CHANGING THE WAY WE TEACH IN COLLEGE: FACULTY MOTIVATION IN AZERBAIJAN By Jeyran Aghayeva A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education—Doctor of Philosophy 2019 ABSTRACT CHANGING THE WAY WE TEACH IN COLLEGE: FACULTY MOTIVATION IN AZERBAIJAN By Jeyran Aghayeva This study employed qualitative interview approach to explore faculty teaching motivation for engaging in innovative teaching methods in Azerbaijani higher education context. Despite the ongoing reforms in Azerbaijani higher education system, many faculty at higher education institutions still resist the change in teaching and learning processes encouraged my many institutions. Therefore, traditional teaching methods that are arguably less effective in developing students’ critical thinking and analysis skills are a dominant practice characterizing the nature of teaching and learning in Azerbaijani undergraduate classes. This study explored one overarching research question: What factors influence faculty motivation in Azerbaijani higher education institutions for engaging in innovative teaching methods? The sub-questions embedded in this study were: (1) What motivational factors are more common among faculty in Azerbaijan?, (2) What are the most common inhibitors of teaching motivation?, and (3) How do these faculty overcome inhibiting factors? To address the above-stated questions, faculty who are known to engage in innovative teaching methods in Azerbaijani higher education institutions were selected and recruited. Ten faculty members were interviewed twice, which resulted in approximately 20 hours of interviews. The first cycle of the interviews took place in late June and early July of 2018. After the data were transcribed and the first cycle data analysis was done, the second cycle interviews followed in late July and August of 2018. Data triangulation was done through document analysis and memoing. Data analysis resulted in three overarching categories: (a) faculty teaching beliefs, skills, and knowledge, (b) faculty well-being, and (c) faculty personality traits. The findings suggest participants’ teaching beliefs, skills, and knowledge promoted their engagement in innovative teaching methods. In addition, faculty well-being and their personality traits were among the most influential categories of factors influencing faculty teaching behavior. The data also suggest a number of environmental, institutional, and individual-level factors can either promote or obstruct faculty engagement in a particular method of teaching. The data are consistent with the conceptual framework, the Faculty Teaching Motivation Model, I developed for this study. The model posits embedded in the environment, a number of individual and institutional-level factors influence faculty teaching motivation. The model highlights the role of faculty self-control strength in faculty teaching behavior. After the discussion of the emerged themes, implications for practice and research are presented. Copyright by JEYRAN AGHAYEVA 2019 Dedicated to my parents, Farman Aghayev and Tavazar Aghayeva, who have always supported my education in every way possible. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I must acknowledge several people who have supported me on this journey. I cannot thank enough my family who have always believed in me and supported me in every step of the way. I also want to thank my friends for their continuous support and encouragement. I want to extend my deepest gratitude to the dissertation committee members, Dr. John M. Dirkx, Dr. Leslie D. Gonzales, and Dr. Susan Printy, for their time, support, and guidance throughout this dissertation project. I am deeply indebted to my advisor and the Chair of the Dissertation Committee, Dr. Matthew R. Wawrzynski, for his valuable guidance and support. His advice, feedback, and encouragement have been very important to me throughout the doctoral program and during this dissertation study. I am grateful to my colleagues and peer reviewers, Afag Mustafayeva, Nigar Aghamaliyeva, Shefa Mustafayeva, Heather Turner, and Dunya Tahmazova who took time from their busy schedules and helped ensure the trustworthiness of the study findings. Many thanks to John Vasquez and Sapna Naik for their valuable support and encouragement during the writing process. I must also acknowledge the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Azerbaijan, ADA University, Michigan State University College of Education, and Dr. Jacqueline Taylor for their generosity and the financial support I received during this project and throughout my doctoral program. Many thanks to Dr. Vafa Kazdal and Dr. BetsAnn Smith for their support. Finally, I want to thank all the participants for willingly sharing their experiences with me, which made this research possible. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ xii LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... xiii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 Definition of the Key Terms ...................................................................................................... 5 Innovative Teaching ............................................................................................................ 5 Active learning .............................................................................................................. 6 Adult learning/Andragogy ............................................................................................ 6 Collaborative learning ................................................................................................... 7 Deep learning ................................................................................................................ 7 Flipped learning ............................................................................................................ 7 Interactive teaching ....................................................................................................... 7 Learner-centered teaching (LCT) ................................................................................. 7 Motivation ..................................................................................................................... 7 Post-Soviet scholars ...................................................................................................... 8 Problem-based learning ................................................................................................ 8 Self-control/Self-regulation .......................................................................................... 8 Surface learning ............................................................................................................ 8 Teacher-centered teaching ............................................................................................ 8 Traditional teaching methods ........................................................................................ 8 Western scholars ........................................................................................................... 9 Why Innovative Teaching? ....................................................................................................... 9 Problem Statement .................................................................................................................. 11 Purpose and Significance of the Study ................................................................................... 13 Research Questions ................................................................................................................. 13 Context .................................................................................................................................... 13 Higher Education in Pre-Soviet Azerbaijan ..................................................................... 14 Higher Education in Soviet Azerbaijan ........................................................................... 15 Higher Education in Post-Soviet Azerbaijan ................................................................... 17 Cultural Context ............................................................................................................... 18 Faculty Role ..................................................................................................................... 19 Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................................... 20 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 21 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................... 22 Defining Motivation ................................................................................................................ 24 Theories of Motivation and Self-Control Strength ............................................................ 26 Self-determination theory .......................................................................................... 27 Basic psychological needs .................................................................................... 28 Self-control strength model ........................................................................................ 31 Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................................... 32 vii Environment .................................................................................................................... 32 Motivators and Inhibitors ................................................................................................ 33 Amotivation and Intention to Act ................................................................................... 34 Facilitators and Barriers .................................................................................................. 34 Self-Control Strength ...................................................................................................... 35 Factors Affecting Faculty Motivation ..................................................................................... 36 Individual-Level Motivators and Inhibitors .................................................................... 38 Faculty beliefs, skills, and knowledge ....................................................................... 38 Self-esteem and mindset ............................................................................................ 41 Years of experience .................................................................................................... 42 Emotional burnout ..................................................................................................... 43 Faculty demographics ................................................................................................ 43 Institutional-Level Facilitators and Barriers ................................................................... 45 Institutional type ........................................................................................................ 46 Rewards and promotion systems ............................................................................... 47 Monetary incentives ................................................................................................... 47 High teaching workloads ........................................................................................... 48 Employment type ....................................................................................................... 49 Summary ................................................................................................................................. 50 CHAPTER 3: METHODS AND METHODOLOGY .................................................................. 53 Qualitative Research ............................................................................................................... 53 Constructivist Paradigm .......................................................................................................... 54 Epistemology .................................................................................................................. 55 Ontology ......................................................................................................................... 56 Research Design ...................................................................................................................... 56 Interview Approach ................................................................................................................ 57 Research Questions ................................................................................................................. 57 Data Collection ....................................................................................................................... 57 Interviews ........................................................................................................................ 58 Documents ...................................................................................................................... 59 Memoing ......................................................................................................................... 61 Research Site ................................................................................................................... 61 Participants ...................................................................................................................... 62 Sampling ......................................................................................................................... 62 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 63 Trustworthiness ....................................................................................................................... 65 Credibility ....................................................................................................................... 65 Triangulation .............................................................................................................. 66 Peer review ................................................................................................................. 66 Member checks .......................................................................................................... 67 Dependability .................................................................................................................. 67 Positionality ............................................................................................................... 67 Audit trail ................................................................................................................... 68 Transferability ................................................................................................................. 68 Thick and rich description ......................................................................................... 68 viii Maximum variation sampling .................................................................................... 69 Ethical Considerations of the Research .......................................................................... 69 Ethical issues checklist .............................................................................................. 70 Positionality .................................................................................................................... 71 Assumptions .................................................................................................................... 73 Summary ................................................................................................................................. 74 Delimitations of the Study ...................................................................................................... 74 Limitations of the Study.......................................................................................................... 75 CHAPTER 4: BACKGROUND INFORMATION ...................................................................... 76 Research Site ........................................................................................................................... 76 Overview of the Education System and HEIs ................................................................. 76 Participant Profiles .......................................................................................................... 78 The Participants’ Definition of ITMs ..................................................................................... 80 A Change in Traditional Faculty-Student Relationships ................................................ 81 Learning-Centeredness ................................................................................................... 83 Relatively New Teaching Strategies ............................................................................... 86 Interactive teaching .................................................................................................... 