special attempts to develop or improve
course materials and teaching skills.

Assistance with necessary Skill development.

Presence (+) - The university provides a service on campus
to assist faculty members develop skills in
instructional planning, classroom presentation,
and student testing.

63

Absence (-) - The university provides no service on campus
to assist faculty members develop skills in
instructional planning, classroom presentation,
and student testing.

4. Technical assistance.

Presence (+) - The university has an instructional resources
center to assist faculty members with technical
aspects of improving instruction (e.g., media,
special materials production, etc.).

Absence (-) - The university has no office, such as an
instructional resources center, to assist
faculty members with technical aspects Of
improving instruction (e.g., media, special
materials production, etc.).

Situation Description Writing Scheme

The writing scheme was prepared with guidance from those
studies that have previously used this methodology. As already mentioned,
four distinct situation descriptions were required for each of the 32
unique combinations Of factors and levels. For this reason four Opera-
tionalizations were chosen for each factor. The purpose of a writing
scheme becomes one of putting factors, operationalizations, and levels
together in such a way that situation descriptions are standardized to
satisfy the research design and meaningful enough to be responded to by
a subject.

For each cell of the design the writing procedure was the
same. First, the appropriate level of each factor was noted. For
example, in Cell 1 (see Figure 4-1) all factors were intended to be
present in the four Situation descriptions given to faculty members for
their response.

Next, the four situation descriptions were written. In each

description, the position order Of each factor in the description

and the Operationalization used were determined through random assignment.

64

In Cell 1 (to continue the example), through the use of a table at
random numbers, factors were ordered in the four descriptions as
fOIIOWS: #1--PN, K, PS, R, IS; #2--IS, K, R, PS, PN, #3--PS, K, R,
PN, IS; #4--R, IS, K, PN, PS. Miller and Lutz (1966) have suggested
that the order Of factors in an item may have biased the results Of
their study. To remove this possibility from the present research,
an attempt was made to assign factor position in a random fashion.

Concerning the use of factor operationalizations, a random
number procedure was also used to distribute them among the four
descriptions. Again using Cell 1 as an illustration, the parceling
looked like this: #1--PN3, K4, R1, PS4, 152; #2--PN1, K3, R3, P52,
153; #3--PN2, K1, R2, P51, 151; #4--PN4, K1, R4, PS3, 154.

Situation descriptions for all 32 cells of the design were
developed using this same procedure. In the actual writing, transition
words were added and minor changes in the wording of the operationaliza-
tion were made in order to make the descriptions read smoothly.

The four situation descriptions developed for Cell 1 are
presented below:

l-l. Because of a recent curriculum revision by your department,

a number of your courses will need to include new content and the use
of new instructional methods. A fellow department member, though,
has recently told you about some instructional procedures different
from those you are now using.

Your colleagues are concerned about the quality of instruction
in the department and encourage special efforts to improve it. Also,
your department and the university reward efforts at instructional
improvement as highly as they do other activities (i.e., research
and publication, public and university service).

In addition, the university will provide special financial
support (e.g., small instructional improvement grants) to assist

faculty members with special attempts to develop or improve course
materials and teaching skills.

65

1—2. The university provides a service on campus to assist faculty
develop skills in instructional planning, classroom presentation, and
student testing.

You regularly read written information on new curriculum
trends, instructional materials, and teaching techniques, thus you
have some knowledge of teaching approaches different from those you
are now using.

Your department and the university in the past have rewarded
individuals' special efforts to improve courses and teaching
skills by counting these activities when it comes to determining
salary increases, promotion, and tenure. In addition, there exists an
expectation among members of your department that you Should make
special efforts to improve your teaching.

A recent evaluation of your instruction (a combination of
colleague, student, and self-evaluations) indicates to you that you
are not succeeding with your teaching responsibilities as well as you
would like.

1-3. There has been a "colleagueship" built around teaching in
your department. Members assist each other in identifying and
trying out new content materials and methods of instruction.

From your attendance at faculty seminars on various
instructional topics, you have some knowledge of teaching approaches
different from those you are now using. And, you know from past
experience that faculty members will be given special public
recognition (e.g., mention in university publications, invitation
to make presentations) by colleagues, administrations, and students
for special efforts to improve their teaching.

A recent study by your department shows that majors (present
and graduated) did not particularly like the courses Offered by the
department (including your own). Reports from graduate and
professional schools and employers indicate that they were not
taught as much as they might have been about their discipline.

The university is willing to give faculty members released
time from regular duties to pursue special instruction improvement
projects.

1-4. To encourage the improvement Of instruction, special awards
for outstanding teaching are given by the university in each
department. Also, the university has an instructional resources
center to assist faculty members with technical aspects of improving
instruction (e.g., media, special materials production, etc.).

A knowledgeable instructional improvement consultant has
given you some ideas for teaching approaches different from those
you are now using. In addition, after some thinking about your own

66

educational philosophy and personal goals for teaching, you have
decided that the classroom approach (lecture, discussion, etc.) you
are now using is not consistent with either your goals or philosophy.

Since you have been a member Of the faculty, a number Of your
colleagues have made special attempts to improve their instruction.

Response Scale--Dependent Variable

 

For each description a subject was asked to indicate on a
seven point scale (0-6) how much he would be influenced by the
situation described to participate in instructional improvement.
More precisely, each respondent was asked how much he would be
willing to make special efforts to improve his instruction. Special
efforts were defined for the faculty member in the directions that
preceeded each set of descriptions.

TO guide your response, "special efforts" refer to
any improvement activity which would be considered "over
and above the call of duty." Examples might include the
development of a new course or redesign Of an existing
course when teaching assignment does not necessarily
require it, change in instructional method (e.g., from
group-based to individualized instruction), development
of supplementary materials (e.g., student workbook,
printed lecture notes, problems and exercises), intro-
duction of new media or technology (e.g., special graphics,
television, computed-assisted instruction), work to
improve classroom skills (e.g., lecture presentation,
discussion leadership).

Typical improvement practices such as changes
in lecture materials, selection Of more current or
better texts and assigned readings, minor adjustments
of course content and instructional method, or minor
modifications of test items and procedures should pp§_
be considered as special improvement efforts. These
represent an expected minimum commitment to instruction
for any university faculty member. Special efforts to
improve ones' instructional Offerings go beyond these
expected practices.

The stimulus question and scale that followed each situation
description is presented on the next page. The scale score, as a

measure of the degree of willingness to make special efforts to improve

67

instruction, represents the single dependent variable of interest in

 

this study.

If this Situation actually existed, to what degree would
you be willing to make special efforts to improve your

instruction?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Not Slightly Moderately Very
willing willing willing willing

A situation description, stimulus question, and scale were
combined and presented to subjects in the following form (the first

description from Cell 32, in which all factors are stated as absent).1

32-1. Your department has recently agreed to maintain its present
basic curriculum, therefore the content covered and the instructional
methods used in your courses will not necessarily have to be changed
in the immediate future.

In the past, your department and the university have not
rewarded individuals' special efforts to improve courses and teaching
skills. TheSe activities have not been counted when it comes to
determining salary increases, promotion, and tenure. Also, there
exists little "colleagueship" built around teaching in your department.
Members do not assist each other in identifying and trying out new
content materials and methods of instruction. In addition, the
university cannot provide special financial support (e.g., small
instructional improvement grants) to assist faculty members with
special attempts to develop or improve course materials and teaching
abilities.

You have not been able to attend any Of the faculty teachin
seminars (your chief source Of information on instructional matters ,
thus you have virtually no knowlege of teaching approaches different
from those you are now using.

 

1Because of Space limitations all 32 sets of descriptions have not been
reproduced in this volume. They are available on request from the author.
An additional example--Cell 7-- is presented in Appendix B.

68

If this situation actually existed, to what degree
would you be willing to make special efforts to
improve your instruction?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Not Slightly Moderately Very
willing willing willing willing

Pilot testipg

 

Situation descriptions were pilot-tested before data was
collected for analysis (Appendix A). First, faculty and instructional
improvement staff at Michigan State University were asked to evaluate
the descriptions for their "face validity" and meaningfulness. The 32
sets Of descriptions were then administered to a small group of MSU
faculty members. Each set was given to one faculty member. These 32
individuals responded under conditions similar to those planned for
the study itself. Subjects were not, though, randomly selected from
the population of MSU faculty members or randomly assigned to treatments,
and they did not receive the set of descriptions by campus mail. They
represented a "sample of convenience," and they were given the inventory
personally by the investigator or his representative. An attempt was
made to choose a cross section Of the MSU faculty as a whole for this
pilot-testing.

The principle purpose of the pilot procedure was to gather
reactions to the descriptions. Participants were asked to respond to
each description on the scale provided. They were then invited to
make written comments on whether each description was understandable
and believeable, whether the stimulus question and scale were
comprehensible and sufficiently directive, and whether the cover letter

and directions were adequate to explain the project.

69

Scale responses and comments provided the basis for revision
Of the situation descriptions, the stimulus question and scale, and

the cover letter and directions.

Administration Of Experimental Procedures
The appropriate set of four situation descriptions was sent
to each subject via campus mail (Appendix B). An appropriate cover
letter explaining the research project and providing inventory
instructions accompanied each set of descriptions. After one week
a reminder was sent to those who had not returned the set. This
procedure produced a sufficient number of subject responses in each

cell, thus additional follow-up procedures were not necessary.

Statistical Analysis

 

The research hypotheses concerning main and interaction effects
were tested by employing a five-way, fixed-effects analysis of variance.
Responses from each subject were averaged across the four descriptions
to produce a Single subject score. Scores were averaged across subjects
to produce a mean for each cell. These subject scores and cell means
served as the basic data for the analysis. As will be reported in the
next chapter sets of Situation descriptions were relatively internally
consistent, thus averaging across descriptions to get a single subject
score is appropriate. Averaging across subjects recognizes that
subgroup characteristics were not being considered in the study.

Due to the failure of some subjects to respond to the study
cell sizes are not equal with respect to the number of scores available
for analysis. Despite this Situation the "classical“ approach to

analysis Of variance (Nie_gt_a], 1975) was used to analyze the data.

70

In this model each main effect is tested while all other effects and
interactions are controlled.

Overall and Speigel (1969) propose that this method (which they
label the "experimental design" method) is appropriate for designs with
unequal cell frequencies under certain conditions: "whenever the
problem is conceived as a multiclassification factorial design and where
conventiaonal analyses of variance might have been employed except for
unequal cell frequencies . . . " (p. 319). This approach produces the
results expected if in fact cell sizes had been equal. In the present
research a factorial design was employed and an equal number of subjects
were randomly assigned to cells. Some attrition of subjects occurred
but did not appear to be systematic in any way that would bias the
statistical results. Thus, in the analysis unequal cell frequencies
are considered as a "nuisance" due to the nature Of the experimental
procedures used.

The amount or proportion of variation in the dependent variable
accounted for by each factor--the other major research question to be
answered by the analysis--was determined by computing eta2 (eta-
squared) for each non-subject source Of variation. Also, Multiple R2
(multiple R-squared) was computed to indicate the amount of variation
attributable to the combination of all the factors tested.

Both the ANOVA and eta2 procedures were accomplished using
the SPSS Subprogram ANOVA (Nie g3_pl,, 1975). The analysis was

performed through the facilities of the MSU Computer Laboratory.

CHAPTER V
RESULTS

This chapter includes a) an over-all data summary, b) a report

on the statistical analysis, and c) a statement on the outcome of each

research hypotheses. The chapter concludes with a brief summary of

the results.

Data Summary

 

Using the experimental procedures described in Chapter IV,
data was gathered from 373 Michigan State University faculty members.
Two hundred and sixty-seven subjects either were unable or chose not
to complete the set of four situation descriptions assigned and sent
to them.

The group of subjects who did complete and return situation
descriptions were virtually identical on four demographic variables
to the group originally selected and assigned to treatments. Forty-
seven percent of the "return" group held appointments in Natural
Science departments (48% of the "assigned" group), 33 percent in
Social Science departments (31%),and 19 percent in Arts and Letters
departments (20%). Thirteen percent of those faculty members who
responded were 35 years Old or under (13%), 33 percent were 36-45 years
Old (33%), 41 percent were 46-60 years Old (41%), and 13 percent were
61 years old or Older (13%). Five percent had been faculty members
at Michigan State University for three years or less (4%), 42 percent
fOr 4-10 years (44%), 31 percent for 11-20 years (31%), and 22 percent

71

 

for

and

des
fpg

The

mear

the

assi
attr
Sinc.
was 1
in ea

at 15

and a

he Par
deSCl‘ip

'3 auu

72

for 21 or more years (21%). Eighty-eight percent were tenured (89%)
and 12 percent were not tenured (11%).
For analysis purposes, subjects' responses to each situation

description (on a 0-6 response scale) were averaged across the

 

four situation descriptions to produce one score for each subject.
1

 

These subject scores serve as a basic datum of the study.

Also for purposes of analysis, scores were averaged ggypgp.
subjects to produce a mean score for each cell (treatment). These
means, along with the number of subjects per cell, are reported in
the data matrix presented in Table 5-1.

As described in Chapter IV twenty subjects were originally
assigned to each cell or treatment of the design. An expected
attrition, though, resulted in fewer than twenty scores per cell.
Since all scores have been used in the analysis, and since attrition
was not equal in every cell, an unequal number of subject scores appear
in each cell for the data summary and analysis. Each cell includes
at least 10 subject scores.