87 Problem-based learning ............................................................................................. 87 Classroom techniques ................................................................................................ 88 Summary ................................................................................................................................. 90 CHAPTER 5: FACTORS INFLUENCING FACULTY TEACHING MOTIVATION ............ 91 Overview of the Findings ........................................................................................................ 91 Environmental Factors .................................................................................................... 91 Institutional-Level Factors .............................................................................................. 92 Individual-Level Factors ................................................................................................. 94 Faculty Teaching Beliefs, Skills, and Knowledge Influence Their Teaching Decisions and Motivation ............................................................................................................................... 96 Defining the Goals of University Teaching .................................................................... 96 Faculty engage in ITMs because of their effectiveness ............................................. 97 Faculty Teaching Knowledge and Skills Influence Their Engagement in ITMs ............ 99 Factors Shaping Faculty Teaching Beliefs, Skills, and Knowledge ..................................... 101 Learning Sources Outside Academe ............................................................................. 102 Environment in the country ..................................................................................... 102 Economy ............................................................................................................. 103 Society ................................................................................................................. 104 Influence of the family ........................................................................................ 106 Learning Sources within Academe ............................................................................... 107 Student experience ................................................................................................... 108 Personal learning styles and needs as students ................................................... 108 University teachers and peers ............................................................................. 109 Teaching experience ................................................................................................ 111 National and global education standards ............................................................ 112 Collaboration and feedback ................................................................................ 115 Teaching professional development (TPD) ........................................................ 120 ix Exchange programs ...................................................................................... 120 Teaching-related trainings ............................................................................ 122 Students ............................................................................................................... 124 Student feedback ........................................................................................... 125 Student success .............................................................................................. 126 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 127 CHAPTER 6: FACULTY WELL-BEING AND PERSONALITY TRAITS ............................ 129 Faculty Well-Being ............................................................................................................... 129 Faculty Emotional Well-Being ............................................................................................. 131 Professional Satisfaction ............................................................................................... 133 Environmental factors .............................................................................................. 134 Institutional-level factors ......................................................................................... 134 Institutional support for professional growth ...................................................... 135 Faculty autonomy ................................................................................................ 136 Institutional rewards and promotion systems ..................................................... 140 Workloads ........................................................................................................... 144 Relationships with colleagues ............................................................................. 146 Students ............................................................................................................... 147 Well-equipped workspace ................................................................................... 148 Individual-level factors ............................................................................................ 150 Career choice and interest in the subject ............................................................. 150 Feelings associated with various teaching methods ............................................ 151 Faculty fears ........................................................................................................ 153 Personal Life Satisfaction and Emotional Well-Being ................................................. 155 Family support ......................................................................................................... 155 Personal goals .......................................................................................................... 156 Workloads and financial stability ............................................................................ 157 Faculty Physical Well-Being ................................................................................................ 159 Faculty Personality Traits ..................................................................................................... 161 Sense of Responsibility ................................................................................................. 162 Self-Control and Self-Control Strength ........................................................................ 163 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 170 CHAPTER 7: DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS ............................................................... 171 Environment .......................................................................................................................... 173 Global and Local Environment ..................................................................................... 174 Economy .................................................................................................................. 174 Society ...................................................................................................................... 175 Higher Education Environment and Faculty Motivation .............................................. 177 National and global education standards ................................................................. 177 Family and Teaching Motivation .................................................................................. 178 Individual-Level Motivators and Inhibitors .......................................................................... 179 Faculty Teaching Beliefs, Skills, and Knowledge ........................................................ 180 Faculty Well-Being ....................................................................................................... 182 Faculty emotional well-being .................................................................................. 183 x Faculty physical well-being ..................................................................................... 186 Faculty Personality Traits ............................................................................................. 186 Self-esteem ............................................................................................................... 187 Proneness to self-development, self-analysis, and reputation ................................. 188 Sense of responsibility ............................................................................................. 190 Self-control and self-control strength ...................................................................... 190 Faculty Experience ........................................................................................................ 192 Years of experience and faculty demographics ....................................................... 193 Institutional-Level Facilitators and Barriers ......................................................................... 194 Institutional Rewards and Promotion Systems ............................................................. 195 Monetary Incentives ...................................................................................................... 196 Faculty Autonomy ........................................................................................................ 197 Workloads ..................................................................................................................... 198 Professional Development Opportunities ..................................................................... 199 Facilities ........................................................................................................................ 200 Institutional Environment ............................................................................................. 200 Relationships with colleagues .................................................................................. 201 Students ......................................................................................................................... 204 Institutional Type .......................................................................................................... 206 Employment Type ......................................................................................................... 206 Revised Faculty Teaching Motivation Model ....................................................................... 207 Environment .................................................................................................................. 207 Individual-Level Motivators and Inhibitors .................................................................. 209 Amotivation and Intention to Act ................................................................................. 210 Institutional-Level Facilitators and Barriers ................................................................. 211 Self-Control Strength .................................................................................................... 212 Implications ........................................................................................................................... 214 Implications for Practice ............................................................................................... 215 Towards a more supportive institutional environment ............................................ 215 Implications for faculty ............................................................................................ 221 Implications for Research ............................................................................................ 222 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 222 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 224 APPENDIX A Interview Protocol ......................................................................................... 225 APPENDIX B Recruitment Survey ....................................................................................... 227 APPENDIX C Invitation to Participate ................................................................................. 229 APPENDIX D Consent Form ................................................................................................ 231 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 233 xi LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Participant Information .................................................................................................... 79 Table 2 Environmental Factors Influencing Faculty Engagement in ITMs ................................ 92 Table 3 Institutional-Level Factors Influencing Faculty Engagement in ITMs ........................... 93 Table 4 Individual-Level Factors Influencing Participant Teaching Motivation ......................... 94 xii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Proposed Faculty Teaching Motivation Model ............................................................. 33 Figure 2. Faculty Teaching Beliefs, Skills, and Knowledge and Engagement in ITMs ............. 102 Figure 3. Faculty Well-Being and Engagement in ITMs ............................................................ 130 Figure 4. The FTMM and the Study Findings ............................................................................ 172 Figure 5. Revised Faculty Teaching Motivation Model ............................................................. 208 xiii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Azerbaijani institutions of higher education, like many worldwide, are investing in faculty teaching professional development (TPD) to improve the quality of teaching. These institutions are realizing the importance of improving the quality of teaching to meet academic needs of increasingly diverse students. This awareness raised as the country went through the transition to the market economy and opened its doors to the wider world. The transition to the market economy pushed employers and the higher education community to realize that higher education institutions (HEIs) are not ready to prepare locally and globally employable graduates. The disconnect between employer requirements and graduate qualifications resulted in increased unemployment among college graduates (European Commission, 2011). According to the State Statistical Committee of the Republic of Azerbaijan (2018b), the unemployment rate for the 15- 29 year old population increased from 243.1 thousand in 2012 to 252.8 thousand in 2016, with a slight decrease in the percentage of those with a college degree (from 16.8% in 2012 to 14% in 2016). Because of the self-reported nature of these statistical data, however, the data set does not provide a full understanding of the employment situation of college graduates. Another influential factor that pushed the Azerbaijani higher education community to realize the need for improving teaching was globalization efforts in the country. After gaining independence in 1991 (Isaxanli, 2006), Azerbaijan opened doors to a larger world and welcomed all sorts of collaboration with international institutions. Education institutions, HEIs in particular, took more purposeful steps toward integrating to a larger world. The influence of western HEIs was more evident in this regard. Following the sample of western best practices, Azerbaijani colleges and universities started a shift toward a more complex system of higher education that includes more attention to the relationship between teaching and learning. This study focused on 1 that relationship by examining the motivation behind Azerbaijani faculty members’ switch towards innovative teaching practices. Institutions in Azerbaijan, aiming to get a worldwide recognition, are attempting to meet certain accreditation requirements. One step towards this goal was the decision to join the Bologna process in 2005 (Samadova, 2016), then shortly thereafter, there were structural changes made to the higher education system of the country in 2009. Under “the New Law on Education,” a three-cycle higher education system replaced a two-tier system that consisted of undergraduate and graduate levels (TEMPUS, 2010). The newly introduced system is comprised of the following levels: undergraduate (baccalaureate), post-graduate (master’s level), and doctorate levels (Azerbaijan Respublikasy Tehsil Nazirliyi, 2018a; TEMPUS, 2010). Alongside the structural changes (e.g., the establishment of private higher education institutions, the adoption of the credit-based system, and the application of contract-based faculty employment strategies), many colleges are making changes to their curriculum and teaching practices (TEMPUS, 2010). Although the centralized education system leaves little control over curriculum decisions, many colleges and universities are working with the Ministry of Education to address students’ academic needs (Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency [EACEA], 2017; Ministry of Education of Republic of Azerbaijan, n.d.; Samadova, 2016). A project named "Healthy education-healthy nation”, for example, aims at “improving the learning achievements of students, eliminating limitation of movements and other factors stemming from teaching conditions and protecting their health” (The Ministry of Education of Republic of Azerbaijan, n.d., para. 1). In line with the push towards innovative teaching and learning, such as learner- centered teaching (Barr & Tagg, 1995), active learning (Bonwell & Eison, 1991), and interactive 2 teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1984; 1986) among many, Azerbaijani HEIs are emphasizing the need for improving the quality of teaching through the adoption of innovative teaching approaches. The cooperation with institutions such as the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the British Council, Cambridge Assessment, Essex University, the Academic Exchange Service Germany (DAAD), the American Councils-ACCELS, Project Harmony, Open Society Institute, and the U.S. Embassy serves to provide teacher development opportunities for Azerbaijani faculty (Nabiyeva, 2003; Open Society Foundations, 2018; American Councils, 2015; British Council, 2018; German Academic Exchange Service, n.d.; Ministry of Education of the Republic of Azerbaijan, n.d.). However, these institutional and governmental-level efforts have not been fully successful in reshaping teaching at universities in Azerbaijan. Exchange programs with foreign institutions and faculty teaching professional development (TPD) efforts at the institutional level have not had a significant influence on the quality of college teaching. Institutional incentives yield minimal results, possibly because the majority of the faculty at these institutions resist the idea of changing their teaching behavior. Most faculty working at HEIs hold a more traditional, old-Soviet school understanding of teaching and faculty-student interaction. Through my work experience at a number of Azerbaijani HEIs, I observed many of my colleagues to engage in traditional teaching methods. Moreover, I was exposed to this type of teaching and learning in my own undergraduate and graduate student experience in Azerbaijan. As a student at an Azerbaijani higher education institution, I experienced a lecture-seminar model of teaching and learning in almost all the college courses. Similar to Kerr’s (1990) description of Soviet-style teaching, the college classes I attended were characterized by little classroom interaction between students and the lecturers, emphasis on the content knowledge, and rote memorization. 3 Unlike innovative teaching methods (ITMs), the lecture-seminar model of teaching puts more emphasis on the content than the learners (Kerr, 1990). Students in these traditional classrooms appear to be passive listeners and receivers of the content knowledge. The majority of the college classes I experienced, both in undergraduate and graduate programs, had almost all the elements of Soviet-style traditional teaching discussed above. Being a dominant teaching perspective, the traditional teacher-centered approach continues to characterize the nature of teaching in many higher education classrooms in Azerbaijan. This study proposed to examine those faculty in Azerbaijani institutions who have moved away from Soviet-style traditional teacher-centered approaches. Despite the above-mentioned resistance to the change among faculty, there are some faculty who choose to engage in innovative teaching practices. As a faculty member who worked at several HEIs, I had the chance to work and collaborate with such faculty. Known for their motivation to engage in innovative teaching, these faculty display a counter-cultural behavior of teaching. Performing under the similar institutional and cultural context as those who persist with Soviet-style methods, these faculty address students’ needs, their learning styles, and adopt other forms of innovative teaching to advance student learning outcomes. Understanding what motivates these faculty to embrace innovative teaching can help better support university faculty in their teaching endeavors. While the factors that inhibit faculty teaching are known, fewer studies have looked into what motivates the faculty who work under similar institutional and cultural contexts yet engage in innovative teaching. This study examined faculty motivation for teaching innovative classes in an Azerbaijani higher education context. 4 Definition of the Key Terms In this section, I provide the definition of the terms used in this study. First, I start with the definition of the term innovative teaching and explain the reasons behind this choice. Later, I provide definitions for several teaching methods and approaches used under this umbrella term. Teaching and learning approaches defined below are not mutually exclusive and can co-occur. Innovative teaching After a careful consideration of the contextual elements of the higher education setting of the country, I decided to use an umbrella term innovative teaching for the following reasons. First, the use of this term helped to avoid the mismatch between the participants’ definitions of non-traditional teaching and learning methods/approaches and the way they are defined in the U.S. literature. The participants of this study are faculty from diverse disciplines who work at different colleges and universities of the country. Their educational and professional background may dictate the way they define various non-traditional teaching methods and approaches. As mentioned earlier, faculty professional development sessions are arranged by the various government, non-government, local, and foreign institutions; therefore, there is a difference in the degree of exposure to various teaching and learning related terms. For instance, some of the faculty use the terms, such as learner-centered/ student-centered teaching, interactive teaching, and active learning, interchangeably. Because the goal of this study was not to examine the differences between these methods, rather the goal was to understand why faculty engage in these methods, the use of an umbrella term seemed an appropriate decision. The term innovative teaching captures many non-traditional teaching approaches the participants are exposed to and are engaging in in an Azerbaijani higher education context. 5 Second, innovative teaching is reflective of many of the effective teaching methods that can happen in higher education classrooms through the implementation and integration of non- traditional teaching approaches. For example, lecturing is the most common form of teaching in Azerbaijan. Some faculty integrate active teaching methods to make their lectures more engaging for students, which can influence student learning outcomes positively (Gibbons, Villafañe, Stains, Murphy, & Raker, 2018; Svinicki & McKeachie, 2014). The use of the term innovative teaching created a space for the inclusion of such faculty. Given the above-discussed factors, for the purposes of this study, I defined innovative teaching as the methods and approaches of teaching and learning that are relatively new and non-traditional to the higher education setting of Azerbaijan such as learner-centered/learning-centered /student-centered teaching, active learning, interactive teaching, flipped learning, and collaborative learning among many, that can be used by faculty. The term also captures, but is not limited to, the use of innovative education technologies. Below, I provide definitions for the terms used in this study. Active learning. Active learning is a process of learning where students are engaging in the learning process that involves higher order thinking activities, paying attention to relevant information, and arranging this information in coherent mental representations, and reflect on their own participation (Bonwell & Eison, 1991; Mayer, 2008). Adult learning/Andragogy. This learning theory is based on the idea that adults and children learn differently (Knowles, 1980). This term encompasses the type of learning that accounts for the learner characteristics such as their learning styles and past learning experiences. Adult learning or andragogy values students’ input into the classroom discussions and refers to students’ past experiences as valuable sources of information. 6 Collaborative learning. Collaborative learning is the learning that focuses on the student application and exploration of knowledge through their collaboration with their peers and faculty (Smith & MacGregor, 1992). Deep learning. The term encompasses the type of learning that engages students in higher levels of thinking and reflecting, resulting in longer-lasting effects (Biggs & Collis, 1982). Flipped learning. Flipped learning is a technique which requires students to review the class materials before class so that these students can engage in active learning in the classroom (Mckenzie, 2018). Interactive teaching. According to Burns and Myhill (2004) interactive teaching is a form of teaching that involves reciprocal student-student, student-teacher, and teacher-student interaction. The authors stated interactive lessons provide appropriate level of teacher guidance within environments that increase student autonomy and participation (Burns & Myhill, 2004). This term is widely used by post-Soviet scholars to refer to collaborative learning and in certain instances can be used to refer to learner-centered teaching and learning. Learner-centered teaching (LCT). In this study, I used the terms student-centered and learner-centered teaching methods interchangeably. To define learner-centered teaching, I used Weimer’s (2013) framework for learner-centered approach that consists of five key elements: (1) balance of power between the students and the teacher, (2) mutual agreement upon decisions on the content, (3) faculty as a facilitator, (4) student responsibility for their own learning, and (5) discussions of the formative and summative assessments informing teaching decisions (Weimer, 2013). Motivation. For the purposes of this study, I defined motivation as a set of factors influenced by the basic psychological needs (i.e., competence, autonomy, and relatedness) and 7 life aspirations (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2008) of faculty that influence and shape their teaching. Post-Soviet scholars. The term refers to the scholars who are from post-Soviet countries and/or who have done some research on post-Soviet higher education and faculty. Problem-based learning. Grounded in adult learning theory and constructivism, problem-based learning is a small group teaching method that promotes the knowledge acquisition through the development of generic skills and attitudes (Wood, 2008). Students work in collaborative groups to solve realistic or real problems under the faculty guidance (Allen, Donham, & Bernhardt, 2011). Self-control/ Self-regulation. To define self-control/self-regulation, I referred to Muraven, Tice, and Baumeister’s (1998) definition of self-regulation who viewed self-regulation as the “attempt to control or alter one’s own responses”. Surface learning. The type of learning characterized by lower-order skills such as rote memorization. Students demonstrating surface learning are more extrinsically motivated (Biggs & Collis, 1989). This type of learning is more characteristic to traditional Soviet-style classrooms. Teacher-centered teaching. This term refers to a type of teaching that places all the power around the teacher, and the teacher appears to be the central component of the classroom (King, 1993). This type of teaching places more emphasis on the content knowledge and is characterized by the less active participation of the students. Traditional teaching methods. In this study, the term refers to all the teaching approaches that appear to be traditional in Soviet classrooms such as lectures. This type of 8 teaching and learning is characterized by rote memorization, teacher dominance, surface learning, passive students, and the focus on content knowledge (Kerr, 1990). Western scholars. This term, in this study, refers to the researchers from the U.S. and European countries. Why Innovative Teaching? The early 1990s saw the dialogue of a paradigm shift in teaching and learning literature. This period in the literature is characterized by an emphasis on innovative teaching that would shift the focus from content delivery to a learning process. In addition, education scholars rang the bells for a more engaging pedagogy that would motivate students and result in deep learning. Many scholars promote these methods as more effective teaching and learning approaches (Barr & Tagg, 1995; Biggs, 1988; Bonwell & Eisen, 1991; Felder & Brent, 1996; Pehmer, Gröschner, & Seidel, 2015; Svinicki & McKeachie, 2014; Tagg, 2003). Barr and Tagg (1995) opened a dialogue of a paradigm shift, arguing that learning paradigm results in more effective learning. Students in this paradigm are active participants whose learning styles and experiences shape the ways they construct knowledge (Barr & Tagg,1995). Through the interaction with the learning community, these students engage in activities that create instances of knowledge discovery and application. Many innovative approaches regard learner characteristics as important factors that shape and impact student learning in formal and informal settings throughout their lifespan. Students’ learning styles, academic preparation, motivation, and goals can be important considerations during course design and lesson planning (Lattuca & Stark, 2009). LCT, for example, provides a space for students to become active participants of their own learning through self-teaching, collaboration with peers, reflective practice, and problem-solving (Doyle, 2008). Faculty 9 favoring LCT become facilitators of this learning process (Lattuca & Stark, 2009) and are more likely to provide opportunities for higher-order learning (Pehmer et al., 2015). Literature on LCT discusses the benefits such as increased student motivation, deep learning, higher order thinking, reflective learning, and better retention of information (Bonwell & Eisen, 1991; Felder & Brent, 1996; Nelson Laird, Shoup, & Kuh, 2008; Svinicki & McKeachie, 2014), which are the skills and competences that Azerbaijani colleges and universities are targeting. Given its comprehensive nature, Weimer’s (2013) framework for LCT is regarded as one of the most helpful guidelines for a teaching and learning setting. She defined LCT as teaching that balances the power relationship in a college classroom and gives students an opportunity to decide on the course content. This type of teaching and learning is characterized by faculty facilitation of learning while students become responsible for managing and shaping their own learning process (Weimer, 2013). The assessment process in LCT settings is mostly directed to inform future teaching decisions (Weimer, 2013). Scholars argued teaching strategies that encourage students’ active engagement in class and collaboration with peers enhance student learning (BrckaLorenz, Ribera, Kinzie, & Cole, 2012; Cabrera et al., 2002; Chickering & Gamson, 1991; Pehmer et al., 2015; Stupnisky, BrckaLorenz, Yuhas, & Guay, 2018; Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005). The critics of traditional teaching approaches view these methods as ineffective practices. In their review of 225 studies, Freeman et al. (2014) found traditional lectures fail to compete with LCT in effectiveness and defined effective student performance as the boost of student scores in examinations, concept inventories, and other assessments. Moreover, students who were in learner-centered classes were less likely to fail than their peers in more traditional lectures (Freeman et al., 2014). However, there are researchers who argued for the effectiveness of interactive lecturing through the inclusion of innovative techniques (Deshpande, Deshpande, 10 & Kshirsagar, 2015; Morgan, Whorton, & Gunsalus, 2000; Svinicki & McKeachie, 2014). Student engagement in an active learning process creates an opportunity for lecturers to avoid the illusion of student understanding (Svinicki & McKeachie, 2014) and increase students’ motivation for learning (Deshpande et al., 2015). A dominant model of teaching in many HEIs worldwide (Gibbons et al., 2018; Stains et al., 2018) and in the Azerbaijani higher education settings, traditional lectures do not create such learning experiences for students. Problem Statement The last decade of the 20th century was remarkable for Azerbaijan in many regards. After gaining independence in 1991, the country went through a long period of social, political, cultural, and economic transitioning (Kaynak & Nesirova, 2005; Silova, Johnson, & Heyneman, 2007; Suleymanov & Aliyev, 2015). The transition to the market economy was particularly challenging for the higher education system of the country. Alongside with the structural changes in the higher