From the data matrix mean differences between the presence

and absence of each of the five factors under study can be determined:

Perceived Need to Improve - Presence = 4.98(n=184)
Absence = 3.95(189)

Knowledge of Alternatives - Presence = 4.61(184)
Absence = 4.31(189)

Reward - Presence = 4.51(189)
Absence = 4.4l(184)

 

1The raw data of this study (subject's responses to each situation
description and subject's scores) are available on request from
the author.

73

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 5-1. Variable matrix with means for willingness
to make special efforts to improve instruction.
* 41**
+ pN -
Grand Mean I
= 4.46 + I - + -
e 5.55(14)* i 4.89(11) 3.93(11) 4.80(10)
+
- 5.46(12) 4.89(1l) 3.33(10) 3.43(15)
+
+ 5.19(13) 4.50(10) 3.98(12) 3.90(15)
- 5.25(1l) 5.23(13) 4.10(10) 3.73(ll)
._3—pRS 15
+ 5.19(13) 4.85(10) 4.31(13) 4.94(12)
+
- 4.82(11) 4.85(12) 4.33(10) 3.77(11)
+ 5.05(10) 4.73(13) 4.39(11) 3.50(l4)
- 5.03(10) 3.95(10) 3.67(13) 3.45(11)
* + Presence of factor; - = Absence of factor

** PN=Perceived Need to Improve, K=Knowledge Of

Alternatives, R=Reward, PS=Peer Support, IS=Insti-
tutional Support

*** Number of subjects responding

 

 

74

Peer Support - Presence = 4.59(186)
Absence = 4.34(187)
Institutional Support - Presence = 4.59(192)
Absence = 4.33(181)

These results indicate that, for each factor considered, presence of
the factor in the influence situation produced a higher score on the
response scale than did its absence. The higher response on the scale,
the greater the stated willingness to make Special efforts to improve
instruction.

The grand mean Of all subjects' responses to all situation
descriptions was 4.46 scale points. On the 0-6 scale a response of 4
indicated that a subject was "moderately willing" to make special
efforts to improve his instruction and a response of 6 meant that he
was "very willing." Thus, the value of the grand mean in this study
indicates that across all 373 subject and all 128 situation descriptions
there was a great deal of stated willingness to improve instruction.

The internal consistency of each set of situation descriptions
represents another important source of data. Since each description in
a set is intended to reflect the same combination of the underlying
five factors and since responses to the four descriptions in each set
were averaged to produce one score for each subject, responses to
each description in a set should be reasonably similar. If responses
are not similar, it would indicate a failure to represent the same
factors, and the average score would not be a reliable indication Of
a person's response to the influence Situation intended. If responses
to situation descriptions in each set are similar (internally consistent),
then they can be thought to represent the factors similarly (even though

they involve different Operationalizations of each factor). In this

75

case the averaging procedure would be appropriate and would provide a
meaningful and reliable score.

The Coefficient Alpha (Cronbach, 1951) estimates of internal
consistency for each set of descriptions (each cell of the design)
are presented in Table 5-2.

From this data it can be said that the sets of descriptions
developed for this study possess a reasonable degree of internal
consistency. For the most part subjects respond similarly to the
descriptions in each set. This result indicates that these descriptions
present the particular combination of factors and level similarily and
that the average scores provide a reliable indication of a subject's
response to the particular influence situation intended.

Some sets, though, are questionable in terms of their internal
consistency. Sets l(.59), 4(.38), and 20(.57) have alpha coefficients
of less than .60. On inspection Sets 1 and 20 have one description
which correlates poorly with the other three; Set 4 has two descriptions
which do not correlate highly with the others or with each other.

In the case of Set 1, if description #1 was omitted, the alpha

would raise to .67; and if description #1 were left out Of Set 20, then
the coefficient would be .83. Omitting either descriptions #1 or #4
from Set 4 would raise the coefficient considerably.

NO pattern, in terms Of the Operationalizations used in these

 

descriptions or the combinations Of operationalizations or levels of

 

the factor, could be discerned to explain these poor item-total corre-
lations. An inspection of the sets of descriptions as a whole
produced no indication that the characteristics of the descriptions

themselves caused the low coefficients.

76

TABLE 5-2. Coefficient Alpha estimates of reliability for
each set of situation descriptions

 

Set 1 (+++++)*= .59 Set 17(-++++) = .91
Set 2 (++++-) = .77 Set 18(-+++-) = .94
Set 3 (+++-+) = .71 Set 19(-++-+) = .91
Set 4 (+++--) = .38 Set 20(-++--) = .57
Set 5 (++-++) = .86 Set 21(-+-++) = .88
Set 6 (++-+-) = .82 Set 22(-+-+-) = .89
Set 7 (++--+) = .91 Set 23(-+--+) = .70
Set 8 (++---) = .86 Set 24(-+---) = .88
Set 9 (+-+++) = .87 Set 25(--+++) = .68
Set 10(+-++-) = .79 Set 26(--++-) = .90
Set 11(+-+-+) = .74 Set 27(--+-+) = .86
Set 12(+-+--) = .93 Set 28(--+--) = .90
Set l3(+--++) = .95 Set 29(---++) = .85
Set 14(+--+-) = .77 Set 30(---+-) = .88
Set 15(+---+) = .83 Set 3l(----+) = .94
Set 16(+----) = .66 Set 32( ----- ) = .95

* Each set corresponds to one cell of the experimental design
(see Figure 4-1 or Table 5-1).

***Indicates combination and level of factors; order of factors
= Perceived Need to Improve, Knowledge of Alternatives,
Reward, Peer Support, Institutional Support; levels =
+(present) and -(stated as absent).

 

 

.lirl. .

.l

77

The alternative explanation for this kind of internal incon-
sistency emphasizes the nature of the individuals responding to these
sets of descriptions. Since the alpha coefficients are quite high for
the other 29 sets, and since different groups Of subjects were assigned
to respond to each set, it seems reasonable to assume that the vari-
ability among the individuals in the groups responding to the three
sets in question produced inconsistency among the four descriptions

in each set.

Statistical Results

 

Although the results reported in the previous section indicate
that the presence of each factor produced more stated willingness to
improve instruction than did an absence of the factor, there remains the
possibility that this occurence owes more to chance than to the effect
of the factor. Since a sample of faculty members was drawn to take
part in the experiment, and since there exists some variation in the
way these subjects responded to similar treatments, the possibility
arises that these results may not represent how the population as a
whole would respond (even though the sample was randomly drawn from
the population and subjects were randomly assigned to treatments). The
computation of an inferential statistic is necessary to determine the
effect of the factors and treatments understudy given a specified
level of certainty that computed mean differences are real differences.

Analysis of variance was used to determine any main effects
Of the factors under study and any interactions between and among these
factors. An alpha level of .05 was selected as a standard for
determining statistical significance (the probability that a true null

hypothesis might be rejected). This standard, though, was not applied

78

rigidly, as can be seen in the next section in which research hypotheses
are considered. The analysis was performed with an unequal number of
subjects in each cell, using the "classical" ANOVA model (Nie et a1,
1975). The rationale for this procedure is presented in Chapter IV.
The ANOVA table for this analysis is presented in Table 5-3.

Any ANOVA procedure requires three assumptions: 1) Observations
are independent between and within treatment groups, 2) subjects in
each treatment are sampled from populations that are normally distrib-
uted, and 3) variances of treatment populations are equal. Considering
violations of these assumptions, the present study appears to be "robust"
with respect to independence and normality. A statistical analysis is
robust when the nominal chance of making a Type I error (the alpha level
an experimenter assumes) and the agggpl chance of making this error
(the actual alpha level) are approximately equal. In the present
study subjects (whether assigned to similar or different treatments)
were asked to respond to situation descriptions independently and
not discuss their participation in the study with other faculty members
on the campus (see Appendix B). Descriptions were mailed individually
to each subject. Thus, the study was designed to maintain independence
Of observations. Regarding normality a Simple plotting of the data indi-
cates that few Of the treatment populations can be considered normally
distributed. ANOVA,though, has been found to be relatively unaffected
by this situation and robust with respect to non-normality (Glass and
Stanley, 1970).

The third assumption, on the other hand, appears to be somewhat
problematic. Levene's test for homgeniety of variance (Levene, 1960,

1970) indicates that the variances of the 32 treatment groups in the

TABLE 5-3.

79

ANOVA for main effects and interactions on

stated willingness to make special efforts to
improve instruction.

 

Source Of Variation

 

Factors (main effects)
Perceived Need to Improve
Knowledge of Alternatives
Reward
Peer Support
Institutional Support

Two-way Interactions
PN x K
PN x R
PN x PS
PN x IS
x R
x PS
IS
x PS_

50 :0 7': 7Q 7‘
X

x IS
PS x IS

Three-way Interactions
PN x K x R
PN x K x PS
PN x K x IS
PN x R x PS

2.30
3.00
4.80

.11
4.19

.34
3.10

3.13
.97
3.03

1.39
1.22
1.67
1.38
1.85

2.19
3.50
.08
3.05
.25
2.26
.35
2.28
.71
2.21

1.01

.89
1.22
1.01
1.35

.084
.136
.059
.999
.078
.999
.130
.999
.128
.999
.134

.432
.999
.270
.317
.245

TABLE 5-3 (cont'd)
PN x R x 15
PN x PS x IS

x R x PS

x R x IS

x PS x IS

x PS x IS

”KKK

Four-way Interactions
PN x K x R x PS
PN x K x R x IS
PN x K x PS x IS
PN x R x PS x IS
K x R x PS x IS

Five-way Interaction

PN x K x R x PS x IS

Residual

Total

80

341

372

1.47
1.24

.70
.93
1.26
3.03

.99
1.13
1.02
2.89

.01

.03

3.44

1.37

1.70

1.07
.90

.51
.68
.92
2.21

.73
.83
.75
2.91
.01
.02

2.50

.303
.999

.999
.999
.999
.134

.999
.999
.999
.144
.999
.999

.110

 

81

present study were not equal (df 30, F = 2.08), thus the assumption

was violated. In addition, the magnitude of the individual cell
variances were not proportional to cell Sizes. Since cell frequencies
are not equal the analysis is not robust. More specifically, the

actual alpha level is most likely larger than the nominal level. Thus,
the tests reported are considered "liberal." The chance of Type I

error may in fact be larger than that indicated. Although the inter-
pretation and discussion of results in this chapter and Chapter VI
reflect nominal alpha levels the consequences of inequality of variances
should be kept in mind.

These results indicate that of the five factors (independent
variables) studied three factors had a statistically significant effect
on the dependent variable (using the .05 standard): Perceived Need to
Improve, Knowledge of Alternatives, and Institutional Support. Peer
Support was found to be significant at .058.

Reward, on the other hand, did not have a statistically signifi-
cant effect. There were no significant interactions (at .05) between
or amOng the factors, but the interactions between Perceived Need
and both Reward and Institutional Support achieved marginal significance
(.059 and .978 respectively). Each of these results will be explained
more fully as the research hypotheses are considered in the next
section of this chapter.

The amount of variation in the dependent variable accounted
for by each factor was another statistic of interest in this study.

This statistic, in effect, indicates the relative impact of each
variable. One of the research questions pOsed in this research asked

which factors would be most potent in influencing a faculty member's

82

willingness to participate in instructional improvement activities.
An answer to this question was determined by computing eta2 (Nie et a1,
1975) for each independent variable. Eta2 for each of the factors under
study is reported in Table 5-4.

These figures indicate that Perceived Need to Improve
accounted for the greatest amount of variance in subjects scores (15%);
followed by Knowledge of Alternatives and Institutional Support (1%),
Peer Support (0.8%), and Reward (0.09%). These figures will also be
interpreted as the research hypotheses are considered in the next
section.

The total amount of variance accounted for by all the factors
under study is indicated by the Multiple R2 reported in Table 5-4.
In this study, 19 percent of subjects' scores on the dependent variable
can be allocated to Perceived Need, Knowledge, Reward, Peer Support,
and Institutional Support. This means that 81 percent is accounted for
by other variables, such as subject individual differences, influence
factors not considered in the study or measurement error. This finding

will be elaborated in the Discussion section of Chapter VI.

Research Hypotheses

In this section each hypothesis has been re-stated and a
statement made on whether it was confirmed or not confirmed. Each
of these results will also be discussed more extensively in Chapter VI.

Hypothesis 1. The presence Of a Perceived Need to Improve will
result in a greater stated willingness on the part of a faculpy member
to make special efforts to improve his instruction.

This hypothesis was confirmed at the .001 level of statistical

significance (F (1,341) = 70.74). This result means, when all other

TABLE 5-4. Eta2

83

estimates of the amount of variance in MSU

faculty members'willingness to make special efforts
to improve their instruction accounted for by each

factor.*

 

Variables

 

Perceived Need to Improve
Knowledge of Alternatives
Reward

Peer Support
Institutional Support

Multiple R2

.15
.01
.0009
.008
.01

.19

 

* Adjusted according to "classical" ANOVA analysis with
unequal cell frequencies (Nie et al., 1975).

84

factors and interactions being tested are controlled, the presence Of
a Perceived Need to Improve, as operationalized in the influence
Situations presented to the subjects of the study, resulted in a greater
stated willingness to make Special efforts to improve instruction than
did the absence of the factor.
There was a difference between the mean scores of subjects
who received the presence condition and those who received the absence
condition Of 1.02 scale points in favor of the presence condition.
Hypothesis 2. The presence of a Knowledge of Alternative
instructional approaches will result in a greater stated willingness
on the part of a faculty member to make special efforts to improve his

instruction.

 

This hypothesis was confirmed at the .03 significance level
(F (1,341) = 4.63). From this finding it can be said that a presence of
KnOwledge of Alternative approaches to instruction, as operationalized
in this study, produced a greater stated willingness to make special
efforts to improve instruction than did its absence. This is true
when all other factors and interactions are controlled in the analysis.