education system, the newly established capitalist rule placed HEIs under a lot of pressure for improving learning outcomes for students. The new economy created a need for the employees with higher-order thinking (Ministry of Education of Azerbaijan Republic, n. d.). HEIs became responsible for preparing globally employable graduates who would meet the needs of new types of businesses. Privatization of higher education pushed HEIs to adapt their mission and practices to meet students’ needs and maintain competitiveness in the market. Structural, ideological, and curricular changes at Azerbaijani colleges and universities levied a heavy burden on faculty. The attempts to achieve desired results through traditional teaching methods brought minimum results. As a response to the changes in the higher education market, HEIs started to provide professional development training and workshops to expose the faculty to innovative strategies 11 of teaching. The main purpose of providing TPD to faculty was to transform the nature of teaching and learning. In over two decades after the start of these processes, however, the nature of the teaching and learning process remains unchanged. Holding a more traditional approach to teaching and learning, faculty at most Azerbaijani HEIs resist the change. A serious implication of this phenomenon is evident in the mismatch between the market requirements and graduate qualifications (European Commission, 2011). In addition, the changes to the curriculum have not influenced educational outcomes: undergraduate student learning outcomes do not meet the desired standards. Traditional teaching methods seem to have less desired effects on student learning. Under these circumstances, innovative teaching becomes a more promising approach for improved academic results for undergraduate students. Given the above-discussed benefits of innovative teaching, exploring the motivational factors that influence the faculty’s teaching behavior is important. Although a number of studies have looked at faculty motivation for improving the quality of teaching in general, the factors influencing their motivation for engaging particularly in ITMs is understudied. Most research on faculty motivation for improving the quality of teaching in the U.S. was conducted in the community college settings, where teaching appears to be the primary focus of the institutional mission. The majority of studies in research universities used a quantitative approach, which lacks an in-depth understanding of faculty perspectives on the motivation for teaching. Finally, little is known about the nature of faculty motivation in the Azerbaijani higher education context. I present a description of this context later in this chapter. This study, which aimed to understand the factors influencing faculty motivation for engaging in innovative teaching, can help inform the policies and practices of Azerbaijani HEIs. 12 Purpose and Significance of the Study My purpose in this research was to understand what motivates faculty at Azerbaijani public HEIs to engage in ITMs in undergraduate classroom settings. My goal, in this study, was to identify the sources of motivation for such a behavior. Although the western literature is rich with the studies that focus on faculty motivation for improving the quality of teaching in undergraduate programs, they all come from culturally different backgrounds. Hence, the mere adoption of these techniques by institutions with culturally different values yields minimal results. However, understanding culture-specific institutional and individual reasons for embracing ITMs by these faculty can help make feasible recommendations that are relevant to Azerbaijan. By conducting this research, I hoped to generate a better understanding of the context-specific reasons that motivate faculty to embrace innovative teaching approaches. Study findings can help inform institutional reward systems and policies related to teaching and learning and academic staff. The following research question and sub-questions guided this study: Research Questions 1. What factors influence faculty motivation in Azerbaijani higher education institutions for engaging in innovative teaching methods? a. What motivational factors are more common among faculty in Azerbaijan? b. What are the most common inhibitors of teaching motivation? c. How do these faculty overcome inhibiting factors? Context In this section of the paper, I introduce the historical and cultural elements that shaped the institutional context of the Azerbaijani public HEIs. Literature on the history of Azerbaijani 13 higher education is divided into three periods: higher education in pre-Soviet, Soviet, and post- Soviet Azerbaijan (Azimbayeva, 2017; Isaxanli, 2006). Higher Education in Pre-Soviet Azerbaijan Although the establishment of HEIs coincides with the last decade of this period, the pre- Soviet period was very important in the enlightenment and formation of the Azerbaijani nation. For a predominantly Muslim country, this period was characterized with educational achievements that helped enlighten a generation of students who would later establish the first Azerbaijani Sovereign Republic in 1918. One of these achievements was the establishment of Maragha Observatory in Tabriz City (now Iran) in the 13th century (Isaxanli, 2006). The center engaged in non-Euclidean geometry, trigonometry, astronomy, and ethics (Isaxanli, 2006). Another influential century in this period was the 19th century, which was characterized with national and a Russian type of secular, religious, and bilingual schools (Isaxanli, 2006). International education became important during this period. Despite the existence of various types of schools in the country, many Azerbaijani youths headed to Russia and Europe (Isaxanli, 2006). Another achievement was the establishment of formal schools for women in the early 20th century. The first school for Azerbaijani women, for instance, was established in 1901 (Najafizadeh & Mennerick, 2003). This schooling opportunity was very important for a predominantly Muslim Azerbaijan of the time because it led to the establishment of more schools for women. Unfortunately, little research is available on how these changes influenced schooling and career choices for women and on further developments in education in this period. The pre-Soviet period also witnessed the establishment of the first Azerbaijani public HEI, Azerbaijan State University (now Baku State University) in 1919 (Isaxanli, 2006). The establishment of this institution was the starting point for many educational opportunities for 14 men and women of the country. During this period, to make secular education more accessible and given the scarcity of teachers with the capacity to teach in secular schools, the first Azerbaijani government sent 100 students to Europe for higher education (Isaxanli, 2006). Higher Education in Soviet Azerbaijan The second period, higher education in the Soviet period, shaped the cultural and educational values and beliefs of the country that are still dominant. During these seven decades, Azerbaijani higher education was characterized by the modernist views that were prevalent in all the Soviet countries (Kutsyuruba, 2011). To define modernist views of this period, Kutsyuruba (2011) referred to Bryan Turner (1990) who characterized modernity as the consequence of a process of modernization, by which the social world comes under the domination of asceticism, secularization, the universalistic claims of instrumental rationality, the differentiation of the various spheres of the lifeworld, the bureaucratization of economic, political, and military practices, and the growing monetarization of values (p. 289). Modernist views were evident in the administrative structure as well as the purpose of higher education (Kutsyuruba, 2011). As the main stabilizing force, Soviet higher education had the mission of training professionals who would be aware of their role and place in the social and organizational order (Kutsyuruba, 2011). Scholarly work on teaching and learning in Soviet countries characterized teaching and learning as a process that was based on rote memorization, oral recitations of texts, and teacher-centeredness of classes (Kerr, 1990). Lack of international collaboration, a decline in humanities and social sciences, and corrupt academic ethos were among the main tenets of this period (Dobko, 2013). Influenced by the values of Communist ideology, the centralized higher education system of the Soviet countries had a prescribed 15 curriculum (Azimbayeva, 2017). The values of the communist party did not only affect the curriculum decisions: political reliability was a determining factor in faculty recruitment and promotion decisions (Azimbayeva, 2017). Another factor affecting faculty recruitment and promotion was the language requirements. Similar to other Soviet countries, Azerbaijani faculty with limited Russian proficiency had little chance of teaching in HEIs (Azimbayeva, 2017). The language requirement was also important in student admission decisions. Azimbayeva (2017) brought an example from Kazakh secondary school graduates who complained of the difficulties of taking admission exams in Russian, which was not their native language. The discriminatory nature of admission processes was evident in the admission of the students from families with a well-developed social network (Azimbayeva, 2017). According to Azimbayeva (2017), parents and relatives with better social networks could influence student admission decisions and help their children gain access to HEIs through these networks. The author also argued that these problems were common among all the Soviet countries, which means Azerbaijani faculty and students encountered similar access issues. The last decade of the Soviet rule was characterized by post-modernist views (Kutsyuruba, 2011). Postmodern views are characterized by the partial or whole rejection of the attempts to homogenize and explain the human nature, society, and foundations of knowledge (Sackney, Walker, & Mitchell, 1999). The Gorbachev regime presented a different set of values and beliefs that criticized homogenization of the human existence, society, and/or the foundations of knowledge. These postmodernist views became more prominent as these countries started transitioning to a newer social, cultural, political, and economic setting (Kutsyuruba, 2011). For example, postmodern views were evident in the transition from a more 16 centralized to a less-centralized or decentralized society (Kutsyuruba, 2011). Also, the transition to the market economy and the establishment of the plural political system after the collapse of the Soviet Union were also the impact of postmodern views (Kutsyuruba, 2011). At the cultural level, these views were represented by the non-Soviet values and beliefs about the nature of humanity that were newly introduced and coexisted with Soviet values. Higher Education in Post-Soviet Azerbaijan Like many other post-Soviet countries, Azerbaijan entered a period of social and economic transition after the collapse of the Soviet system (Silova, Johnson, & Heyneman, 2007; Suleymanov & Aliyev, 2015). The shift from a collectivist perspective to the individualization was evident in the newly established market economy as well as the transition from centralized to decentralized society (Kutsyuruba, 2011). Privatization of higher education was one of the major tenets of this period. The privatization of HEIs happened in two forms: establishment of private HEIs and privatization of public HEIs. The latter form of privatization was happening through student financing their own education at public universities (EACEA, 2017). The proportion of private funding in the public HEIs of the country is still increasing. According to the State Statistical Committee of the Republic of Azerbaijan (2017), the percentage of the students self-paying at Azerbaijani public HEIs increased from 45.4% in 2000/01 to 60.0% in 2016/17. Given the overall increase in the enrollments in public HEIs between these years (from 91,019 in 2000/2001 to 144,505 in 2016/17), this percentage indicates a significant increase in private funding. This process was followed by the structural and administrative changes in the higher education system. In the search of accreditation and global recognition, Azerbaijan joined the Bologna process in 2005 (Isaxanli, 2006). Under the Bologna Declaration, easily comparable and 17 readable degrees created opportunities for global education and the recognition of the degrees and training students got from Azerbaijani HEIs (Ezrokh, 2017). Moreover, the newly adopted credit system promoted student mobility within the countries that joined the Bologna process. Joint degrees, curriculum development, inter-institutional cooperation, mobility schemes, and integrated programs of study, training, and research are among the main characteristic features of the Bologna process (Ezrokh, 2017). This period is also characterized by the international collaboration with many foreign institutions aimed at updating the educational practice in Azerbaijan and improving professional qualifications of the academic staff (Ministry of Education of the Republic of Azerbaijan, 2018b). While many training sessions and exchange programs provide opportunities for professional development to the faculty in Azerbaijani HEIs, the Soviet ideology still dominates in undergraduate classrooms. The nature of the teaching and learning as well as the student and faculty relationships is going through a slow transformation. The long-hold values of the Soviet tradition are among the major influential factors inhibiting this process. Technological advancements and faculty TPD are of little help to transform college classes into more innovative learner-centered classes. Faculty remain to be the dominant party in classroom interactions, and content knowledge is valued as the most important criterion of student learning. Cultural Context Parks (1980) suggested the culture of the broader community plays an important role in understanding faculty culture and its influence on students’ spiritual development (as cited in Gehrke & Code, 2017). Culture is one of the important factors that can influence how people receive, interpret, understand, and react to their environment. Faculty culture in Azerbaijan is influenced not only by the disciplinary culture but also by the culture of a larger community. 18 The population of the country consists of Azerbaijanians (91.6%) and other ethnic minorities such as Russians, Lezgins, Talyshs, and Jews (The State Statistical Committee of the Republic of Azerbaijan, 2018). There are also religious differences among the population, however, a great majority are Muslims. The influence of these mixed ethnic and religious elements on the country’s culture is particularly evident in gender roles. Women, for instance, are seen as the caregivers of the family, while men are expected to take care of the financial stability of the family. These cultural expectations can interfere with faculty teaching responsibilities. For example, given the lower salaries of the faculty profession in Azerbaijan (Erickson, 2011), men who are supposed to provide financial support to their families would need to work several jobs or choose another career. Female faculty, on the other hand, are expected to spend more time taking care of their children (e.g., taking a maternity leave) than their male counterparts. These stereotypes are even evident in the Labor Code of the country. While the Labor Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan explicitly states female workers’ entitlement to a maternity leave of up to 3 years, men’s entitlement to this right is only implicit in this document (Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of Population of the Republic of Azerbaijan, 2011). In my own experience, however, I have never seen any male colleagues to actually use this right, which indicates how important the influence of these cultural expectations is. Faculty Role Given the purpose of this study, which is to understand the faculty motivation for teaching innovatively in undergraduate classes, the description of faculty’s role and the description of the institutional and departmental expectations from the faculty are important. I referred to my own experience as a faculty, observations, and self-evaluation reports to make the 19 following statements. Azerbaijani faculty, part-time and full-time, are all expected to teach and fulfill some teaching-related responsibilities (e.g., peer observations). In addition, faculty are expected to conduct research, publish, and attend departmental and institutional-level events. While these responsibilities are similar to those of the U.S. faculty’s responsibilities, another component built into a faculty role as student mentors is one of the context-specific expectations from the Azerbaijani faculty. This requirement suggests faculty spend time helping students become better citizens by encouraging them to value and conserve national values and traditions. For example, some faculty may choose to engage in conversations on important dates and events in our country’s history (even if it is not a history class), or faculty may arrange field trips to museums, theatres, and various parts of the country to facilitate students’ personal growth. More student-centered in nature, this expectation has become a norm in the higher education setting in Azerbaijan, targeting students’ holistic improvement. Conceptual Framework I developed a conceptual framework, the Faculty Teaching Motivation Model (FTMM), which was driven by self-determination theory ([SDT] Deci & Ryan,1985; 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000), the self-control strength model (Muraven et al., 1998), and the findings discussed in the literature on faculty motivation for teaching. The model views faculty motivation for teaching as embedded in a larger environment. Faculty motivation for engaging in innovative teaching is influenced by a number of individual and institutional-level factors. A more detailed discussion of the conceptual framework and the theories this model was driven by is presented in the next chapter. 