The difference in mean scores was .26 in favor of the
presence condition.

Hypothesis 3. The presence of Reward for instructional
improvement will result in agreater stated williogness on the part Of
a faculty member to make special efforts to improve his instruction.

This hypothesis was pp§_confirmed at the .05 level Of
statistical significance; in fact, it only reached significance at .999
level (F (1,341) = .52). Even though the mean score for subjects exposed

to the presence of the reward factor was greater than the mean for those

85

subjects exposed to its absence (by .08 scale points), this difference
was so small as to be attributed to random error in subject responses.
Thus, in this study the presence of reward for instructional improvement
did not result in greater stated willingness on the part of a faculty
member to make special efforts to improve his instruction.

This finding will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter VI.

Hypothesis 4. The presence of Peer Support for instructional
improvement will result in a greater stated willingness on the port
of a faculty member to make Special efforts to improve his instruction.

This hypothesis was not confirmed at the .05 level. But, at
the .058 level it can be considered a statistically significant result
(F (1,341) = 3.52). Since this alpha level is nearly as stringent with
reference to type-one error as the pre-set .05 standard, the difference
in mean score of .22 scale points will be considered as meaningful as
the significant results for Perceived Need, Knowledge, and Institutional
Support.

Hypothesis 5. The presence of Institutional Support for
instructional improvement will result in aggreater stated willingness
on the_part of a faculty member to make special efforts to improve his
instruction.

This last hypothesis concerning main effects was confirmed at
the .024 level (F (1,341) = 5.07). The presence of Institutional
Support, as operationalized in the influenced situations presented to
subjects, was effective in stimulating a faculty member's stated

willingness to make special efforts to improve his instruction.

86

The difference between mean scores of subjects who responded to
a presence of the factor and those who responded to an absence was .27
scale points.

Hypothesis 6. There will be no difference in the amount of

 

 

variance in the dependent variable_(willingness to make special efforts

 

to improve instruction) accounted for by each of the five factors

 

(Perceived Need to Improve, Knowledge_of Alternatives, Reward, Peer

 

Support, Institutional Support). The impact of each of these five

 

 

factors will be of the same order of magnitude.

 

This hypothesis was mg§_confirmed. The eta2 estimates of the
amount of variance accounted for by each factor indicates that factors
had differential effects. Perceived Need to Improve was the most potent
factor in effecting faculty members' willingness to make special efforts
to improve their instruction. This factor accounted for l5 percent of
the variation in subject scores. Knowledge and Institutional Support
factors possessed the next greatest impact (1%), followed by Peer
Support (0.8%). Reward for instructional improvement was the least
effective factor tested (0.0%).

Hypotheses 7-l0. There will be a separate significant two-way

 

interaction between Perceived Need to Improve and each of the other

factors(Knowledge of Alternatives, Reward, Peer Support, and Institu-

 

tional Support). More specifically, each factor will be more effective

 

when a Perceived Need to Improve is present. Also, the converse will
be true: Perceived Need will be more effective when each of the other
factors is present.

Ngmg of these interactions were statistically significant at

the .05 level. The interactions between Perceived Need and Reward and

87

between Perceived Need and Institutional Support, though, achieved
significance at .059 (F (l,34l) = 3.50) and .978 (F (l,34l) = 3.05)
respectively.

The presence of Reward was more effective than its absence
gm1y_when Perceived Need was also present. When there was not a Perceived
Need to Improve, the presence of Reward produced a level of stated
willingness to improve instruction that was not statistically different
from that produced by the absence level.1 This result is consistent with
the specific hypothesis regarding this interaction. Concerning Institu-
tional Support, when Perceived Need was absent the difference was greater
in favor of the present level of Institutional Support (2 - 2.35,
p<.05). When Perceived Need was present there was not a statistically
significant difference between the amount of stated willingness to
improve produced by the two levels of Institutional Support (2 = .5
p<.05). This runs counter to the specific hypothesis. ‘

For the converse of these interactions, the presence of a
Perceived Need had a greater impact than its absence at both levels
of Institutional Support (for presnce level 2 - 5.28, p<.05 and for
absence level 2 = 7.l4, p<.05). But when Institutional support is
absent, the difference is even greater. This situation also was not the

predicted result. Concerning Reward the interaction is also ordinal.

 

1Simple effects tests were done to determine if mean differences between
presence and absence levels of Reward at both the presence and absence
levels of Perceived Need were statistically significant differences. Nhen
Perceived Need was present, the presence of Reward (z €’5.lS) resulted in
significantly more stated willingness to improve then did its absence

(x = 4.82; z = 2.64,_p<.05). At the absence level of Perceived Need the
presence of reward (x = 4.03) was not significantly greater than its
absence (x = 3.88; z = 79, p<.05).

88

The presence of Perceived Need was always more influential than its
absence. ~Yet, in this case the difference is greater when Reward is
present. This is consistent with the specific hypothesis. These two
interactions have been graphed in Figure 5-l and 5-2. These differences

will be considered in more detail in Chapter V.

Summary of Results

 

The principle objective of this research, as stated in the
Chapter III, was to evaluate the effectiveness of five factors
(Perceived Need to Improve, Knowledge of Alternatives, Reward, Peer
Support, and Institutional Support) in influencing a university faculty
member to participate in instructional improvement. The results of this
study indicate that four of these factors were effective, as they were
operationalized, in stimulating faculty members at Michigan State
University to state their willingness to make efforts to improve their
instruction.

If confronted with situations in which either a Perceived
Need to Improve, Knowledge of Alternatives, Peer Support or Institutional
Support were present, the faculty members were more likely to state their
willingness than if the situation lacked these factors. The presence
of Reward for instructional improvement, on the other hand, did not seem
to have any effect on faculty members' statements about their willingness
to participate in instructional improvement.

Only two interactions approached statistical significance
(using the .05 standard): Perceived Need and Reward and Perceived

Need and Institutional Support.

89

when the factors were compared for relative impact on the
dependent variable, Perceived Need to Improve proved to be the most
potent; it accounted for the most variation (l5%) in subjects' stated
willingness to make special efforts to improve instruction. Considered
together, all five factors accounted for only l9 percent of the total

variation.

90

 

 

 

a)
6 «F
C
.2
1'3
.34-H
mm
55 4.82(89) Reward -
0 Presence
+’g Reward -
3: Absence
0D.
=:E
gm- 4 ,. 4.03295
:3 3.88 94
::m
3*:
3.2 *
4N:- T
Md)
.9
(Dr- 1 'P
Id
’8
0
D.
U)
J J
' V
... ..
Perceived Need to
Improve

FIGURE 5-l. Interaction of a) Reward and b) Institutional
Support on Percieved Need to Improve.

91

   
 
 
 

 

b) 6 ..
C
.2
...»
‘5‘
a»; 5 -- 5.02(94)
it: 4 96(90) . .
5: Institutional Support -
0”" Presence
“2
32 Institutional
G’O- Support -
5.5 4 .. Absence 4'1“”)
C
:3
E3 3.7l(9l)
Us l.
mu— (
13‘;
+’ 1
(Do-- ‘-
..‘E’
U
(D
Q
U)
l j A
I I“

 

 

+ -

Perceived Need to
Improve

FIGURE 5-l (cont'd)

92

a)

5.l5(95) Perceived Need to Improve -
5 .. ~eg-e\\“:::sence
4.82(89)

4 «b /4.03(95)
3.88(94) Perceived Need to Improve -

 

Stated willingness to make
special efforts to improve instruction

 

 

Absence
1’
li’
: 4
+ -

Reward

FIGURE 5-2. Interaction of Perceived Need to Improve on
a) Reward and b) Institutional Support

93

Perceived Need to Improve -

5.? 5.02(94) -—* Prefiffl¢§.96(go)

4'18(98) Perceived Need to Improve -
Absence

3.7l(9l)

Stated willingness to make
special efforts to improve instruction
h

 

 

Reward

FIGURE 5-2 (cont'd)

CHAPTER VI
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

A concern for the improvement of college teaching and the
professional development of college faculty members is not a new
phenomenon in American higher education. In Chapters I and II a number
of reports were cited from as early as the 1930's focusing on these
issues and proposing action strategies. A number of formal campus
programs devoted to instructional improvement can be identified begin-
ning in the 1950's. But, as a field of study and as a formal profession-
al activity, with attempts to investigate and develop successful
approaches, the instructional improvement "movement" is a child of the
current era.

The emphasis in the field to date, though, has been on
development and utilization of strategies and not on their systematic
investigation. Few attempts have been made to test strategies for
their effectiveness.. The research reported in this thesis has tried to
partially remedy this lack of empirical study. I

In this final chapter the results of the present study
(reported in Chapter V) are discussed in light of previous research
and writing. Limitations that must be placed on the findings are also
discussed. Finally, concluding the report, implications of the results
for the practice of instructional improvement and for future study in

this field are suggested.

94

95

This chapter serves as an over-all summary of the research

reported in this thesis.

Discussion of Results

As described in Chapters I and II, an attempt was made to
identify the more basic psychological, sociological, and organizational
factors that underlie commonly employed strategies of instructional
improvement. For example, group presentations on instructional topics,
individual consultation with experts on teaching and learning, ideas
from colleagues, and written materials on curricular issues all_have
in common the production of knowledge of alternative approaches to
instruction. Thus, Knowledge of Alternatives becomes the more basic
factor underlying these and similar strategies. In addition to Knowl-
edge of Alternatives, the other factors identified through review of
the literature, conversations with faculty and instructional developers,

and the experience of the investigator are Perceived Need to Improve,

 

Reward, Peer Support, and Institutional Support.

It was predicted that the presence of these factors in an
individual's situation as a faculty member at a university would result
in a greater willingness on his part to make special efforts to improve
his instruction (see Chapter III for research hypotheses). The
experimental and analytic procedures were designed to test this
expectation (see Chapter IV for methodology).

The results show that fOr the most part these factors were
effective in influencing instructional improvement; the findings support
fairly well the little research and considerable speculation in the
literature concerning these factors and the strategies which operation-

alize them.

96

Perceived Need to Improve, Knowledge of Alternatives, and
Institutional Support are clearly effective; and, even though there
is some question about its statistical significance, Peer Support also
appears to be an influential factor. Only the main effect of Reward
for instructional improvement went counter to predictions made about
its impact. With the group of faculty members studied, this factor
was not found to be influential in increasing stated willingness to
make special efforts to improve instruction.

There was a general lack of interactions, but Perceived Need
and Reward and Perceived Need and Institutional Support can be considered
significant results and deserving of further study.

Finally, it was determined that Perceived Need to Improve was
the most potent factor, as measured by the amount of variance in
subjects' scores accounted for by each factor.

Each of these findings is discussed below in greater detail.

Perceived Need to Improve

 

As described in Chapter II, this factor was identified in the
work by Lindquist (1974a) for the Strategies for Change and Knowledge
Utilization Project. It is considered by the present investigator as
the critical component in the general change strategy Lindquist terms
Problem-Solving. As the literature of instructional improvement and
faculty development was reviewed, Perceived Need emerged as a basic
factor underlying many approaches to teaching improvement.

Strategies such as formal evaluation of instruction, department
and institutional self-study, curriculum revision, and independent or
aided reflection on personal educational philosophies and goals gll_

appear to depend for their success on the perceptions of a need to change

97

or improve. Each allows a comparison of what one is now doing with
that which one would like to do as a college teacher. If a discrepancy
exist between intentions and actual behavior, then it is assumed that
there will be some attempt to reduce the discrepancy.

The results of the present study indicate that Perceived Need,
when operationalized by the strategies mentioned in the previous para-
graph, can be influential in whether a faculty member states that he
would be willing to make special efforts to improve his instruction.
This finding is consistent with what Lindquist and others have predicted
for faculty members in higher education and with the theorizing and
research apart from higher education.

Possibly the most important result with respect to Perceived
Need was its standing as the most potent factor of those considered in
this research. It accounted for much more of the variance in subjects'
scores than did the other four factors together: 15 percent for
Perceived Need compared to three percent for the others combined. This
is consistent with the thinking of some faculty development and change
authors, particularly those with a psychoanalytic orientation (Ack,
l973; Sanford, l97l; Freedman and Sanford, 1973). They suggest that
the first step toward behavior change rests with the realization that
change is necessary and consistent with one's values and goals. The
preeminence of Perceived Need may also be predicted from Lewin's
"unfreezing-moving-refreezing" model of change. Francis (l975), using
Lewin's notion, states: "The first task of instructional development
must be to raise that consciousness, to attract attention, to unfreeze
traditional faculty disinterest in the methodology of instruction and

to establish a critical awareness of the necessity and desireability of

98

instructional improvement“ (p. 22).

Also, Perceived Need to Improve may be considered an important
factor when it interacts with other factors. Not only may it be the
most potent factor, but as suggested in the Chapter II, the effect of
other factors may depend on a Perceived Need to Improve. Results
indicate that this may have been the case for Reward and Institutional
Support. Interactions of Perceived Need to Improve and other factors
were not statistically significant. With respect to Reward, it appears
that Sanford may be right when he says "attempts to produce change by
behavioral or mechanical means will not be effective nor long lasting
unless they are understood, accepted, and integrated within the
person" (p. 9). In addition to what this result indicates about
Perceived Need, it may also help explain the lack of a significant main
effect for Reward (to be considered later). Concerning Institutional
Support Purdy (l973) has commented that "support staff and resources
for faculty . . . are vital to improvement but only after the faculty
themselves have decided to take advantage of them" (p. 2). Although
Perceived Need and Institutional Support interact significantly, Purdy's
point is not born out in this study. The presence of Institutional
Support actually became more effective when Perceived Need was absent.