20 Summary This chapter introduced the key concepts, the purpose, and the significance of the study and presented a discussion of the problem statement, research questions, and the context of higher education in Azerbaijan. Furthermore, I presented a short overview of literature on various ITMs and their advantages, in this chapter. In the second chapter, I present a more detailed discussion of the conceptual framework that guided this study. The chapter provides an overview of the literature on faculty motivation for improving the quality of teaching. This review includes the work by post-Soviet scholars and the scholars from western countries. 21 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW While Soviet-style teaching is still a dominant practice in the Azerbaijani higher education setting, other types of teaching and learning that were introduced to the HEIs in the early 1990s are now becoming more valuable. These relatively new teaching and learning approaches attract institutions and students (Azerbaijan University of Languages, 2017; British Council, n.d.). The push for the change in teaching and learning practice came after Azerbaijan gained independence. As discussed in the first chapter, the transition to the market economy in independent Azerbaijan was accompanied by the changes happening in the societal, cultural, and political arenas of the country (Kaynak & Nesirova, 2005; Silova et al., 2007; Suleymanov & Aliyev, 2015). Economic transition alongside with these changes influenced the students’ academic needs and the society’s expectations from HEIs. To address these needs and expectations, Azerbaijani HEIs started to change the nature of teaching and learning. Exchange programs and faculty training served as a starting point for such a change. As mentioned in the previous chapter, however, the majority of the faculty at these institutions resist the change. Despite this resistance, there are some faculty who choose to engage in innovative teaching practices. The purpose of this literature review is to present an overview of literature on faculty motivation. Given the scarcity of studies on Azerbaijani faculty, in this literature review, I reviewed the work of scholars from post-Soviet countries. The rationale for this inclusion is as follows. First, as stated in the previous chapter, Azerbaijan was a part of the Soviet Union for more than 70 years. The Soviet ideology was ubiquitous in all the spheres of the country, including higher education. HEIs in Soviet countries bore structural and ideological similarities. Many decisions regarding the curriculum and teaching came from The Union-Republic Ministry of Higher 22 Secondary Specialized Education (Azimbayeva, 2017). Second, similar to Azerbaijan, post- Soviet countries have been restructuring their higher education systems and improving the quality of teaching (Dent, 2012; Semyonov, 2014). Given the current structural and ideological similarities among post-Soviet countries, incorporation of the literature from these countries can help better understand the factors affecting faculty motivation in Azerbaijan. The review of western literature is also helpful in the following sense. One, faculty motivation for teaching innovative classes has been better studied by western scholars. Two, Azerbaijan is looking to the western education models to restructure and improve higher education. Although the “Soviet-style” or traditional teaching was a norm in the west for a long time, perceptions about what constitutes “good teaching” are changing more rapidly in the western societies. According to Hurtado, Eagan, Pryor, Whang, and Tran (2012), in the U.S., more and more faculty engage in student-centered pedagogy than in extensive lectures as compared to the first decade of the 21st century. Given the Azerbaijani HEIs’ tendency to adopt western practices of teaching and management, the review of western literature can help inform the current study. This chapter consists of three sections. In the first section, I define the concept of faculty motivation in the post-Soviet context and present the discussion of the self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 1985; 2008; Deci & Ryan, 2000) and the self-control strength model (Muraven et al., 1998) that informed the conceptual framework of the study. The second section of this paper presents the discussion of the conceptual framework of this study, the Faculty Teaching Motivation Model (FTMM). In the third section, I present an overview of studies that explored factors affecting faculty motivation. 23 Defining Motivation Faculty motivation plays an important role in meeting new generation students’ needs for higher quality education (Zayarnaya, 2016). This statement suggests if HEIs want faculty to engage in innovative teaching, they should be aware of the nature of faculty motivation. Before discussing what motivates faculty to teach, however, viewing how post-Soviet scholars define motivation and the quality of education is necessary. Some post-Soviet scholars defined motivation as a process that encourages individuals to fulfill their goals (Doronina, 2009; Egoshin, 2006), others described it as a set of factors organizing and directing human behavior (Bodrov, 2001). Relating the concept of motivation to the educational context, Doronina (2009) argued that faculty motivation is the process that focuses on the improvement of the quality of education. For the purposes of this study, I refer to SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2008) to define motivation as a set of factors that are influenced by the basic psychological needs (i.e., competence, autonomy, and relatedness) and life aspirations of faculty that influence and shape faculty teaching. The quality of education, however, is a difficult concept to define. Doronina (2009) presented a list of the definitions of the quality of education by post-Soviet scholars. To define the quality of education, some scholars suggested looking at indicators such as the portion of the students graduating with an optimal GPA, the level of students’ personal development while in the program, and the employment rate of the graduates (Doronina, 2009). The definition of an optimal GPA in this study includes grades higher than 3 in a grading system ranging from 2 to 5 (Doronina, 2009), which is a system commonly used in many post-Soviet countries, including Azerbaijan. Another interesting definition of quality of education is comprised of six indicators: (1) students’ readiness for jobs, (2) readiness to defend their country, (3) readiness for the family 24 life, (4) reasonable leisure activity choice, (5) lifelong education readiness, and (6) taking care of their health (Doronina, 2009). This definition includes several elements of Azerbaijani faculty responsibilities discussed in the first chapter. The quality of education is also defined at the national level. For example, under the Russian Educational Regulation, the quality of education is defined as a certain level of knowledge and skills, and physical and mental improvement of the students that correspond to the educational and upbringing objectives (Polonskiy, 2004). The discussion of the definition of the quality education is important because it implies what kinds of practices are valued at the institutional and state/national levels. The above-mentioned definitions show that in the post-Soviet context, a high quality of education is viewed as holistic education that prepares students for the job market and presents certain benefits at the personal and societal level. Institutions in post-Soviet countries keep faculty accountable for improving the quality of education. To achieve higher quality, faculty are expected to maintain harmony between their research and teaching responsibilities (Doronina, 2009), which means institutions expect faculty to be equally productive in their teaching and research endeavors. This approach places responsibility for the quality at the individual level. Although institutions encourage faculty to assimilate innovative teaching methods (ITMs), personalize them, motivate students, and improve their academic performances (Doronina, 2009), under the above-mentioned circumstances, the nature of faculty motivation becomes an influential factor in determining how much attention faculty will devote to innovating their teaching and engaging in practices that improve student learning outcomes. This approach is problematic because it diminishes the role of institutional support in enhancing teaching quality. 25 The majority of scholarly work in the post-Soviet region included in this review view faculty performance as a whole; scholars examined faculty’s performance regarding their teaching, research, and mentoring responsibilities. The former two forms of faculty performance are similar to the faculty responsibilities at research universities in many western institutions. Unlike western institutions, however, universities in post-Soviet regions may also include mentoring in the official faculty responsibilities in job contracts. This requirement encourages faculty to set an exemplary behavior and to mentor students to help them become better citizens of their country. The post-Soviet researchers use “professional performance” as a general term to refer to faculty productivity as it relates to research, teaching, and their role in the development of responsible citizens (Gorbunova, Greshnih, & Podrujkina, 2012; Slastenin & Podimova, 1997). The holistic nature of this approach places the focus of research on faculty motivation on the faculty performance in general. Therefore, being mindful of the language used by post-Soviet scholars is important. In this body of literature, the discussion of faculty motivation as it relates to their professional performance includes the discussion of motivation for teaching and in some cases motivation for innovative teaching but is not limited to it. Theories of Motivation and Self-Control Strength I have drawn some concepts from SDT (Deci & Ryan,1985; 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000) and the self-control strength model (Muraven et al., 1998) to develop the conceptual framework of this study. Therefore, I present an overview of these frameworks before introducing the conceptual framework. Below, I start the section with the discussion of SDT. Then, I discuss the self-control strength model. 26 Self-determination theory. The theory posits that people act because of internal satisfaction and external coercion (Deci & Ryan,1985, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000). When people value the activity and enjoy doing it, they are intrinsically motivated. Factors such as faculty’s personal values and beliefs about teaching and job satisfaction can influence intrinsic motivation for engaging in innovative teaching. Intrinsic motivation has been found to be the most common type of motivation for teaching (Wilkesmann & Schmid, 2014), especially in electronic and distant courses (Cook, Ley, Crawford, & Warner, 2009). When the basic needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are met, intrinsic motivation was also common for pre-tenure faculty (Stupnisky, Hall, Daniels, & Mensah, 2017). When an activity presents no internal satisfaction and/or value to the person, certain external factors can be the regulators of the behavior. This type of controlled motivation is called extrinsic motivation by SDT authors. Extrinsic motivation was observed to influence faculty engagement in TPD (Bouwma-Gearhart, 2012). An example of faculty’s extrinsic motivation for innovating teaching is when institutional rewards and promotion system encourages them to focus on the quality of teaching. Further distinction was made among four types of extrinsic motivation based on the type and degree of the regulation imposed upon the activity. Depending on the sources of regulation, there are the following types of extrinsic motivation: (a) external, (b) introjected, (c) identified, and (d) internal regulation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). When faculty focus on teaching quality solely because it is a rewarded and recognized form of activity at the institutional level, their extrinsic motivation is externally regulated. The second type of extrinsic motivation, introjected regulation, is a relatively controlled form of regulation that occurs when a person takes a regulation but does not fully accept it (Ryan & Deci, 2000). This type of extrinsic motivation for 27 innovative teaching is when faculty focus on improving their teaching because of self-esteem or to avoid guilt or anxiety (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The third form of extrinsic motivation happens through identification, that is conscious valuing of regulation so that the action is regarded as personally important (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Faculty demonstrate this type of motivation when teaching is not only valued at the institutional level but also presents some personal value to the individual. Finally, the most autonomous form of extrinsic motivation shares a lot of similarities with intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Through integrated regulation, this type of motivation occurs when regulation is fully assimilated and corresponds to the personal values and needs of the person. Faculty experience this type of motivation when the institutional encouragement for innovating teaching is carefully considered and meets faculty needs and values as well. The distinctions among the types of extrinsic motivation will not be addressed in this study because some forms of extrinsic motivation such as integrated and identified motivation have been found to be highly correlated with intrinsic motivation (Guay, Morin, Litalien, Valois, & Vallerand, 2015; Wilson, Rodgers, Loitz, & Scime, 2006). The authors of SDT classified the above-discussed forms of motivation into two groups: autonomous and controlled (Deci & Ryan, 2008). They also defined a state of amotivation, which describes a lack of motivation. Autonomous motivation, within SDT, consists of intrinsic motivation and integrated extrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2008). Controlled motivation, on the other hand, is comprised of external and introjected regulation (Ryan & Deci, 2008). The authors argued that both types of motivation energize and direct behavior, whereas, amotivation does not impact it (Ryan & Deci, 2008). Basic psychological needs. Both types of motivation, autonomous and controlled, are caused and can be influenced by basic psychological needs of competence, autonomy, and 28 relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Within SDT, the feelings of competence can be the result of social-contextual events such as feedback, communications, and rewards. According to Deci (1975), positive performance feedback, for example, was found to enhance intrinsic/autonomous motivation, whereas negative feedback led to opposite results (as cited in Ryan & Deci, 2000). The second basic need, autonomy, is vital in enhancing intrinsic/autonomous motivation. To be intrinsically motivated, people need to feel a greater sense of autonomy over one’s behavior, which can be achieved through the availability of choice, acknowledgment of feelings, and opportunities for self-direction (Deci & Ryan, 1985). When faculty have autonomy over decisions such as course content and materials, they may feel a greater sense of autonomy (Stupnisky et al., 2018). Given the prescribed nature of the curriculum, course content, materials, and in some cases even limited control over textbooks in many Azerbaijani HEIs, one can assume the need for autonomy is very likely to be thwarted. The third basic need, the feelings of relatedness, can be enhanced through the interpersonal support and care. When a person performs in a caring and supportive environment, they get the feelings of relatedness and security, which can be an important factor in the enhancement of intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). These needs, the authors argued, are essential for facilitating natural growth and integration, constructive social development, and personal well-being of a person (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000). While the satisfaction of these needs can help develop a strong autonomous motivation, their thwarting can lead to a state of impersonal orientation, which is believed to result in poor functioning and ill-being (Ryan & Deci, 2008). The satisfaction of the needs for competence and relatedness was observed to influence controlled motivation. 29 SDT posits people are inherently motivated to be active and to grow, however, certain factors can cause a loss of interest in the engagement with certain behaviors. An important relevant feature of SDT is that basic psychological needs are essential for optimal functioning in varied cultures. As the theory posits, the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness can play an important role in faculty motivation even within the collectivist culture of Azerbaijan. Among the later introduced concepts of SDT are the ideas of mindfulness, energy, and vitality. Mindfulness in SDT is associated with autonomous motivation. Brown and Ryan (2003) defined mindfulness as the awareness and interest in the processes going on within and outside of the person. This concept allows exploration and reflective examination of needs and feelings thus helping develop a more autonomous orientation (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Mindfulness in faculty teaching could show itself in the form of reactions to the changing student needs or in their judgment of own teaching skills. For example, as suggested by literature, a correlation exists between the faculty experience and their motivation (Belova, Kadirov, Kornilova, & Skorobach, 2014; Boitsova, 2008; Doronina, 2009; Shagrir, 2011). Consistent with the concept of mindfulness, faculty’s increasing awareness of their own teaching can be a possible factor influencing teaching behavior. A more in-depth study of faculty motivation can help reveal the relationship between these concepts. SDT posits that energy comes from basic psychological needs. In addition, these needs are the source of a different form of energy, vitality. Within this theory, vitality is the form of energy that empowers and exhilarates (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Discussing the impact of control on energy, SDT researchers argue that only controlled motives deplete energy (Moller, Deci, & Ryan, 2006). The theory places a lot of emphasis on the importance of regulation in extrinsic motivation and does little in regards to intrinsic motivation. Although intrinsic motivation is 30 autonomous in nature (Ryan & Deci, 2000), faculty who have intrinsic motivation for teaching innovative classes can still meet barriers that would prevent them from engaging in this type of teaching behavior. Therefore, also considering the strength of self-control over one’s own behavior under these circumstances is important. Both intrinsically and extrinsically motivated faculty face difficulties in their teaching. These challenges can come in the form of student resistance (Haas & Keeley, 1998; Weimer, 2013) and the lack of institutional support (Koslowski, 2006). To overcome the obstacles, faculty may need to demonstrate self-control to succeed in teaching. In case of extrinsic motivation, these obstacles can be even more challenging to overcome. Self-control strength model. The self-control strength model posits the level of self- regulatory strength people have can affect the results of their activity (Muraven et al., 1998). The authors defined self-regulation as “the attempt to control or alter one’s own responses” (Muraven et al., 1998, p.774). Faculty, for instance, who are used to lecturing may need a higher-level of self-control to change their teaching behavior. People with higher level of self- control strength display higher performance results as compared to those with a lower level of self-control strength (Muraven et al., 1998). The model entails that self-control is a limited capacity that can be depleted; therefore, one attempt of a self-regulatory act may result in a poorer reaction in the next act that requires self-regulation. The authors distinguished between effortful and less effortful self-control (Muraven et al., 1998). As posited in SDT, actions motivated by intrinsic factors may require less effortful self-control over one’s self, whereas actions that are due to extrinsic motivators may require effortful control (Ryan & Deci, 2008). Actions requiring effortful self-control reduce a person’s resources for controlling subsequent actions (Muraven et al., 1998). For example, faculty who 31 intrinsically value teaching may have a depleted resource of self-control strength due to another activity that presented a less personal value to them. Thus, they would demonstrate poorer teaching performance. Within the self-control strength model, self-regulation results in depletion of self-control strength in the short-run. In the long-run, however, similar to a muscle, self- control strength increases (Muraven et al., 1998). People who engage in self-control over a long period of time display a higher level of self-control strength (Muraven et al., 1998). Faculty who are known for their tendency to engage in innovative teaching may have attempted to self- regulate their teaching behavior over a long period of time. Conceptual Framework The above-discussed frameworks, SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000) and the self-control strength model (Muraven et al.,1998), and the review of literature on faculty motivation helped to develop the conceptual framework of this study, the Faculty Teaching Motivation Model (see Figure 1). Embedded in a larger environment, faculty motivation for teaching innovatively is influenced by a number of individual and institutional level factors (e.g., needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness; Deci & Ryan, 2008) and faculty’s self-control strength (Muraven et al., 1998). Environment In this model, faculty members and the factors affecting their motivation for teaching are embedded in the larger environment. While faculty’s micro-environment, such as their families and colleagues, may have a direct influence on their motivation and/or amotivation for teaching innovatively, the environment, in a larger sense, has an indirect influence on their motivation. This indirect influence can be seen in the cultural norms and expectations that shape faculty behavior (e.g., gender roles influencing faculty behavior). 32 Figure 1. Proposed Faculty Teaching Motivation Model. In this model, motivators/inhibitors represent individual-level factors and facilitators/barriers represent institutional-level factors. Motivators and Inhibitors Motivators and inhibitors are the individual level factors that are based on the basic psychological needs of competence, autonomy, and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2008). The satisfaction or thwarting of these needs can influence the type of motivational orientation faculty develop. Motivators and inhibitors can be intrinsic and extrinsic in nature. For example, when factors such as faculty beliefs about teaching motivate them to teach innovatively, this type of 33 autonomous motivation is also intrinsic in nature. If faculty motivation for teaching is influenced by their needs of recognition and better relationships with colleagues (relatedness), extrinsic motivators direct their behavior (i.e., controlled orientation). Similarly, cultural expectations, such as gender roles, shaping faculty decisions (e.g., female faculty as the primary caregivers of their children) can become an inhibitor of the teaching process, which is also extrinsic (controlled). The division between inhibitors and motivators is not mutually exclusive. For instance, teaching beliefs can disrupt innovative teaching if a faculty member has a different understanding of how students learn best. A more traditional view of student teaching and learning would affect faculty engagement in innovative teaching negatively. Amotivation and Intention to Act The model posits inhibitors and motivators interact and influence each other. A direct influence of this interaction can lead to two states: faculty may either intend to act, or they may have no intention to act, a concept called amotivation in SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Intention to act means a faculty member is motivated to engage in innovative teaching; amotivation, on the other hand, is the lack of such motivation. Facilitators and Barriers When faculty intend to act, they can face a number of institutional level factors that can either facilitate or disrupt their engagement in innovative teaching. Facilitators, in this model, are institutional level factors that positively influence faculty motivation for improving the quality of teaching. Because external factors are the driving force of faculty teaching behavior in this case, the motivation is extrinsic (controlled) in nature. Studies have shown that institutional facilitators, such as supportive environment and institutional reward systems that prioritize improving teaching can positively influence faculty teaching (Bouwma-Gearhart, 2012; 34 Eastman, 2006; Koslowski, 2006; Marginson, 2009; Matusovich, Paretti, Ncnair, & Hixson, 2014; O’Meara, 2005; Scott & Scott, 2016; Young, Shinnar, Ackerman, Carruthers, & Young, 2007). Barriers, on the other hand, are the obstacles and challenges faculty encounter in the institutional environment. For example, high workloads and research responsibilities can interfere with faculty engagement in innovative teaching (Dirkx, Kielbaso, & Smith, 2004; Fairweather, 2002; Gonzales, 2014; Hunt et al., 2014; Jaschik & Lederman, 2013, 2016; Scott & Scott, 2016). Similar to the individual level factors, the division between the institutional level facilitators and inhibitors is not mutually exclusive. For example, institutional rewards and promotion systems can be a facilitator if the quality of teaching influences promotion and tenure decisions, whereas the lack of such an emphasis on teaching in rewards and promotion systems can create barriers for faculty engagement in improving the quality of teaching. The interaction between facilitators and barriers can either motivate faculty to engage in innovative teaching or can lead to the state of amotivation. Self-Control Strength When combined with other factors influencing faculty motivation, the level of self- control strength can help predict the type of teaching behavior faculty will display. Consistent with the self-control strength model (Muraven et al., 1998), when an individual has a higher self- control strength, they are more likely to persist. In case of faculty teaching motivation, the model suggests that faculty with higher self-control strength are more likely to engage in ITMs when they face inhibitors and barriers. The likelihood of them teaching innovatively is also very high under the impact of individual motivators and institutional facilitators. However, because self- control is a depleting resource, a faculty member who engaged in innovative teaching the first time may be unsuccessful in the subsequent attempts. 35 According to the self-control strength model (Muraven et al., 1998), self-control strength resembles a muscle that can be developed in the long-run if the person engages in a similar type of behavior regularly. This concept suggests faculty who teach innovatively are more likely to have attempted it regularly for a longer period of time. Faculty with lower level of self-control strength are more likely to fail to teach innovatively when they face barriers. Although these faculty may well teach innovatively when they are in a facilitative institutional environment, due to the lower level of self-control strength, they may also fail to teach innovatively even in a supportive institutional environment. This concept could explain the difference between the teaching behaviors of faculty members working within the same institutional environment. The faculty with low self-control strength are very unlikely to engage in innovative teaching when they encounter barriers and challenges. Below, I present the review of the studies on faculty teaching motivation. I start the discussion of the individual level factors that can either motivate faculty or become inhibitors of teaching innovatively. Then, I present the discussion of the findings on the institutional level facilitators and barriers for improving teaching. Factors Affecting Faculty Motivation Research showed that faculty at HEIs resist innovative teaching (Bess, 1977; Blouin et al., 2009; Justice, Rice, Roy, Hudspith, & Jenkins, 2009; McCrickerd, 2012; Radloff, 2008). Higher education scholars have taken interest in understanding the factors that affect faculty motivation for improving teaching. The attitudes and behavior of the faculty working in complex organizations are the result of a wide range of factors (Herrington, Yezierski, & Bancroft, 2016; Umbach, 2007). Therefore, teaching behavior of the faculty cannot be explained by a single 36 variable (Umbach, 2007), which suggests in order to understand why faculty choose to engage or not to engage in ITMs, a number of factors should be considered. Studies that examined faculty motivation classified faculty motivation and the factors affecting motivation into a number of groups. One such division exists between the inhibiting and promoting factors, which can be both intrinsic and/or extrinsic in nature. Most discussed among scholars are the factors causing faculty resistance. Research suggested factors such as the lack of institutional support, major attention to research in promotion and tenure decisions, lower salaries as compared to other professions, and current assessment criteria for student learning constitute the main barriers to improving the quality of teaching (Blickenstaff, Wolf, Falk, & Foltz, 2015; Davidson-Shivers, Salazar, & Hamilton, 2005; Dixon & Scott, 2008; Haas & Keeley, 1998; Lazerson, Wagener, & Shumanis, 2000; Scott & Issa, 2006; Trofimenko, 2014). Specific to the U.S. context were the barriers such as research and publishing responsibility, high workloads, large class sizes, time commitment, poor teaching infrastructure, and student resistance (Davidson-Shivers et al., 2005; Dirkx et al., 2004; Doyle, 2008; Eastman, 2006; Eisen & Barlett, 2006; Fairweather, 2002; Haas & Keeley, 1998; Koslowski, 2006; Marginson, 2009). Moreover, the lack of necessary teaching skills and knowledge, faculty beliefs about the nature of student learning, risks to one’s own self, and unwillingness to prioritize better teaching over content delivery were the main inhibitors of faculty motivation for teaching (Bess, 1978; Blouin et al., 2009; Davidson-Shivers, 2002; Dirkx, Kielbaso, & Smith, 2004; Haas & Keeley, 1998; Harding & Sweeney, 2013; Justice et al., 2009; Radloff, 2008; Scott & Scott 2016; Turner & Boice, 1986). While the lack of certain factors was reported to disrupt motivation, their availability was positively correlated with higher levels of motivation for teaching. Professional development and 37 promotion opportunities, recognition of faculty work, job prestige and satisfaction, positive working environment, relationships with colleagues, financial/material gains, motives for self- realization, positive attitude towards teaching, interest in the subject, and feelings of professional responsibility to teach students were reported to promote teaching quality (Belova et al., 2014; Bodrov, 2001; Gorbunova et al., 2012; Nesterchuk & Nikitenkova, 2014; Rimskaya, 2006; Scott & Scott, 2016; Slastenin & Podimova, 1997; Zayarnaya, 2016). The division between inhibitors/barriers and motivators/facilitators is not absolute. Contextual and individual differences may dictate the influence of a certain factor on teaching motivation. For example, beliefs about teaching and learning can either inhibit or promote faculty engagement in innovative teaching. Given that these groups are not mutually exclusive, I present a more detailed discussion of factors as they relate to individual and institutional level factors. Consistent with the framework of this study, the discussion of the factors influencing faculty motivation for teaching is grouped into individual-level factors (motivators and inhibitors) and the institutional-level factors (facilitators and barriers). Individual-Level Motivators and Inhibitors Faculty beliefs, skills, and knowledge. Faculty beliefs, skills, and knowledge about teaching and learning can affect their motivation for innovating their teaching (Dirkx et al., 2004; Emenike & Holme, 2012; Fairweather, 