The converse of these interactions was also predicted: Perceived
Need would be more effective itself if other factors were present.

Again concerning the interactions considered significant, the prediction
was accurate for Reward but not for Institutionalsupport. Each of

these interactions are graphed in Chapter V.

99

Knowledge of Alternatives

This factor was also extracted from Lindquist's (l974a) conceptu-
alization of change in higher education. He calls this approach
Social Interaction. As used in this present research it represents an
awareness of innovations or alternatives to present instructional
practice.

Many of the means used to advance the improvement of college
teaching seem to converge on this basic psychological factor. Group
presentations (such as seminars, workshops, conferences, etc.), con-
sultation with experts on teaching and learning, written materials on
curriculum and instructional topics, and ideas from colleagues are the
specific operationalizations that have been tested in this study. It
was assumed that if an individual possesses knowledge of alternative
ways of behaving, he is more likely to act differently in the future
than he does at the present.

In the present research the presence of this factor was found
to be an effective stimulant to instructional improvement. This
finding was in accordance with the previous research and writing

presented in Chapter II.

M

The Reward factor studied in this research was suggested by
Lindquist's (l974a) final general strategy-~Legitimate Authority.
Institutions and their component units, either through academic
governance or administrative procedure, can make teaching and teaching
improvement important functions for a faculty member. If the successful
performance of these functions is formally rewarded by the institution

or unit, then it might be assumed that there will be a greater chance that

100

time and effort will be allocated to them in the future. As mentioned
in Chapter II, many faculty development and instructional improvement
authors cite the need for adequate rewards if instruction and its
improvement are to become important activities fbr university faculty
members.

Strategies such as rewarding teaching on a par with research
and scholarship, giving special public recognition to professors who make
special attempts to improve instruction, counting efforts at improvement
when determining salary, promotion, and tenure, and giving special
awards for outstanding teaching all_make use of the basic psychological
factor of Reward. Of all the factors considered in this research, Reward
has more written about it and has had more space devoted to recom-
mending it as an important stimulant to instructional improvement.
Brandis (l964) has proposed that "it cannot be overemphasized that this

step [Reward for teaching equal to that for research] is the sine qua non

 

of the rehabilitation of university undergraduate teaching " (p. 58).
No stronger plea was found fOr any other factor or strategy.

Despite the emphasis on Reward in the literature, the present
study found the main effect not to be significant in determining the
degree to which a faculty member would be willing to make special
efforts to improve his instruction. The presence of Reward in the
influence situations presented to subjects resulted in a higher mean
score than did its stated absence, but the difference was so small as
to not be considered statistically significant. It was the least
effective factor tested, as measured by the amount of variation accounted
for in subjects' scores;lleward accounted for only .09 percent of this

variation.

101

These results are surprising based on the previous research and
writing and common sense about the effect of Reward on human behavior.
Four alternative explanations for the finding are offered: 1) Reward
may be effective but only in the presence of other factors; 2) Reward
is an important factor but the operationalizations chosen for study were
not effective; 3) Reward is influential but individuals are not willing
to admit it; and 4) Reward is mgt_effective because intrinsic interest
is more important or because faculty members do not believe that improve-
ment will be rewarded.

First, using the empirical results of this study it can be said
that a presence of Reward is not effective unless a Perceived Need to
Improve is also present. This finding has already been discussed with
respect to Perceived Need. Sanford's comment about the effect of
Reward (which he refers to as a "behavioral or mechanistic" means of
change) would seem to have been the most predictive of all those
made about the effect of this factor. Reward may be an important and
effective factor, but based on this investigation it may not work
in the absence of other important conditions.

The second major explanation for the lack of a Reward main
effect concerns the operationalizations used to test the factor.
Reward, as a general factor underlying instructional improvement,
may in fact be effective, yet the specific operationalizations chosen
for study may not have made very much difference to faculty members.

An effective reward is usually characterized as a stimulus of some
kind which results in a increase in the rewarded activity (Whaley and
Malott, l97l). Since the operationalizations listed above in this

section did not result in a significant increase in stated willingness

102

to improve instruction, it might be concluded that they were not
effective rewards. Previous research and writing have suggested that
these would be the most effective operationalizations, but with the
group studied this may not be the case.

Third, even if Reward is an effective factor and the operation-
alizations are effective rewards, there remains the possibility that
individuals may deny that their behavior could be motivated in this
way. As will be shown below, it would appear that at least some of
the faculty members studied prefer to think that they are intrinsically
motivated to improve their instruction and do not need and do not
respond to external incentives. In this study subjects were asked to

make self-reports as to the degree they would be influenced to make

 

special efforts to improve instruction. If there does exist an
unwillingness among people to admit that they would be influenced by
reward and punishment to behave in certain ways, then this research
method would be particularly vulnerable to it.‘ If subjected jm_yi!p

to the same reward contingencies described in the influence situations
used in this study, faculty members may very well increase their
participation in improvement activities. But when given the opportunity
to rationalize their behavior, they may indicate that this factor would
not be an effective stimulant.

Finally, it could very well be that offering Reward to faculty
members for instructional improvement may simply mgt_make any difference
in whether or not they attempt to better their courses and teaching skills.
This explanation might, in turn, be based on two possibilities. First,

intrinsic motivation may be a more influential factor than the type of

 

direct, extrinsic rewards suggested in the situation descriptions. A

103

number of the authors who cite the importance of Reward preface their
remarks with mention of the importance of intrinsic interest. For them
Reward becomes a factor in addition to this intrinsic motivation.
Korn (1974) provides a good example: "There is, of course, the motiva-
tion inherent in the tasks of teaching and research: the discovery of
truth, the creation of ideas. This intrinsic motivation is strong for
most faculty. However, it is obvious that extrinsic incentives have
a significant effect as well" (p. l32). The results of the present study
provide little support for the second statement, but the first suggests
a reason for the lack of a main effect for Reward as operationalized in
this research.

Unsolicited written comments made by subjects give additional
credence to this reasoning. A Professor of Forestry remarked:

True creativity and responsibility towards the University

and the students cannot be bought. Changes in teaching

methods stimulated by token salary increases or teaching

awards would in most cases be phony ones. Do you think

that the serious photographer or engineer or surgeon

would produce superior work just because someone is

dangling an award in front of him?
An Associate Professor of English made a similar comment:

The motivation for improvement does not come from my

colleagues, or from a system of rewards (salary, promotion),

or from any external source; it is simply part of my com-

mitment to the students in my classes, and to the pro-

fession as a whole. That commitment is personal. I like

to be rewarded for teaching well, but I would try my best

regardless.

A second possibility for the lack of a Reward main effect
focuses on the place of teaching in American higher education. It
was mentioned in Chapter II that teaching and its improvement does not
always receive reward commensurate with that for other activities, most

notably research. The argument was made, though, that if teaching was

104

rewarded equally, then efforts at instructional improvement would
increase. Korn (l974) proposes that "in general what is needed to
improve teaching effectiveness are incentives that are as highly
valued as the incentives provided for research" (p. l32).

But, it is possibly that teaching and teaching improvement
are at present so low on the list of rewarded activities that subjects
found it hard to accept the reward contingencies in the situation des-
criptions. This reasoning is also lent support by subjects' written
comments. A faculty member in the department of Humanities reported:
"My experience . . . has led me to conclude that administrators seldom
recognize innovations in teaching either through monetary rewards in
salary or in released time for experimentation." An unidentified
professor added: "I'm struck by how few of these incentives are
present at MSU-~teaching is mgt_rewarded, especially by the higher
administration."

Rewards for teaching and teaching improvement might be a
effective stimulants to instructional improvement if these activities
commanded a greater proportion of total reward. But even if the
university allocated them the greatest weight in determining promotion,
salary, and tenure, the fact that research efforts pay off not only
within the university but outside as well (unlike teaching) makes it
difficult to see how Reward for teaching and teaching improvement
can compete effectively. Katz (l964) offers that reliance on instru-
mental reward can influence behavior only to the extent that one's
organization's rewards are competitive with other organizations' rewards.
In the case of a university professor, the rewards of external funding

agencies and the profession as a whole often outweigh those that the

105

university itself can bring to bear on goals and priorities. These
sources of Reward emphasize research and public service not teaching
and teaching improvement.

Four explanations for the lack of a significant main effect for
Reward have been presented. They may each have a part to play in
accounting for this result; they may be complimentary explanations.
Intrinsic motivation may be more important in determining whether
a faculty member makes special efforts to improve his instruction.
If intrinsic incentives have an additional effect, though, it could
depend on the particular way in which the factor is operationalized
and/or the presence of other conditions (such as a Perceived Need to
Improve. In addition, Reward may work, yet the individual effected
may be unwilling to admit to this influence on his behavior. Finally,
university faculty members may have a hard time believing that
instructional improvement will be rewarded, hence, give little

consideration to this factor in carrying out their duties.

Peer Support

Many of the authors who comment on instructional improvement
and faculty development mention the importance of Peer Support for
efforts to improve teaching. "Colleagueship" in which faculty members
assist each otier identify and try out new instructional approaches;
norms and expectations among department members that special efforts
should be made to improve courses and teaching skills; examples of
instructional improvement by colleagues, particularly respected peers;
and articulated concern for the quality of instruction all_make use

of the basic sociological factor of Peer Support.

106

The assumption is that unless group norms and actions sanction
teaching and efforts to improve it a faculty member must act indepen-
dently and possibly "against the grain" in his department. Few
individuals will make sustained efforts in the face of a lack of
support. Gaff (l975a) suggests that "as much as an individual may want
to change and develop, it will be difficult for him to do so unless he
has the support and encouragement of his associates" (Pp. 26-27).

The results of the present study do support this factor as a
stimulant to instructional improvement. It must be noted that the factor
did not reach the pre-specified level of confidence set for its statisti-
cal test (.05), but it was statistically significant at .058. Thus,
the presenceof Peer Support will be considered to have an important
effect on a faculty member's willingness to make special efforts to
improve instruction.

Because of the tenuous nature of the finding, though, some
explanation might be given as to why the factor was not more influential.
Three possibilities are offered: l) the operationalizations chosen are
not the most effective, 2) faculty members may resist peer group influence
even though it does have a directive effect on their behavior, and 3) Peer
Support may simply not be important in determining how a faculty member
carries out his duties.

First, the operationalizations chosen for the factor may not have
been the most effective. Since the degree of respect one has for a
colleague or group of colleagues is an important determinant of the
influence that individual or group will have (Loree, l97l). the peer
group mentioned in each of the Operationalization (the department) may not
garner enough respect to be an effective stimulant to instructional improve-

ment for many subjects. Departments at a university such as Michigan State

107

can be large and diverse in their membership. In such a case sub-
groups of faculty members might become the important peer groups. Also,
groups outside the department and even outside the university may be
more respected and, hence, more influential than the department or any
of its smaller groupings. Borlund's (l974) research indicates that
influence rests with the lowest organizational level at which a commonal-
ity of goals is perceived. For the faculty members sampled in this
present study, this could very possibly be a group different from the
"department."

Second, peer group expectations are usually thought to have
some directive influence on group members' behavior. The actions
required, though, may not be those which an individual member desires
to exhibit. Bergquist and Phillips (l975b) comment that "one of the
paradoxes inherent in change is that people and institutions are least
likely to change when someone tells them they should change" (p. l88).
Faculty members, who value autonomy and independent decision making
regarding how they spend their time and effort, may openly resist
any suggestion that their behavior come under the sanction of any group
to which they belong, even though in the long run their actions
conform closely to the norms and expectations of these groups.

Finally, Peer Support may put be an important consideration
in whether university faculty members participate in the instructional
improvement. This possibility may be especially true at a major research
university such as Michigan State; independent initiative, not group
cooperation, have been most important to the individual's advancement
in this academic environment. This fact has most likely been true for

the person's development as a teacher as well as his progress in his

108

research specialization. The faculty member may welcome the support
of his colleagues for his efforts to improve his instruction, but he
has come not to expect it, and if he is going to attempt to improve,

he does it whether or not he receives Peer Support.

Institutional Support

Institutional Support has been considered in this research as
an organizational factor in facilitating instructional improvement.

The assumption exists that if certain kinds of physical facilities,
funding, and time are provided to a faculty member by the institution,
the likelihood increases that he will be more interested in improving

his instruction. Operationalizations of this factor, such as time
released from regular duties, instructional improvement grants, assistance
in developing teaching skills, and assistance with technical aspects of
instructional improvement, no doubt reflect a certain amount of Peer
Support and may be considered by some as Reward. But, for the purposes
of studying instructional improvement strategies, they seem distinct

from the operationalizations suggested for these other factors. As cited
in Chapter II, the previous literature includes frequent mention of
various forms of Institutional Support.

The present research supports this hypothesis; a presence of
Institutional Support results in greater stated willingness to make
special efforts to improve instruction. The effect was not a particularly
strong one, and the factor accounted for only one percent of the variance
in subjects' responses. But, none the less, it cannot be ruled out as
a potentially important factor in stimulating instructional improvement.

A number of subjects made unsolicited written comments about the

importance of time to pursue instructional improvement. Even though one

109

Operationalization of this factor involved released time, these
subjects wanted to especially make the point of suggesting time as
crucial to whether a professor will make special efforts to improve
his courses and himself as a teacher. A faculty member from Latin
American Studies offered: "The immediate problem, in my own instance,
is not lack of university resources but lack of time." Spitzer (l975)
found in his research at SUNY at Albany that faculty members thought
time constraints to be the biggest hindrance to improvement. Sixty
percent of those surveyed agreed with this assessment.