1999; Gorbunova et al., 2012; Gibbons et al., 2017; Gibbons et al., 2018; Hora, 2014; Prosser, Trigwell, & Taylor, 1996; Samuelowicz & Bain, 2001; Veal, Riley Lloyd, Howell, & Peters, 2016; Zayarnaya, 2016), which means to change the nature of teaching in college classrooms, institutions should first address faculty perspectives on the nature of student learning (Gibbs & Coffey, 2004; Ho, Watkins, & Kelly, 2001). To change faculty attitudes, one must first consider how these beliefs and attitudes are formed. Higher 38 education scholars who examined how faculty beliefs about teaching and learning are formed used culture models to study this phenomenon (Austin, 1994; Ferrare & Hora, 2014; Umbach, 2007). Cultural models are simplified theories about the relationships among people, practices, and events (Quinn & Holland, 1987). These relationships are developed through repetitive activation of neural networks in relation to particular tasks or situations (Quinn & Holland, 1987). Faculty teaching beliefs are formed as a result of interactions between multiple cultures within which faculty work (Austin, 1990, 1992a, 1994). These cultures influence how faculty conceptualize and understand their roles in the academe and become the basis for the interactions with their students and their instructional decisions (Austin, 1994). Literature suggests the values and beliefs formed within certain disciplinary and institutional culture (Austin, 1994) direct faculty teaching behavior (Gibbons et al., 2018; Gibbons et al., 2017; Veal et al., 2016; Woodbury & Gess-Newsome, 2002). This argument holds when considering the resistance to ITMs by most Azerbaijani faculty. The disciplinary and institutional culture formed during the Soviet regime could be interfering with faculty attitudes toward ITMs, leaving the faculty skeptical of these new approaches. This skepticism is one of the most cited reasons for why faculty may or may not choose to engage in a particular teaching strategy (Feldman, 2000; Gibbons et al., 2018; Orgill, Bussey, & Bodner, 2015). However, viewing faculty beliefs as the culture that dictates faculty behavior is of little help in understanding the faculty engagement in innovative teaching in an Azerbaijani context. In fact, Azerbaijani faculty who engage in innovative teaching demonstrate a counter-cultural behavior. More helpful in this case is viewing faculty beliefs as pre-existing knowledge (Ferrare & Hora, 2014) that can be the basis for further development. Scholars argued if faculty are dissatisfied with the current instructional methods and think students learn better with different techniques 39 than those commonly used, they start to change their teaching practice (Bauer, Libby, Scharberg, & Reider, 2013; Dole & Sinatra,1998; Orgill et al., 2015; Windschitl & Sahl, 2002). Mutual influence exists between faculty beliefs about teaching and learning and the implementation of new strategies (Andrews & Lemons, 2015; Gallos, van den Berg, & Treagust, 2005; Gibbons et al., 2017; Orgill et al., 2015; Roehrig & Kruse, 2005; Struyven, Dochy, & Janssens, 2010), which means beliefs do not only influence faculty teaching; they are formed as faculty implement new teaching strategies. A study by Gallos et al. (2005) found faculty who encountered difficulties in the implementation of innovative teaching practices reverted to more traditional methods. Their findings suggest the nature of experiences also contribute to faculty beliefs about their own abilities and self-efficacy as an instructor. While negative experiences may cause fear of innovative teaching (Gorbunova et al., 2012), faculty who are more confident in their ability as an instructor are more likely to engage in innovative teaching practices (Andrews & Lemons, 2015; Gorbunova, et al., 2012; Isaev & Makarova, 2002; Orgill et al., 2015; Roehrig & Kruse, 2005). These findings are consistent with the concepts of self-control strength and competence that are a part of this study’s framework. The actions that need more regulation on behalf of the doer are depleting individual's self-control strength, which leads to negative results for the next attempt (Muraven et al., 1998). When a faculty member engages in teaching strategies that are against their beliefs, there is more chance they are using the resources of self-regulation. Those faculty are more likely to deplete their self-control capacity than the faculty who hold a less traditional view of teaching and learning process. Once the self-control resources are depleted, faculty are more likely to revert from attempting to engage in a behavior that requires self-control. Therefore, faculty who are using self-control strength more often are more likely to encounter challenges in reforming their teaching. Also, consistent with the 40 concept of competence in SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000), these findings suggest faculty resist teaching innovatively to maintain the feelings of competence. Faculty may hold to traditional teaching and learning views because these methods work for them and make them feel confident in what they are doing. Another group of scholars, however, argued no direct relationship exists between faculty beliefs about teaching and learning and their teaching practice (Devlin, 2006; Mutambuki & Fynewever, 2012; von Bergmann, Walker, Dalrymple, & Shuler, 2017). One study, for example, found a discrepancy between chemistry faculty members’ beliefs and their teaching behaviors (Mutambuki & Fynewever, 2012). While reporting that students need to extrapolate their reasoning in order to demonstrate learning, these faculty engaged in strategies that involved expert-like reasoning (Mutambuki & Fynewever, 2012). A study by von Bergmann et al. (2017) revealed results that are consistent with these findings. Examining dental faculty members’ views and beliefs about knowledge, the dental profession, and teaching and learning and their pedagogical practice, the authors found there is a discrepancy between dental faculty’s beliefs and their pedagogical practice (von Bergmann, Walker, Dalrymple, & Shuler, 2017). The findings suggested the degree of faculty tolerance of uncertainty in knowledge and the discrepancy between their epistemological and ontological beliefs about problem-based learning affected their pedagogical choices (von Bergmann et al., 2017). Self-esteem and mindset. Faculty motivation for innovating teaching can also be affected by their mindset and self-esteem (Doronina, 2009; Gorbunova et al., 2012; McCrickerd, 2012; Schmid & Bouwma-Gearhart, 2013). Viewing teaching as an inborn talent can negatively influence motivation to improve teaching, but viewing teaching effectiveness as a skill that can be improved would create a more supportive and encouraging environment for these faculty 41 (McCrickerd, 2012). Evidence suggests faculty with more teaching experience have higher levels of self-esteem as a teacher (Doronina, 2009), and self-esteem was found to be an important factor of faculty motivation for attending TPD (Gorbunova, et al., 2012; Schmid & Bouwma- Gearhart, 2013). For instance, STEM faculty, in one study, expressed the need to attend TPD because they wanted to bring “their teaching selves in better concordance with an otherwise relatively strong sense of professional self” (Schmid & Gearhart-Bouwma, 2013, p. 79). Years of experience. Experience is another important variable that influences the type and the level of faculty motivation. Several scholars examined how the level of motivation for teaching changes as faculty gain experience (Belova et al., 2014; Boitsova, 2008; Doronina, 2009; Shagrir, 2011). The results of the study by Dorinina (2009) showed there is a nonlinear relationship between faculty motivation and the years of experience. Within a 5-point scale used to report study findings, faculty motivation tended to be higher than the medium (M=3.8, SD-not reported) in the first years of their professional career. In this study, Doronina (2009) found the level of motivation fell abruptly as faculty gained experience. However, higher levels of motivation were reported by the participants who had 8 or more years of experience. Research indicates a correlation exists between the years of experience and the type of faculty motivation (Boitsova, 2008; Shagrir, 2011). The type of faculty motivation changes as faculty gain experience (Boitsova, 2008; Shagrir, 2011). Faculty with less than 10 years of experience were found to be motivated extrinsically, while those with more than 10 years of experience reported intrinsic motivation (Boitsova, 2008). The findings suggest institutional rewards and recognition are important tools in keeping faculty with fewer years of experience motivated. While these findings suggest more experienced faculty have higher levels of motivation for teaching, they do not tell much about the type of teaching strategies these faculty 42 use. Further examination of this relationship is needed because understanding how and why the years of experience influence faculty motivation for teaching can help better support them to improve the quality of teaching. Emotional burnout. A group of post-Soviet scholars studied the relationship between faculty professional motivation and emotional burnout (Belova et al., 2014). The study findings showed a negative correlation exists between the level of faculty emotional burnout and their professional motivation. The authors found a positive correlation between the resistance to innovation and the level of emotional burnout, whereas a higher level of motivation for innovation was found to be negatively correlated to emotional burnout (Belova et al., 2014). The study findings suggest that faculty who do not resist innovative strategies experience less emotional burnout. This finding is interesting because it suggests faculty who do not resist innovative teaching are less likely to deplete their self-control capacity. Faculty demographics. Individual differences influence the motivation to engage in a certain activity (Ryan & Deci, 2008). Many argued faculty’s individual characteristics such as age, race, gender, and class can help predict their teaching behavior (Austin, 1990; de Lourdes Machado-Taylor et al., 2016; Fairweather, 2002). According to the results of the study by de Lourdes Machado-Taylor et al. (2016), academics between the ages of 41 and 60 were least motivated, while academics at the age of 30 or younger were most motivated. Those between 31 and 40 and academics older than 61 showed moderate results (de Lourdes Machado-Taylor et al., 2016). The study also found a correlation between the level of motivation and gender. The level of motivation, in this study, was higher for female faculty as compared to their male counterparts (de Lourdes Machado-Taylor et al.,2016), which is consistent with the results of the study that 43 concluded women are more likely to engage in active and collaborative teaching (Fairweather, 2002). The review of literature on faculty teaching motivation shows a number of individual level motivators and inhibitors are crucial in innovating teaching. A big amount of literature discusses the relationship between factors such as faculty’s beliefs, skills, and values, and faculty teaching motivation and behavior. While some scholars concluded there is a relationship between these variables (Andrews & Lemons, 2015; Gallos et al., 2005; Gorbunova et al., 2012; Gibbons et al., 2018; Hora, 2014; Orgill et al., 2015; Prosser et al., 1996; Roehrig & Kruse, 2005; Samuelowicz & Bain, 2001; Struyven et al., 2010; Veal et al., 2016; Zayarnaya, 2016), others argued no such relationship exists that influence faculty teaching behavior (Devlin, 2006; Mutambuki & Fynewever, 2012; von Bergmann et al., 2017). Also, the studies examined the relationship between faculty self-esteem (Doronina, 2009; Gorbunova et al., 2012; McCrickerd, 2012; Schmid & Bouwma-Gearhart, 2013), years of experience (Belova et al., 2014; Boitsova, 2008; Doronina, 2009; Shagrir, 2011), emotional burnout (Belova et al., 2014), faculty demographics (Austin, 1990; de Lourdes Machado-Taylor et al., 2016), and their teaching behavior. Other variables such as the relationships with colleagues (Gorbunova et al., 2012; Schmid & Bouwma-Gearhart, 2013), interesting job, self-actualization, and opportunities for creativity (Bavrina, 2014) were reported to be influential factors on faculty teaching motivation. While some of these variables (e.g., faculty beliefs) may help understand faculty motivation for innovative teaching, further examination of these variables can help better explain their role in teaching within the Azerbaijani context. What is missing from this conversation is how within a particular disciplinary and institutional culture, faculty experience the change of beliefs. 44 Understanding what factors contribute to the change of faculty perspectives can have important implications for the work of faculty teaching development specialists and administrators. In addition, the conversation around the role of the concepts of self-regulation and self- control strength seems to be absent in this body of literature. Despite the importance of these concepts in psychological literature, the role of self-control and self-control strength in faculty motivation for teaching has not been fully explored. Given the possibility faculty encounter a number of professional and personal challenges, the role of self-control should not be undermined. Therefore, examining the role of self-regulation in faculty members’ daily decision making for their classes is important. Hearing the perspectives of the faculty who succeed in overcoming barriers and challenges that may hinder innovative teaching is particularly interesting. Institutional-Level Facilitators and Barriers The second group of factors affecting faculty engagement in innovative teaching include institutional level factors such as institutional type, institutional support, and faculty employment type (Baldwin & Wawrzynski, 2011; Banachowski, 1996; Belova et al., 2014; Fairweather, 2005; Fairweather & Beach, 2002; Koslowski, 2006; Stupnisky et al., 2018; Umbach, 2007; Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005). Dialogue around college teaching suggests institutional support plays an important role in enhancing faculty motivation for improving teaching. This kind of support can be extended to faculty in many forms such as a clear communication of the goals for innovation and their consistency with faculty values and concerns, changes in the promotion and rewards systems, and careful consideration of faculty time for gaining expertise in innovative teaching (Koslowski, 2006; O’Meara, 2005; Williams et al., 2007; Young et al., 2007). While these facilitators can help boost teaching performance, the lack of these supporting factors was 45 reported to contribute to the institutional barriers to teaching (Belova et al., 2014; Hunt et al., 2014; Jaschik & Lederman, 2013; Lloyd, Byrne, & McCoy, 2012; Orr, Williams, & Pennington, 2009; Simpson, 2010 ). Institutional type. Various institutional types differ in the degree of support they provide for teaching. The institutional type defines the most prioritized form of faculty work at a particular university, which influences faculty priorities. For example, faculty at research universities, which encourage research and publication productivity (Arum & Roksa, 2011; Blickenstaff et al., 2015; Bouwma-Gearhart, 2012; Eastman, 2006; Marginson, 2009; Matusovich et al., 2014), are known to prioritize research productivity above other forms of scholarship (Scott & Scott, 2016). However, scholars who examined faculty motivation and engagement in ITMs across various institutional types reported contradicting results (de Lourdes Machado-Taylor et al., 2016; Fairweather, 2002; Lowenthal, Wray, Bates, Switzer, & Stevens, 2012; Stupnisky et al., 2018; Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005). While some studies found a correlation between the faculty teaching and various institutional types (de Lourdes Machado- Taylor et al., 2016; Fairweather, 2002; Lowenthal et al., 2012; Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005), others found institutional type is not a good predictor of faculty motivation for engaging in teaching strategies that enhance student learning (Stupnisky et al., 2018). Institutional type was also a good predictor of faculty motivation for attending TPD, in one study (Lowenthal, et al., 2012). Given the contradicting results, there is a need for further examination of how this factor influences teaching motivation. Although the current study is not addressing the differences in teaching motivation across various institutional types, the findings on the relationship of institutional type and faculty teaching motivation will be reported if the theme appears in the participant discussions. 