Institutional Support figured in one of the two interactions
that have been considered significant. The presence of this factor
was more influential than its absence when Perceived Need was absent.
This result went counter to the prediction made in advance of the
study; it was hypothesized that Institutional Support would be most
effective when Perceived Need was present for a faculty member. The
finding does, though, make intuitive sense of its own. When an
individual possesses a need to improve, then additional factors may
not be essential. But, when there is no need to change generated
within the person, then the promise of Institutional Support may
become more important in stimulating instructional improvement.

Less has been said about this factor in the literature
than the other factors, and to this investigator's knowledge no
research has been done on its effectiveness in instructional improve-

ment programs. For this reason these results should be considered

important.

110

Interaction Among Factors

Interactions were hypothesized between Perceived Need to
Improve and each of the other factors. Only two separate interactions
were considered statistically significant: Perceived Need and
Reward and Perceived Need and Institutional Support. Each of these
hypothesized interactions have been discussed with respect to their
main effects, so they will not be considered again. Instead, an
explanation for the general lack of interaction is proposed.

In Chapter IV it was suggested that because of the multi-
stimulus nature of the situations faced by a faculty member in a
university, interactions among factors might be prevalent. This
complexity of the university and the professor's existence within it
can be offered, though, as an explanation for a lagk_of interaction
as well. McKeachie (l970), reaction to criticism of the ”interaction"
position on teaching methods, argues that "teaching and learning is
an enormously complex business in which so many variables are involved
that interaction effects, like method effects, pop up only a little
way above the apparent noise generated by the other variables" (p. l2).
In the present study only l9 percent of the total variance in subjects'
stated willingness to improve was accounted for by the five factors
studied. Thus, significant interactions among these factors may be

masked by other important variables not considered in this study.

Relative Effectiveness of Factors

As already mentioned, Perceived Need to Improve was the
most potent of the factors tested, as measured by the amount of
variance in the dependent variable accounted for by each factor.

Fifteen percent of the variation in faculty members' stated willingness

111

to make special efforts to improve instruction can be accounted for
by Perceived Need. Knowledge of Alternatives and Institutional
Support were the next most effective factors, but they each accounted
for only one percent of subject score variation. Peer Support was
responsible for .8 percent and Reward for only .09 percent.

It was hypothesized that there would be no difference in
the impact of these factors. This was done principally because little
in the previous literature suggested any particular order of effective-
ness. But, the fact that Perceived Need was most potent, and by
such a large degree, should not be surprising. Of all the factors,
it was intended to have the most direct impact on an individual.
A dissonance created by a discrepancy between desired and actual
behavior is an internal event and cannot be easily escaped. If not
rationalized, the course of action for reducing the dissonance is
readily apparent: a change or improvement in present behavior.
Knowledge of Alternatives and Institutional Support, on the other
hand, can more easily be ignored; and adequate Reward and Peer Support
can be received for activities other than teaching and teaching
improvement.

0f most concern in this analysis, though,-may be the fact that
only 19 percent of the variation in subjects' responses was accounted
for by the five factors tested in the analysis model. This result
means that subjects' individual differences, influence factors not
formally considered, and/or errors in measurement account for the
remaining 81 percent.

The subjects in this study, although all "tenure system"

faculty members at Michigan State University, can be assumed to be a

112

diverse group of individuals on almost any variable considered.
Individual characteristics such as age, sex, degree and rank,
academic specialization, college and department, the nature of one's
responsibilities at Michigan State (faculty surveyed had varying
amounts of time devoted to teaching) might have a considerable amount
of impact on subjects' responses. These individual differences

have not been studied in this present research. The attempt was

to determine the effectiveness of the five factors across an gmtjme;
university faculty. But, in future research these characteristics
and others might profitably be taken into consideration.

Other influence factors might include the type of improvement

 

activity in which faculty members are asked to participate (Gaff,
l975b; DeBloois and Alder, l973). The present research asked the
degree to which faculty members would be influenced to make "special
efforts" to improve instruction. Special efforts were defined as

any improvement activity which would be considered "over
and above the call of duty." ‘Examples might include the
development of a new course or redesign of an existing course
when teaching assignment does not necessarily require it,
change in instructional method (e.g., from group-based to
individualized instruction), development of supplementary
materials (e.g., student workbook, printed lecture notes,
problems and exercises, introduction of new media or
technology (e.g., special graphics, television, computer--
assisted instruction), work to improve classroom skills.
(e.g., lecture presentation, discussion leadership).

If other activities had been proposed, the results of the study might
very well have been different.

The activities defined for this study require considerable
time and effort to accomplish. In addition to the type of activity,
the amount of time and effort necessary to accomplish instructional

improvement may be a significant factor. It has already been mentioned

 

qfia MINI—Unfirmn .3 .. ......Ufl'i‘
1 ... . vi

 

Ill!

113

that time was foremost in the minds of many of the subjects
surveyed in this research.

Also a faculty member's experience with the activity_might

 

be an important factor. If previous experiences have been satisfying,
then the person will be more likely to pursue the activity or similar
activities again in the future, despite the presence or absence of
other factors.

In addition the opportunity for jgput_into group or organiza-
tional decisions to change or improve may influence whether an
individual makes the efforts required or resists them. Many approaches
to organizational development emphasize participative decision-making
and management (Boyer and Crockett, 1973).

Finally, pressure of formal authority, particularly the use
negative sanction or punishment, was dismissed when deriving the
Reward factor from Lindquist's (l974a) Legitimate Authority model.

This pressure, though, could be an important and effective factor
in whether a faculty member approaches instructional improvement.
University professors may, in fact, respond more to academic governance

and administrative edicts than to persuasion, reinforcement, and support.

Limitations

As suggested in Chapters I andIV’this research has important

limitations. This section briefly restates them in light of the results

of the study.

Limitation l

 

Numerous strategies,.whi¢h invoke numerous psychological,

sociological, and organizational factors, logically become possible when

114

'one begins to attack a problem as complex as how to encourage a
faculty member to approach instructional improvement. The bounds
of one study cannot hope to accomodate all of them. The instructional
improvement and faculty development literature itself, let alone the
lower school and non-school research, lists many more factors and
operational strategies than could possibly be studied in one experi-
mental investigation. Also, the exigencies of research design
realistically limit the number of variables whichcan be dealt
with at any one time. In this study an attempt has been made to
identify the most salient factors and most promising operationalizations
based on prior research and practical experience. A
This means that some factors and some operationally manifested
strategies have not been considered which might be equally, if not
more, influential than those selected. The results of the present
study give credence to this limitation: the most potent factor
(Perceived Need to Improve) was responsible for only l5 percent of the
variation in subject responses, and the five factors together accounted
for only l9 percent. Other influence factors, such as those suggested
in the previous section (type of activity, time and effort required,
previous experience, imput into decision making,pressure from formal
authorities) might individually or collectively prove to have a larger
impact. The possibility also exists that no single factor or group of
factors will account for a large share of response:variation. The
fact may be that many factors go into determining whether a faculty
member participates in instructional improvement, and that applying one

or a few factors will not be a totally effective approach to either

research or practice in this area.

115

Given this situation no attempt can or will be made to
conclude from the results of this research that evidence has been
gathered on the_factors or strategies or that Perceived Need to
Improve (as the most potent factor in this study) promises to be the
most effective of all possible approaches to instructional improvement.
This research builds on previous work and at the same time provides
some direction for future inquiry. It offers some tentative answers

to the research questions raised, not the total and final answer.

Limitation 2

 

In this study the responses of all_subjects were aggregated
in the analysis. Individual personality or developmental characteristics
or sub-group membership were not examined. The purpose of the study was
to test the general efficacy of certain factors across a broad and
diverse group of college faculty members. But, personal characteristics,
of either an individual nature or common to an identifiable sub-group
of subjects, may very well have mitigated the impact of one or all
of the factors tested. The research approach used may mask the
fact that certain strategies work with certain individuals or sub-
groups of faculty but not with others.

The fact that such a small amount of the total variance
was accounted for by the factors tested lends some importance to
this limitation. In addition to factors not considered, subjects'
individual and sub-group differences (such as age, sex, degree and
rank, discipline, college or department) could very well have been
responsible for this result. Given this situation the conclusions
made from the study must be limited. The statement that "on the

average" this or that strategy or combination of strategies works

116

may be warranted. But, a prediction that approach A will work with

person X must wait further investigation.

Limitation 3

 

The nature of the research method used limits the generaliza-
bility of the study's results. Rather than actually submitting faculty
members to influence situations containing the factors under study,
subjects were asked to respond to written descriptions of the
situations. Because the descriptions do not present exactly the
same "conditions" as would the combination of factors jm_gjyp, direct
statements cannot be made about the behavior of university faculty
members when actually confronted with the situations. Generalizations
from the findings of the present study must be of an "indirect" nature.

Results of the study, although indirect, do provide pmg_indica-
tion of the impact of five particular factors on a faculty member's
willingness to participate in instructional improvement activities.

The facts that four factors had a significant main effect and that one
did not, that one factor interacts significantly with two others, that
besides these two there was a general lack of interaction among the
factors, that one factor was much more potent than the others, and
that all factors tested accounted for a very small amount of the
variance in subjects' responses gll_constitute useful infbrmation.
They give support to some previous research and writing and present
contradictions to some other previously held ideas. This information
might provide some guidance to the practice of instructional improve-
ment and direction to future research. But, these claims must remain
tentative because of the methodological limitation in this study. Not

until these factors are studied jm_vivo can inferences be made about how

117

faculty members will actually behave in the situations investigated

in this research.

Implications for Research and Practice
The results of this study have implications for both research
and practice in the field of instructional improvement and faculty
development. Many of these implications were suggested in the previous
discussion of results and limitations. In this section they are

stated more explicitly.

Implications for Research

 

Research Implication l

 

The overriding implication for future research results from
the methodological limitations of this study. Even though the method
used has advantages over others that might have been considered, it
remains a paper-and-pencil similation and does not provide direct
evidence of faculty members' actual response if confronted with the
situations described to them. To overcome this limitation, faculty
reactions to the operationalized factors must eventually be investi-
gated jm_yjyg, Thus, it is recommended that the results of the present
study be followed up in some kind of "real world" experiment.

Two approaches might be taken to this type of research. First,

situations in which particular combinations of factors already exist

 

might be identified at various colleges and universities. In each
location the impact of existing factors on the behavior of faculty
members with respect to efforts at instructional improvement could be

observed. This approach would provide an indication as to whether

118

a particular combination of factors is effective or not effective
in stimulating improvement activities.

This approach is limited, though, in the number of distinct
situations that can be studied. It would be difficult, if not
impossible, to identify institutions (or units within them) that are
characterized by all the unique combinations of factors studied in the
present research. Also, results would be difficult to interpret
because subjects in this type of study would not be randomly assigned
to situations. Finally, similar situations at different schools might
not be standard in terms of the specific operationalization used and
the degree to which a factor is present or absent. This approach, if
attempted, would require a detailed description of each situation
being studied. Results from across situations and institutions
would have to be pieced together logically in order to reach conclusions
about the effects and interactions of the factors studied.

The second approach to studying the factors jp_!jgp_would
require manipulating existing situations so that they include a
particular combination of factors. Schools (or units within them) could
be randomly assigned to situations as treatments.

This approach also has limitations. To study all five
factors and all possible combinations, the cooperation of a large
number of institutions or units would have to be enlisted. A certain
amount of deception may be necessary; the experiment may have more
validity if subjects do not know they are part of a study. Both of
these conditions may be difficult to achieve. An alternative is to
study only certain factors or certain combination of factors. Since

Knowledge of Alternatives and Peer Support did not interact significantly

119

with other factors, each could be studied by themselves. The
significant interactions (Perceived Need and Reward and Perceived
Need and Institutional Support) might be the first groupings to be
investigated. Studying fewer factors reduces the number of

experimental units needed.

Research implication 2

 

Short of an jg gjpp_study of the factors, additional experi-
mentation might be undertaken using the simulated.approach designed
for the present research. Faculty members at other universities
similar to Michigan State could be studied as a means of cross-
validating the results. If institutions and faculties have demonstrably
similar characteristics and if the results were the same at each
school, then more confidence could be placed in the findings of this line
of research. This type of generalization across institutions would
lend support to factors and strategies which may be useful to instructional
improvement programs at similar institutions.

In addition, faculty members at schools not similar to

 

Michigan State University could be studied. If instructors at four-
year colleges or two-year colleges respond in a similar fashion to
those studied at Michigan State, then the results would enjoy an even
wider generalizability. If results were not similar, then the
differences could be noted for the purposes of further investigation
of these differences and for the practice of instructional improvement

at different types of institutions.

Research Implication 3

 

There is some justification for further study of each of the

factors identified and tested in this research. At the very least

120

additional operationalizations of each factor could be tested.
Although those chosen for this study were the most frequently used by
instructional improvement programs and the most promising based on
previous research and writing, there may be other operatidnalizations
which make use of a factor equally well. Knowledge of the effect of
additional operationalizations would increase the storehouse of
validated strategies available to instructional improvement programs.

Also, each factor may have mitigating conditions which affect
its influence on faculty members' willingness to participate in
instructional improvement. It was suggested in Chapter II, for
example, that Knowledge of Alternative instructional methods would be
more effectively communicated in an interpersonal context rather than
in some impersonal way. In the present study Knowledge was
operationalized in both ways; interpersonally as group presentations,
ideas from colleagues, and ideas from consultants, and impersonally
as written information. The research design employed did not allow
information on the separate effect of each operationalization, but
future investigations could be designed to make this determination.
In this way the effects of mitigating conditions could be determined.
Each factor may have similar conditions which affect its usefulness
in stimulating instructional improvement.

Further empirical investigation of the factors could take

either an jm_vivo or simulation approach. In addition to further

 

experimentation, attempts could be made to provide each factor with
a more detailed theoretical explanation. A description of how change
takes place with respect to each factor was presented in Chapter II.

Further consideration of these assumptions might lead to a better

121

understanding of how a factor "works" and provide additional insight

 

into how a factor might be used in programs of instructional improve-

ment.

Research Implication 4

 

Since the factors studied in this research accounted for only
19 percent of the variation in the subjects' responses, an attempt
could be made to identify and test additional influence factors. As
mentioned in a previous section, variables such as type of activity,
time and effort required, experience with the activity, input into
decision making, and pressure of formal authority might provide a
starting point for such a search. The literature of instructional
development could be reviewed for additional factors; there are new
developments daily in this field. Literature on secondary and
elementary school teacher improvement and the more general psychological,
sociological, and organizational research and writing could also be

examined in greater detail than it was in this investigation.

Research Implication 5

 

Finally, individual and sub-group characteristics of faculty
members might be studied with respect to their influence on an
individual's willingness to make special efforts to improve his
instruction. As an alternative to influence factors not studied,
individual subject differences may have accounted for all or part
of the unexplained variation in subjects' responses. Considering the
effect of each factor with respect to age, sex, degree and rank,
academic specialization, college or department, and amount of time

devoted to teaching would provide an idea of the importance of

 

 

. . . . V1I§3VMIVtw§ w ‘1‘}
..

122

individual difference variables. In the present study this type of
personal data was not collected; the interest was to determine the
effect of the five factors across an entire university faculty. This
information could be gathered in future research and used as part of

the analysis.

Implications for Practice

 

This thesis began with a description of the lack of empirical
research in the field of instructional improvement and faculty
development. It was suggested that this failure to systematically
investigate approaches to the improvement of college teaching not
only limits understanding of faculty behavior generally but also provides
a weak basis for practical programs of instructional improvement. These
programs have proliferated and considerable funds have been allocated
to them by foundations, state and federal governments, and institutions
themselves. Yet, little "hard" evidence exists as to the effectiveness
of the strategies commonly employed. The results of the present study,
despite their limitations, hopefully play some part in alleviating this

situation.

Practice Implication l

 

Although the evidence is indirect, Perceived Need to Improve,
Knowledge of Alternatives, Peer Support, and Institutional Support
would seem to be general factors that instructional improvement
programs can profitably consider in their work with faculty members.
Some factors may work better than others (the data indicates this to
be the case) and a factor may be effective with some faculty members

but not with others (the study provided no evidence on this point),

123

but for approaching a university faculty as a whole these four factors
and the strategies that Operationalize them have promise of success

in stimulating the improvement of teaching.

Practice Implication 2

 

The ways in which each factor was operationalized in this
study would appear to be effective strategies fbr influencing instructors'
efforts to better their courses and teaching skills. Since the
research design did not allow a comparative testing of the individual
Operationalizations, the safest conclusion from the present results is
that these operationalizations used together will be more effective
than if used separately. One particularly operationalization may,
in fact, not be effective, and if it is used alone it may not result
in greater instructional improvement activity. This is a matter for
future research, but from the results of the present study the
operationalizations chosen seem to consistently reflect the factor
intended and were effective in getting a university faculty member
to indicate an increased willingness to make special efforts to improve

his teaching.

Practice Implication 3

 

Reward for instructional improvement by itself, as operation-
alized in this research, does not appear to have much promise for
practical efforts of encouraging better teaching. Only when there also
existed a Perceived Need to Improve did the presence of Reward make a
significant difference in faculty members' stated willingness to improve
their instruction. These results, because of the methodological limi-

tations of the study, should not cause colleges and universities to cease

124

rewarding faculty members for their efforts to improve their teaching.
Rather, the findings should indicate that Reward not be the pply_factor
or the primary factor manipulated in attempts to stimulate instructional
improvement. As the interaction with Perceived Need indicates, other

factors may serve as important prerequisites to Reward.

Practice Implication 4

 

The general lack of interaction among factors suggests that
those factors found effective can be used independently in improvement
efforts. Perceived Need, though, appears to be more influential when
Reward is present and when Institutional Support is absent, and Insti-
tutional Support seems to have more impact when Perceived Need is
absent. These interactions indicate that certain factors be considered
jointly when planning for instructional improvement. Also, despite the
lack of interaction, factors might more profitably be used together
because of the additional amount of influence (although not great) they

add to each other.

Practice Implication 5

Since Perceived Need to Improve was found to be the most potent
factor tested, and by such a large amount, strategies such as formal
evaluation of instruction, institutional and departmental self-study,
curriculum revision which gives faculty members new responsibilities,
and analysis of values and beliefs about teaching and learning might
serve as the basis for an instructional improvement program. These
strategies, based on the results of this study, have the most promise
for stimulating a faculty member to make special efforts to improve

his teaching.

125

Practice Implication 6

 

Finally, results indicate that there may be other important
variables which determine a faculty member's conmitment to instruc-
tional improvement. The five factors tested accounted for only 19
percent of the variation in subjects' responses. Although Perceived
Need to Improve, Knowledge of Alternatives, Peer Support, and
Institutional Support seem to be effective in stimulating efforts
to improve teaching, instructional improvement programs must consider
the possibility that other factors not tested in this research may
either further facilitate or possibly hinder improvement activities.

In addition to other influence factors, personal and sub-
group characteristics of faculty members may be as, if not more,
important as the five factors studied in determining whether an
individual will make special efforts to improve his courses and
teaching skill. Some factors and operational strategies may work with
some faculty members but not with others; some factors may be more
effective with individuals of a certain age, sex, academic unit,
discipline, or rank but not with those at another level of each of
these variables. Instructional improvement programs must consider
this possibility also.

As a last consideration, it must be noted that this study
has been undertaken at a major research university. The factors
found significantly related to the improvement of teaching at this
institution may not be so related at a college or university of a
different character. The results reported in this thesis can provide
some guidance to instructional improvement efforts at schools similar
to Michigan State University. Wider applicability awaits further

investigation.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Pilot Study
1. Instructions to Participants -

2. List of Participants

1. Instructions to Participants
of Pilot Study

May 10, 1976

To: Participants in pilot study

From: Robert E. Young

Thank you for agreeing to participate in the pilot of
my doctoral research.

If you will please read the rest of this memo and then
respond to the inventory items attached, you will have helped
me immensely. Return the items and your responses and comments
to me at 17 Morrill Hall in the addressed envelop enclosed.

Will you please do the following things?
1. Read and respond to each item on the scale provided.

2. Make any comments you have about each item (right on
the item itself). I am particularly concerned about whether
the item is comprehensible and believeable.

Did you understand the item as a whole and each of
its parts? Please indicate where you did not understand what
was been described.

was the situation believeable? Could it exist in
a university such as MSU (even though it might not exist in
your department or others at this time)? I want to eliminate
those entire situations and particular parts of situations
that completely out of the realm of possibility in a university
such as Michigan State.

 

3. Make comments about the stimulus question (“Given
this situation . . . ") and the scale.
Was the question comprehensible and sufficiently
directive for you to make a response?
was the scale satisfactory? In the number of points
making up the scale? In its labels ("not willing,”etc.)?

4. Make comments about the cover letter and directions.

5. Not discuss this research project with other faculty
at MSU until after the lst of June. I will be surveying nearly
one-fourth of the total faculty with the final version of these
items. I would like their responses to be as independent and
"uncontaminated" as possible (in order to fulfill an important
statistical assumption).

Thanks again. If you would like a summary report of my

research when it is finished, make a note of that on one of
the item pages. I will be happy to seen you a copy.

126

16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.

2. List of Participants
in Pilot Study

Daniel H. Saks, Assistant Professor, Economics

Bishop N. Pipes Jr., Professor, Humanities

Harold S. Johnson, Professor, Justin Morrill College

Fred J. Finley, Graduate Student, Science Education

John Burroughs, Assistant Professor, Urban Planning

George Gore, Associate Professor, Special Education

Glenn D. Berkheimer, Professor, Science Education

Byron Brown, Associate Professor, Economics

John P. Fry, Assistant Professor, Learning and Evaluation Service
Fred H. Stehr, Associate Professor, Entomology

Julia S. Falk, Associate Professor, Linguistics

Eugene Pernell, Associate Professor, Special Education

Lawrence T. Alexander, Professor, Learning and Evaluation Service
Marjorie S. Gesner, Professor, History

Douglas Dunham, Professor, Social Science

Stephen L. Yelon, Professor, Learning and Evaluation Service

John Bratzel, Assistant Professor, American Thought and Language
Sherry Anderson, Graduate Student, Human Ecology

Jerry K. Stonewater, Instructor, Engineering

Janet Favero, Graduate Student, Continuing Education

Leroy A. Olson, Professor, Learning and Evaluation Service

Floyd Lecureux, Assistant Professor, Computer Science

Allan J. Abedor, Assistant Director, Educational Development Program
Jerry Abramson, Graduate Student, Educational Psychology

William Anderson, Graduate Student, Instructional Development

127

26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.

128

Kivash Azima, Graduate Student, Chemistry

David West, Graduate Student, Educational Psychology

Michael J. Vavrus, Graduate Student, Instructional Development
Steven G. Sachs, Graduate Student, Instructional Development
Arvo Juola, Professor, Learning and Evaluatidn Service
William Frey, Instructor, Special Education

Charles E. Henley, Professor, Special Education

01-th

APPENDIX 8

Research Instrument
Cover Letter
Directions
Set of Situation Descriptions (Example)
Follow-up Reminder

Situation Descriptions (128)

1. Cover Letter
May 17, 1976

To: Michigan State University Faculty Member

From: Robert E. Young; Doctoral Candidate, Counseling,£9
Personnel Services, and Educational Psychology

I would like to ask your cooperation with my doctoral
research.

The attached short inventory (only four items) will
take you 15 minutes at the most to complete. The success
of my study depends on each inventory being returned, so
may I ask you to take the next few minutes to respond and
return the questionnaire to me via the enclosed addressed
envelope.

Also, may I ask you please not to discuss your responses
‘with other MSU faculty members until after the first of June.
It is important that each participant respond independently
to the inventory.

If you have questions about the inventory or the study,
please call me at either 3-4645 or 349-2799.

Thank you.

To: Faculty Colleague

From; “Walter G. Hapkiewicz; Associate Professor, Counseling,
a}! Personnel Services, and Educational Psychology

May I ask you to please assist Robert E. Young with
his doctoral research. As dissertation director, I fully
support his study, and I encourage you to respond to his
short questionnaire.

I can assure you that your responses will be dealt
with confidentially. The code number you will find on
each item page serves only to allow a follow-up of those
participants who have not returned the questionnaire after
a reasonable amount of time. Once your responses have been
recorded, Mr. Young will destroy the forms and the data
will become completely anonymous for analysis and reporting

purposes.

A number of other MSU faculty members have been asked
to participate in this study; a completed inventory from
each participant will be crucial to its success. Please
take the next few minutes to consider the attached directions
and complete the four items that follow. Thank you.

129

2. Directions

Directions-for c mpleting the inventory'items

 

This research seeks to explore factors that may influence
whether a university faculty member makes special efforts to
improve his or her instruction.

 

Each of the four items that follow describes a hypothetical
"influence situation” which a faculty member might face concern-
ing his or her instructional responsibilities. You will be
asked to indicate on the scale provided the degree to which you
would be willing to make special efforts to improve your course
materials and/or teaching skills, given the described situation.
(Other faculty participants in this study will respond to simi-
lar situations, consisting of different combinations of factors).

To guide your response, "special efforts" refer to any ,
improvement activity which would be considered "over and above
the call of duty". Examples might include the development of
a new course or redesign of an existing course when teaching
assignment does not necessarily require it, change in instruc-
tional method (e.g., from group-based to individualized instruc-
tion), development of supplementary materials (e.g., student
workbook, printed lecture notes, problems and exercises), intro-
duction of new media or technology (e.g., special graphics,
television, computed-assisted instruction), work to improve
classroom skills (e.g., lecture presentation, discussion leader-
ship).

Typical improvement practices such as changes in lecture
materials, selection of more current or better texts and assigned
readings, minor adjustments of course content and instructional
method, or minor modifications of test items and procedures
should not be considered as special improvement efforts. These
represent—an expected minimum commitment to instruction for any
university faculty member. Special efforts to improve ones'
instructional offerings go beyond these expected practices.

As you read each item, please place_yourself into the
situation and respond as‘if‘it‘actuallyieiisted. I am inter-
ested in knowing what your response—wEuId_beii£ the situation
were true and having an influence on you. Please keep this
in mind as you think abOut each item.

 

Note: ‘I will be glad to send you a shOrt description
of my research project and a summary of the results
when it is finished. Please write your name and cam-
pus address below if interested.

Name

 

Address

 

130

3. Set of Situation Descriptions (Example)

Cell 7: Perceived Need to Improve - Present
Knowledge of Alternatives - Present
Reward - Absent
Peer Support - Absent
Institutional Support - Present

7"].-

From your attendance at faculty seminars on various
instructional topics, you have some knowledge of teaching
approaches different from those you are now using.

Because of a recent curriculum revision by your
department, a number of your courses will need to include
new content and the use of new instructional methods.

The university provides, though, a service on campus to
assist faculty members develop skills in instructional
planning, classroom presentation, and student testing.

But, you know from past experience that you will not
be given any special public recognition by colleagues,
administrators, or students (e.g., mention in university
publications, invitation to make presentations) for
special efforts to improve your teaching. And, since you
have been a member of the faculty, very few of your colleagues
have made special attempts to improve their instruction.

If this situation actually existed, to what degree
would you be willing to make special efforts to
improve your instruction?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Not Slightly Moderately Very
willing willing willing willing

131

132

7-2.
A.knowledgeable instructional improvement consultant

has given you some ideas for teaching approaches different
from those you are now using.

But, you know that your department and the university
do not reward efforts at instructional improvement as highly
as they do other activities (i.e., research and publication,
public and university service). And, your colleagues are not
particularly concerned about the quality of instruction in
the department and do not encourage special efforts to
improve it.

The university, though, has an instructional resources
center to assist faculty members with technical aspects
of improving instruction (e.g., media, special materials
production, etc.)

A recent survey by your department shows that majors
(present and graduated) did not particularly like the courses
offered by the department (including your own). Reports
from these students' graduate and professional Schools and
employers indicate they were not taught as much as they
might have been about their discipline.

If this situation actually existed, to what degree
would you be willing to make special efforts to
improve your instruction?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Not Slightly Moderately Very
willing willing willing willing

133

7-3.

After some thinking about your own educational
philosophy and goals for teaching, you have decided
that the classroom approach (lecture, discussion, etc.)
you are now using is not consistent with either your goals
or philosophy.

In the past, your department and the university
have not rewarded individuals' special efforts to improve
courses and teaching skills. These activities have not
been counted when it comes to determining salary increases,
promotion, and tenure.

You regularly read,though, written information on
new curriculum trends , instructionsl materials, and
teaching techniques, thus you have some knowledge of
teaching approaches different from those you are now
using. And,the university will give faculty members
released time from regular duties to pursue special
efforts of instructional improvement.

In your department, however, there exists little
"colleagueship" built around teaching. Members do not assist
each other in identifying and trying out new content
materials and methods of instruction.

If this situation actually existed, to what degree
would you be willing to make special efforts to
improve your instruction?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Not Slightly Moderately Very
willing willing willing willing

134

7-4.
There exists no expectation among members of your

department that you should make special efforts to
improve your teaching skills.

However, a fellow department member has recently
told you about some instructional procedures different
from those you are now using.

But, as has been the practice at some other institutions,
the university gives no special awards for outstanding

teaching in each department.

Theinniversity, though, will provide Special financial
support (e.g., small instructional improvement grants) to
assist faculty members with special attempts to develop or
improve course materials and teaching abilities.

A recent evaluation of your instruction ( a combination
of colleagues, student, and self evaluations) indicates to
you that you are not succeeding with your teaching responsib-
ities as well as you would like.

If this situation actually existed, to what degree
would you be willing to make special efforts to
improve your instruction?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Not Slightly Moderately Very
willing willing willing willing

4. Follow-up Reminder

 

June 1, 1976

MSU Faculty Member:

A little over a week ago I asked you to participate in my
doctoral research by completing a short, four-item inventory.

If you have not yet done so, may I ask you to take the
next few minutes to locate the form (goldenrod cover letter), respond
to the situations described, and return it to me via campus mail. If
you cannot locate the form, I will send you another copy. Please
phone me (3-4645) or drop me a note. The success of my studypdgpends
on each form being completed and returned.

I greatly appreciate your cooperation in my research.

Robert E. Young

Doctoral Candidate

Counseling, Personnel Services,
and Educational Psychology

 

135

5. Situation Descriptions (128)

Note: All 128 situation descriptions have not been included

in this volumne. They are available on request from the author.

136

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

AAUP (American Association of University Professors). Colle e and
university teaching. Washington, D.C.: AAUP, 1933.

Abelson, R.P. Simulation of social behavior. In G. Lindzey and
E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2).
Reading, Mass.: Addison—Wesley, 1968.

Abelson, R.P. et al (Eds.). Theories of cognitive consistency:
A source book. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1968.

Ack, M. Is teachinggan art or a science or why wise men fail.
Paper presented at Michigan State Uni versity (Learning Service),
March 2, 1973.

Aleamoni, M. The usefulness of student evaluations in improving
college teaching. In A.L. Sockloff (Ed.), Proceedin s.
Champaign, 111.: Measurement and Research Division,
University of Illinois, 1974.

Aleamoni, L.M. Proposed system for rewarding:gnd improving
instructional effectTVeness. :Paper presented’atAnnual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Washington, D.C., April 1974. ‘

Alexander, L.T. The role of the psychological consultant. Paper
presented in symposium on the Rble of Psychology in Promoting
Instructional Development in Higher Education, Midwestern
Psychological Association meetings, Chicago, 1973.

Alexander, L.T. and Yelon, S.L. Instructional development aggncies
in higher education. East Lansing,MiEh.: ‘Michigan State
University, Cantinuing Education Service, 1972.

 

Almira, L.L. Institutionalpprovisions for faculty development in
seven tax-assistedfcolle es ofieducation in Michi an, 1966-
1967. Unpublished PH.D. diSsertation, Michigan tate
University, 1968.

 

Balyeat, R.E. Factors affecting:the acquisition and retention of
college7faculty. Washington,D.C1;U.S. Office of Education,
Bureau of Research, 1968.

Balyeat, R.E. Factors related to the promotion of university personnel
(CooperativeResearchEProject 5f017). Washington, D.CZ:
Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education, &
Welfare, 1965.

 

137

138

Balyeat, R.E. Institutional practice concerning faculty status and
rewards. Current Issues in Higher Educatipn, 1966.

Batista, E.E. The place of colleague evaluation in the appraisal of
collpge teaChing: A reView ofthepliterature (Research Memo
No. 2)) urbana, Ill.: Office of.Instructional Resources,
University of Illinois, 1973.

 

Bergquist, W.H., and Phillips, S.R. Components of an effective
faculty development program. Journal of Higher Education,
l975a, fig, 177-211.

 

Bergquist, W.H., and Phillips, S.R. A handbook of faculty development.
Washington, D.C.: Council for“the Advancement Of'Small
Colleges, 1975b.

Bevan, J.M. Faculty development (a votre sante'). Unpublished paper
for workshop for new academic deans, American Conference of
Academic Deans, Association of American Colleges, and Council
of Colleges of Arts and Sciences, Estes Park, Colorado,

June 23-28, 1974.

Behymer, C.E., and Blackburn, R.T. Environmental andppersonal
attributes related to faculty productivity. Center for the
Study of Higher Education, University of Michigan, 1975. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 104 317).

Blackburn, R.T. and Clark, M.J. An assessment of faculty performance
Some correlates between administrator, colleague, student,
and self-ratings. Sociology of Education, 1975, 48, 242-256.

Blegan, T.C. A movement gains momentum. School and Society, 1952, Z§3
17-20.

Bonham, G.W. Academic reform: Still a pseudoscience. Change: The
Magazine of Higher Learning, November 1975, 11—12.

 

Borders-Patterson, A. (Ed.). The new college teacher (Proceedings of
the First Annual Faculty Develbpment Conference). Durham,
N.C.: Regional Educational Labroatory for the Carolinas and
Virginia, 1968.

 

Borlund, D.T. Faculty roles and academic rewards. Intellect,
January 1974, 24-249.

Boyer, R.K., and Crockett, C. Organizational development in higher
education: Introduction. Journal of Higher Education, 1973,
44. 339-351.

 

139

Brandis, R. The rehabilitation of university_undergraduate teaching.
The Educational Record, 1964, g§,’56-63.

 

Brawer, F.B. Personality characteristics of college and university
faculty: Implications for the community college (ERIC
Clearinghouse for Junior Colleges/American Association for
Junior Colleges Monograph Series). Washington, D.C.:
American Association for Junior Colleges, 1968.

Brim, D.G., Jr., and Wheeler, S. ‘Socialization after childhood:
Two essays. New York: Wiley, 1966.

 

Brown, D.G. and Hanger, W.S. 130 pieces of a faculty development
program. Faculty Development and Evaluation in Higher

Bryan, R.C. Reactions to teachers by students,gparents, and adminis-
trators (Uhited States Office of'Education, Cooperative Research
Project No-668). Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University, 1963.

Buhl, L., and Greenfield, A. Contracting for professional development
in academe. The Educational Record, Spring 1975, 111-121.

Cartwright, D., and Zander, A. (Eds.). Group dynamics: Research and
theory (3rd ed.). New York: Harper anleo , 1968.

Centra, J.A. Two studies on the utility of stgdent rating§_(SIR Report 2)
Princeton,li.J.: Educational Testing Servite, 1972b.

Centra, J.A. Strategies for improving college teachin (AAHE-ERIC
Research Report). Washington, D.C.: ERIC learing house for
Higher Education, 1972a.

Centra, J.A. The effectiveness of student feedback in modifying
college instruction. Journal of Educational PsycholoQY. l973a,
10, 287-295.

 

Centra, J.A. Self-ratings of college teachers: A comparison with
student ratings. Journal of Educational Measurement, l973b,
19. 287-295.

Centra, J.A. Colleagues as raters of classroom instruction. ‘Journal
of Higher Education, 1975, pp, 327-335.

 

Chickering, A.W. Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
1969.

Choy, C. The relationship of teacher effectiveness to conceptual
§ystems orientation and perceptual orientation. Unpublished
Ed.D. dissertation, Colorado StateUniversity, 1969.

14C)

Commack, E.F. A study of factors related to mobility and achievement
at Michigan State UniverSity3-A fallow-up study. Unpublished
EdTD. dissertation, Michigan StateiUhiVersity, 1964.

Corman, H.J. Campus issues and problems. The Annals: Higher Educa-
tion Under Stress, Sept. 1955, p. 53.

 

Cox, D.R. Planningtof experiments. New York: Wiley, 1958.

Crano, W.D. and Brewer, M.B. Principles of research in social
psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973.

 

Crawford, S.C. A university-wide program of faculty development.
The Educational Record, 1961, 52, 49-53.

Criteria for the evaluationgpsupport and recognition of college teachers
(A special publication of the fund associates in National Project
III). Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan, Center for
Research on Learning and Teaching, December 1975.

Cronbach, L.J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.
Psychometrika, 1951, 1Q, 297-334.

DeBloois, M. and Alder, D. Stimulating faculty readiness for instruc-
tional development: A conservatiVe approach to improving_
college teaChing. Washington, D.C.: Council fbr the Advance-
ment of Small Colleges, 1973. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 078 745) .

DeWolf, V.A. Student ratings of instruction intpost-secondary institu-
tions: A’comprehensive annotated’bibliography of research
reports since 1968, Volume 1. Seattle: University of Washing-
ton, Bureau of Testing, June 1974.

Diamond, R.M. A question of priorities. Facult Development and
Evaluation in Higher Education, 1976, [(E), 3-4.

Dobbins, C.G. Empanding resources for college teaching (A report of
the Conference on College'Teachihg). Washington, D.C.:
American Council on Education, 1956.

Eble, K.E. The recognition and evaluation of teaching. Washington,
D.C.: American Association ofiUniversityiProfessors, 1970.

Eble, K.E. Career development of the effective colle e teacher.
Washihgton, DIG}: American Association ofUniversity
Professors, 1971.

Eble, K.E. Professors as Teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1972.

141

Eckert, Ruth E. Institutional conditions favorable to faculty
improvement: Report of the analyst of group VI. In
F.J. Kelly, Improvin College Instruction. Washington, D.C.:
American Council on E ucation, 1951. ‘

 

Eraut, M. Promoting innovations in teaching and learning: Problems,
process, and institutional mechanisms. Higher Education,
1975, 4, 13-26.

 

Festinger, L., and Aronson, E. Arousal and reduction of dissonance
in social contexts. In D. Cartwright and A Zander (Eds.),
Group dynamics: research and theory (3rd ed.). New York:
Harper and Row, 1968.

Festinger, L. Theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, 111.: Row,
Peterson,'l957.

 

Francis, J.B. How do we get there from here? Program design for
faculty development. Journal of Higher Education, 1975, pp,
719-730.

Freedman, M.J. (Ed.) Facilitatingfaculty development. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1973.

Freedman, M. and Sanford, N. The faculty member yesterday and today.

In M. Freedman (Ed.), Facilitatin Faculty Development.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, I973

Gaff, J.G. New approaches to improving teaching. In D.W. Vermilye
(Ed.), Learner-centered reform: Current issues in higher
educatign, 1975. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1975a.

 

Gaff, J.G. Toward faculty renewal. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
1975b.

Gaff, J.G., and Wilson, R.C. Moving the faculty. Change: The
Magazine of Higher Learning, October 1970, '9-12.

 

Gaff, J.G., and Wilson, R.C. Faculty values and improving teaching.

In G. Kerry Smith (Ed.), New teachin new learnin : C rrent
issues in higher education, 1971. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,

1971.

Gaff, J.G. and Wilson, R.C. The teaching environment. AAUP Bulletin,
1971. §Z, 475-493. '

 

Gage, N.L., Runkle, P.J., and Chatterjee, B.B. Changing teacher
behavior through feedback from pupils: An application of
equilibrium theory. In W.W. Charters and N.L. Gage, Readings
gn the Sggial Psychology of Education. Boston: Allyn and

acon, 3.

142

Garrett, C.D. A study of in-service improvement programs of eight
liberal arts colleges. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1957.

 

 

Glass, G.V., and Stanley, J.G. Statistical methods in education
and psychology. Englewood Cliffs, M.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1970.

 

 

Gray, W. S. The training college. Including their preliminary
preparation and in-service training (Proceedings of the Insti-
tute of Administrativeififficers of Higher Institutions, 1930,
Volumne II). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930.

Grimes, G.H., and Doyle, J. Development, design, and the process of
change. Audiovisual Instruction, 1971, 1g, 53-55.

Group for Human Development in Higher Education. Faculty develppment
in a time of retrenchment. New Rochelle, N.Yi: Change
Magazine,1974.

 

 

Grundstein, N.D. Approaches to development: faculty development.
University of Pittsburgh, 1960 (mimeo).

Guba, E. Teacher effectiveness, teacher satisfaction, and administra-
tive behavior: A study Of the school as a social organization
(Studies in Educational Administration). Chicago: University
of Chicago, 1957.

Gustad, J.W. Improved communication and the conditions of work.
Paper to Discussion Group 27 at the 15thiAnnual Conference on
Higher Education, Association for Higher Education, Chicago,
March, 1960.

 

Gustad, J.W. On improving college teaching. NEA Journal, 1964,
Q, 37'38 o

 

Haggerty, M.E. The faculty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1937.

 

Hall, D. Guiding principles for in-service improvement. In Herman A.
Estrin and Delmer M. Goode (Eds.), College and university
teaching. Dubuque, 1a.: Wm. C. Brown, 1964.

 

Hapkiewicz, W.G. and Schmidt, W.H. The influence of instructional
factors on various learning situations. *Papers presented at
ihe meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
New Orleans, February 1973.

 

Hartup, W. W. Peer interaction and social organization. In P.H. Mussen
(Ed. ), Carmichael' 5 manual of childgpsycholo ogy. New York:
Wiley, 1970.

143

Havelock, R.G. Planning_for innovation through dissemination and
utilization of knowledge. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Instituteiibr
Social REsearch, University of Michigan, 1971.

 

Havelock, R.G. The chan e agent's guide to innovation in_education.
Engelwood Cliffs, N.J.: Educatidhal Technology Publications,
1973.

 

Heider, Fritz. The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York:
Wiley, 1958.

Hodgkinson, H.L. Assessment and reward systems. In G. Kerry Smith
(Ed.), New teachin , new learning; Current issues in higher
education, 1971. an Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1971.

Johnson, E.H., Forestal, J.W., Jr., and Layman, G.H. A plan for the
improvement of teaching in state system institutions: Progress
re ort. Eugene, Oregon: Oregon State Board of Higher Education,

omm1ttee on Academic Affairs, May 21, 1968.

 

Johnson, D.G., and Stanley, J.C. Attitudes toward authority of
delinquent and non-delinquent boys. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 1955, 51, 712-716.

 

Katz, 0. The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral
Science, 1964, 2, 131-146.

 

Kelley, W.F.“ Twenty studies of inservice education of college facu1ty
and procedures most recommended. Educational Administration and
Supervision, 1950, 3Q, 351-358.

Kelley, W.F. Specific procedures for inservice improvement of the
college faculty. The Educational Record, 1951, 32, 132-141.

 

Kelly, F.J. improving college instruction (Report of the American
Council'on Education and U15. Office of Education Conference
on Improving Instruction, December, 1950). Washington, D.C.:
American Council on Education, 1951.

Korn, J.H. Promoting good teaching. Journal of Higher Education, 1974,
5;: 123-132. '

Ladd, E.C., Jr., and Lipset, S.M. What do professors like best about
their jobs? Surprise: it isn't research. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, March 29, 1976, 10.

Lee, C. B.T. (Ed.). Im rovin colle e teachin . Washington, D.C.:
American Councii on Education, 1967.

Levene, H. Robust tests for equality of variance. In I. Olkin,
Contributions to probability and statistics. Stanford, Calif:
StanfOrd University Press, 1960.

 

 

144

Lewin, K. Field theory in social science. New York: Harper, 1951.

Lewin, K. Frontiers in group dynamics. ‘Human Relationg, 1947, 1, 5-41.

 

Lindquist, J. 'Instructional serVices for teachingmimprovement: Combine
ur change assumptions. Paper presented at'International
on erence on Improving University Teaching, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst, October 1974a. .

Lindquist, J. Political linkage: The academic-innovation process.
Journal of Higher Education, 1974b, 55, 323-343.

Lindquist, J. The role of the external linkage egent in college and
university eetjon research. Strategies for Change and Knowledge
Utilization Project, Empire State College, Saratoga Springs,
N.Y., undated. _

Lippitt, R., Watson, J., and Westley, B. The dynamics of planned change.
New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company, 1958.

Lisensky, R. Resource allocation as a vehicle for change. Liberal
Education, 1975, e1, 32-41. .

Lorree, M.R. Shaping teachers' attitudes. In 8.0. Smith (Ed.),
Research in teacher education: A symposium. Englewood Cliffs,
N.JT: Prentice-Hall, 1971.

Luthans, F. Centralized control of faculty promotion policies and
upractices in large State uhiVerSities. UhpUblisfied Pfi.D.
dissertation, State University of IOwa, 1965.

Martin, W.B. Faculty development as human development. Liberal
Education, 1975, 61, 9-23.

McCall, H.R. et a1. Problems of new faculty members in colleges and
universities. ‘East Lansing, Mich.: center fOr StUdy of
Higher Education, Michigan State University, 1961.

 

McCarthy, J. In-service improvement of college teaching. In H.A.
Estrine and D.M. Goode (Eds.), Colle e and university teaching.
Dubuque, I.A.: Wm. C. Brown, 1 .

 

McCoy, P.C. How can faculty members share most effectively with their
colleagues the stimulation and knowledge gained from
participation in workshops and conferences. In K.G. Smith (Ed.),
Cuprept issues in higher education, 1958. Washington, D.C.:

NE , 958.

McGuire, W.J. The current status of cognitive consistency theories.
In S. Feldman (Ed.), Cognitive consistency: Motivational
antecedents and behavioral consequences. Neinork: *Academic
Press, 1966. ‘

 

145

McKeachie, W.J. Research on College Teaching: A review (Report 6).
Washington,D.C.: ERIC Clearinghcuse on Higher Education,
November, 1970.

 

Miller, D.M. and Lutz. M.V. Item design for an inventory of teaching
practices and learning situations. Journal of Educational
Measurement, 1966, p, 53-61.

 

 

 

Miller, R.I. Evaluating faculty performance. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, 1972. ‘

Miller, R.I. Developin uprograms for faculty evaluation. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 19 4.

Miller, W., and Wilson, M. Facultydevelopment procedures in small
colleges: A Southern survey. Atlanta: Southern Regional
Education Board, 1963.

M.S.U. (Michigan State University). Faculty Code of Teaching_
Responsibility. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University,
Academic Council, November, 1969.

 

 

Munson, P.J., Mason, J., and Wergin, F. So you want to try faculty
develo ment. Richmond, Va.: Virginia Commonwealth University.
1975. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 105 801)

 

Musella, Donald. Improving teaching: Another word. Improving College
and University Teaching, 1968, 1g, 167.

 

Neuberger, L.M. In-service improvement of teaching. In A. Estrine and
M. Goode (Eds.), College and university teaching. Dubuque, Ia.:

Nie, N.H. et a1. Statistical package for the social sciences (2nd ed.).
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.

Noonan, J.F. The impact of curricular change on faculty behavior.
Liberal Education, 1971, g1, 344-358.

Noonan, J.F. Curricular chan e: A strategy for improving teaching.
In D.W. Vermilye (Ed.i, The expanded campus: Current issues in
higher education, 1972. iSan Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1972.

Noonan, J.F. Case study prepared for the faculty development project
of the Council for the Advancement of Small Colleges, Center
for Improving Teaching Effectiveness, Virginia Commonwealth
University, 1974.

Norris, R.B. In-service techniques for'improving college teaching
Educational Administration and Supervision, 1953, pp, 370-374.

O'Banion, T. Teachers for tomorrow: Staff development in the community-
junior college. Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona Press,
1972.

146

Osgood, C. and Tannenbaum, P.H. Principle of congruity in the
prediction of attitude change. Psychological Review, 1955, 62,
42-55. iii "‘

 

Overall, J.F., and Speigel, O.K. Concerning least squares analysis
of experimental data. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 72, 311-322.

 

Popham, W.J. Higher education's committment to instructional improve-
ment programs. Educational Researcher, 1974, 3(12), 11-13.

 

President's Commission on Higher Education. Higher education for
American democracy, Volumne IV: Staffing higher education.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1947.

 

 

Pullias, E.V. Factors influencing excellence in college and university
teaching. The Educational Record, 1963, 53, 243—47.

 

Purdy, L. Helping teachers teach better. ghange: The Magazine of
Higher Learning, November 1973, 55-56.

 

 

Reeves, F.W. Faculty personnel management in higher institutions.
In E.J. McGrath (Ed.), Toward General Education, New York:
MacMillan, 1948. if

 

Reisman, D. The academic career; notes on recruitment and colleague-
ship. Daedalus, 1959, pp, 147-169.

Richardson, R.C., Jr. Staff development: A conceptual framework.
Journal of Higher Education, 1975, pp, 303-315.

 

Rous, S.N. et_al, The improvement of faculty teaching through
evaluation: A preliminary report. Journal of Surgical
Research, 1970, 11, 311-315.

 

Rous, S.N. et_al, The improvement of faculty teaching through
evaluation: A follow-up report. Journal of Surgical Research,
1972. 1;, 262-266.

 

Sanford, N. Academic culture and the teacher's development. Soundings,
1971, en, 357-371.

Sanford, N. Notes toward a general theory of personality development-
at eighty or any old’age. Unpublished paper presented to the
symposium, Henry Murray at Eighty, American Psychological
Association Annual Meeting, Montreal, August, 1973.

 

 

Schmuck, R.A., and Schumck, P.A. Group processes in the classroom,
(2nd ed.). Dubuque, Ia.: Wm. G. Brown, 1975.

 

 

1.33“ $13,321..." wing Tin?!” Hi

147

Shank, P.C. An empjoratory study of the interrelationships amongmthe
primaryelements within the reward system, position reguirements,

 

 

and position satisfactions for faculty in six colleges of educa-
tion in Michigan. UnpUblished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1968.

 

 

Sheedy, C. Higher education as a field of study: In-service training
of teachers (in large universities). In Current issues in higher

 

education. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association,
I957.

Siehr, M.E. Problems of new faculty members in community colleges.
Unpublished Ed.D. diSsertation, Michigan State University, 1962.

 

Skinner, B.F. Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Alfred A. KnOpf,
1971.

 

Smith, A.B. (Ed.). Faculty development and evaluation in higher
education: A new guarterly newspaper, 1975,—1(3), 37-39.

 

 

Smith, A.B. A new instructional development model for more effective
utilization of educational technology. Paper presented at the
Conference on Phofessional Development and Organizational
Development in Higher Education, College of Mount St. Joseph,
Cincinnati, Ohio, January, 1976.

 

 

Soffen, J. Faculty development in profeSsional education. New York:
Council of Social Work Education, 1967.

 

Spitzer, D.R. The importance of faculty attitudes in the planning
for instructional development. UnpublishEd paper, State
University Of NewlYork at Albany, 1975.

 

 

Stickler, W.H. Use of institution-wide agencies in improving teaching
effectiveness. In F.J. Kelly, Improving college instruction
(Report American Council on Education-U.S. Office of Education
Conference, December 1950). Washington, D.C.: American
Council on Education, 1951.

 

lead, 0. College teaching and collegeglearning: A plea for improve-
ment (the Frank E. Spaulding Lecture in Education for 1947-
1948). New Haven: Yale University Press, 1949.

 

Toombs, W. A Three-dimensional view of faculty development.
Journal of Higher Education, 1975, fig, 701-715.

 

Trent, J.W., and Cohen, A.M. Research on teaching in higher education.
In R.M.W. Travers (Ed.), Second handbook of research on teach-
ing, Chicago: Rand McNally, 1973.

 

Tuckman, B.W., and Oliver, W.F. Effectiveness of feedback to teachers
as a function of source. Journal of Educational Psychology,
1968, g9, 297-301.

 

148

Von Blum, P. Needed: A.code of ethics for teachers. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, October 21, 1974.

 

 

Weaver, P.C. Evaluation and improvement of teaching in-service--Report
of conference group P. In R.W. McDonald and J.L. McGaskill .
(Eds.) Current trends in higher education, 1948 (Official group
report of the Third Annual Conference on Higher Education).
Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1948.

 

Weeks, I.O. Teaching and institutional service vs. research and
professional writing. Journal of Higher Education, 1964, 2g,
45-47. *ii

 

Whaley, D.L., and Malott, R.W. Elementary_principles of behavior.
New York: Appleton-Century-Croft, 1971.

 

Wilson, L. The academic man: Ilstudy in the sociology of a profession.
London: Oxford University Press, 1942.

 

Young, Robert E. Faculty development: What's all the hubbub?
Unpublishedpaper, Michigan State University, 1976.

 

Zajonc, R. The concepts of balance, congruity, and dissonance.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 1960, gfi, 280-296.

 

Zajonc, R. Cognitive theories in social psychology. In G. Lindzey
and E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology,
Vol. I (2nd ed.). Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1968.

 

Zekhausen, S., and Zeckhausen, R. Encouraging improved performance
in higher education. Daedalus, 1975, 193, 97-107.

Zook, G.F., and Haggerty, M.E. The evaluation of higher institutions.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1936.

 

ll" saw-{um

t! ,' o .
“‘14) V" .‘r. ' l' ‘ I

IV LIBRARIES

minimum

1201

MICHIGAN STATE UN
i1WWIImllllilliilllilili
31293101