46 Rewards and promotion systems. Literature shows faculty are very responsive to what is being valued at the institutional level (Arum & Roksa, 2011; Blickenstaff et al., 2015; Bouwma-Gearhart, 2012; Eastman, 2006; Marginson, 2009; Matusovich et al., 2014; Scott & Scott, 2016). Institutional aspirations and rewards that prioritize research and publication productivity influence faculty teaching negatively (Gonzales, 2014; Scott & Scott, 2016). Scholarly work showed research is the major barrier to faculty teaching (Bouwma-Gearhart, 2012; Chen, Nixon, Gupta, & Howshower, 2010; Eastman, 2006; Edwards et al., 2014; Fairweather, 2005; Gonzales, 2014; Marginson, 2009; Matusovich et al., 2014; Melguizo & Strober, 2007). While research productivity helps faculty advance in the professional ladder (Chen et al., 2010), innovative teaching does not guarantee such prosperous career opportunities. On the contrary, innovative teaching takes time and commitment on behalf of the faculty and distracts them from their research responsibilities (Scott & Scott, 2016). These findings suggest the changing institutional rewards and promotion systems in Azerbaijan could influence faculty teaching behavior. Many institutions in Azerbaijan are implementing a more learner-centered evaluation of faculty teaching (e.g., student evaluations and students learning outcomes influence faculty salaries). The changing rewards and promotion criteria at these institutions could explain why some faculty reform their teaching practice. On the other hand, these changes have not had a similar influence on other group of faculty who still resist the change, which means there is more to be explored about the nature of faculty motivation for innovating teaching in an Azerbaijani context. Monetary incentives. Dialogue around the monetary incentives at HEIs indicated that lower faculty salaries interfere with faculty teaching (Fairweather, 2005; Gorbunova et al., 2012; Melguizo & Strober, 2007; Vyzhigin, 2016). In the works of U.S. scholars, monetary incentives 47 were reported to be an influential factor on the quality of teaching (Fairweather, 2005; Melguizo & Strober 2007). Research productivity of faculty positively influences their salary, whereas time spent teaching and planning teaching rarely influences faculty salary in the U.S. colleges and universities (Fairweather, 2005; Melguizo & Strober 2007). In a study on the relationship of faculty pay and the form of scholarship, findings showed hours spent in the classroom were negatively correlated with their pay at research, doctoral-granting, and comprehensive universities (Fairweather, 2005). Lower salaries were reported to be an important barrier to improving the quality of teaching in post-Soviet countries (Belova et al., 2014; Gorbunova et al., 2012; Vyzhigin, 2016). The situation in Azerbaijani HEIs bears similarities, with the faculty job being among the less paid professions (Erickson, 2011). The changes in the financial regulations in the early 2010s diversified and created a less-centralized financial system, giving the university administration the flexibility to decide on individual faculty salaries (Garibova, 2013). While these changes helped to increase faculty salaries at many private institutions, the financial situation of faculty is still challenging. Faculty at these institutions look for additional sources of income by working several jobs such as tutoring and/or working at several institutions simultaneously. Given the cultural context and gender role expectations, the influence of these circumstances on the male faculty’s (financial supporters of the family) motivation for teaching should not be overlooked. Because working under these circumstances can be challenging, studying how faculty motivation for teaching is influenced by this situation is important. High teaching workloads. A body of literature discusses the influence of high workloads on faculty teaching, reporting it as one of the barriers to enhancing teaching performance (Dirkx et al., 2004; Fairweather, 2002; Hunt et al., 2014; Jaschik & Lederman, 2013, 2016; Scott & Scott, 2016). First, high workloads negatively impact time spent planning 48 teaching and grading (Scott & Scott, 2016) and faculty engagement in collaborative and other forms of effective teaching methods (Dirkx et al., 2004; Fairweather, 2002). Second, high teaching workloads result in a discrepancy between student expectations for feedback and the time required to provide quality feedback to a great number of students, particularly in an online environment (Hunt et al., 2014; Jaschik & Lederman, 2013, 2016). Given the increase of the teaching workloads of the faculty in Azerbaijani HEIs after 2010 ([faculty workload increased to a minimum of 500 hours for each academic year, with teaching workload constituting 60% of this load, compared to the previous 40%] Garibova, 2013), there is a need for a further examination to explore how these changes influence faculty motivation for improving teaching in an Azerbaijani context. Employment type. Research has shown employment type can affect faculty’s teaching performance (Baldwin & Wawrzynski, 2011; Banachowski, 1996; Hagedorn, Perrakis, & Maxwell, 2007; O’Meara & Rice, 2005; Ward, 2003; Young et al., 2007). Tenure-track faculty are less prone to experimenting and prefer to engage in traditional teaching methods. Faculty do not want to risk their tenure as a result of experimenting (O’Meara & Rice, 2005; Ward, 2003; Young, et al., 2007). A study on contingent faculty, for example, showed full-time contingent faculty were more likely than part-time contingent faculty to engage in LCT strategies (Baldwin & Wawrzynski, 2011). The study also showed contingent but full-time faculty exhibited similar strategies as full-time tenure and tenure-track faculty (Baldwin & Wawrzynski, 2011). Given the study findings show a negative correlation between the part-time contingent faculty employment and the engagement in innovative teaching, the influence of the changes in the recruitment strategies at Azerbaijani HEIs ([a shift from a long-term employment to a one-year long contracts] Garibova, 2013) on faculty teaching motivation should be further explored. 49 Institutional-level barriers include the rewards and promotion systems that prioritize research over other forms of faculty performance, the lack of monetary incentives for improved teaching, faculty employment type, and high teaching workloads impeding faculty productivity. Salient in these discussions is the role of rewards and promotion systems in promoting faculty engagement in innovative teaching. Faculty teaching behavior may differ across various institutional types and employment terms. While monetary incentives were found to help motivate faculty, higher workloads were reported to decrease teaching productivity. Summary In this chapter, I presented the conceptual framework of the study and introduced the overview of the literature on faculty teaching motivation. The conceptual framework, the FTMM, is driven by two frameworks such as SDT (Deci & Ryan,1985, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000) and the self-control strength model (Muraven et al., 1998) and the findings in the literature on faculty motivation. The model views faculty teaching within a larger environment and highlights the influence of individual and institutional-level factors and self-control strength on faculty teaching behavior. The review of the literature was grouped around individual and institutional level factors influencing faculty teaching. The dialogue on the individual level factors includes discussion of the variables such as faculty’s beliefs, skills and values, faculty self-esteem, years of experience, emotional burnout, faculty demographics, interesting job, self-actualization, relationship with colleagues, and opportunities for creativity. While some of these variables (e.g., faculty beliefs) were observed across studies, given the individual nature of these variables, a context-specific examination of their relationship with faculty teaching should be explored. In addition, what seems absent from the literature is the discussion on how the long-established faculty beliefs 50 change, and what elements of the culture contribute to these changes. Understanding this process would help make more feasible recommendations for institutional leaders. Furthermore, the review of the literature indicated the absence of the studies that provided an in-depth exploration of the role of self-control on faculty’s teaching behavior. This study, which examined faculty motivation for teaching innovatively, also explored the role of the self-control and self-control strength in faculty teaching. Scholarly work also indicates that institutional level factors influencing innovative teaching include factors such as institutional type, institutional support, rewards and promotion system prioritizing research and publication productivity, and faculty employment type. Although the discussion of the institutional level factors is more salient in the works of the western scholars, the contradicting results reported in these studies show a need for further examination of the influence of these factors. Furthermore, the review showed the absence of the discussion of the institutional level factors on Azerbaijani faculty. Given the structural reforms of the last decade in the Azerbaijani higher education system, exploring the influence of these changes on the faculty motivation for innovative teaching is necessary. The generalizability of the existing post-Soviet studies on faculty motivation for teaching innovative methods is also questionable due to the lack of information on data collection and analysis methods. Western scholars have done better work in this regards. However, most of the work reviewed in this study is quantitative by nature. Fewer studies have conducted an in-depth exploration of faculty motivation for engaging in innovative teaching. The review also showed the studies examining faculty engagement in ITMs is sparse. Few studies on faculty motivation for teaching by western scholars discuss their motivation for engaging in innovative teaching. Some of these studies that focus on faculty teaching were 51 conducted in community college settings, and a fair amount of literature discusses the issue of faculty motivation as it relates to the participation in teaching professional development. However, faculty attendance of TPD should not be considered as the evidence of faculty engagement in innovative teaching. For example, a study by Dirkx and colleagues (2004) showed that despite the participation in professional development activities, faculty resisted to innovative teaching approaches. Therefore, in order to make feasible suggestions for improving institutional policies, there is a need for a further examination of the institutional level factors that also account for the cultural context these faculty are working in. 52 CHAPTER 3: METHODS AND METHODOLOGY The purpose of this study was to explore the factors that influence faculty motivation for engaging in innovative teaching methods (ITMs) at public higher education institutions (HEIs) in Azerbaijan. This chapter presents the discussion of the research design and the philosophical underpinnings that informed this study. In addition, the chapter includes the discussion of the research questions, the methods of data collection and data analysis, and the ethical considerations of the research process. Qualitative Research Rooting from the works of anthropologists and sociologists, qualitative research has become a popular research design for many scholars who are interested in a deeper understanding and exploration of human experiences, which was the goal of this study. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) defined qualitative research as focusing on the ways people interpret their experiences, construct their worlds, and attribute meanings to these experiences. Data in qualitative research come in the form of words from interviews, written texts, documents, and visual images (Remler & Ryzin, 2015; Barun & Clark, 2013). Denzin and Lincoln (2018) described qualitative research as “a situated activity that locates the observer in the world… consists of a set of interpretive, material practices that make the world visible” (p.10). In this study, my purpose was to explore the factors that motivate faculty members to engage in ITMs in an Azerbaijani context. My focus was on individual and collective-cultural and/or institutional reasons that motivate the study participants to display such a behavior. Qualitative research is an appropriate type of inquiry because it allows seeing the participants in their natural settings and accounts for context-bound elements of a certain phenomenon (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018). Understanding faculty motivation requires a deeper understanding and exploration of their 53 experiences and their sensemaking of these situations. The flexibility of qualitative research design (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018) was helpful because it allowed me to account for unexpected empirical materials that contributed to the in-depth understanding of the nature of faculty motivation in Azerbaijani higher education. Various interpretive paradigms guide the work of qualitative researchers. To this list belong the paradigms such as positivist, post-positivist, constructivist-interpretivist, critical theory, and participatory-postmodern-poststructural paradigms (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018). These paradigms come with certain epistemological, ontological, and methodological beliefs researchers have about the nature of reality, the nature of knowledge, and the ways we gain knowledge (Creswell, 2002). Therefore, communicating the philosophical perspectives the researcher is approaching the study with is important, and I discuss the philosophical underpinnings of this study below. Constructivist Paradigm First used by Kuhn (1962), the word paradigm meant the philosophical way of thinking (as cited in Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017). Denzin and Lincoln (2018) referred to Guba (1990) to define a paradigm as a basic set of beliefs or worldview that guide research. They argued paradigms are a set of human constructions that help understand how to make sense of the research data (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018). According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), epistemology, ontology, methodology, and axiology are the four main elements of each paradigm that state basic assumptions and beliefs that form the basis for each paradigm. I came to this study from a constructivist perspective, which assumes a subjectivist/ transactional epistemology and a relativist ontology (Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba, 2018). Following the major assumptions of constructivist paradigm, this research was based on the 54 recognition of the subjective nature of realities of human experiences and the acknowledgment that findings are the creation of the interaction between the inquirer and the inquired (Guba, 1990). Merriam and Tisdell (2016) used the verbs describe, understand, and interpret to describe the purpose of the constructivist paradigm. Informed by the constructivist paradigm, this study acknowledges there are multiple realities that are context-bound (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018). The term multiple realities suggests no single observable reality exists in this world (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Any single event is the subject to multiple interpretations. To ensure that study participants’ realities are reflected in this study, several measures (e.g., an equal representation of the participants through the inclusion of quotations from each participant, member checks) were taken. Epistemology Creswell, Hanson, Clark Plano, and Morales (2007) defined epistemology as the relationship that exists between the researcher and the researched. In this study, I was guided by subjectivist/transactional epistemology (Guba & Lincoln, 2005) that allows for the social construction of knowledge (Punch, 2005) through the interaction with the study participants (Guba, 1990). Researchers with subjectivist/ transactional epistemology acknowledge their own role as knowers in knowledge production (Flax, 1990). Guided with subjectivist/transactional epistemology, I was aware of my own knowledge and experience as a faculty member and accounted for the influence of this knowledge in the design of this study. I was also aware faculty members might have a different epistemological perspective that would depend on their disciplinary backgrounds. This difference was expected to be an influential factor in the process of knowledge co-construction in this study. 55 Ontology Crotty (1998) defined ontology as a study of being, which is concerned with the nature of existence and the structure of reality. Similarly, Creswell et al. (2007) described ontology as a study that deals with the nature of reality. This study was guided by relativist ontology (Guba, 1990), which assumes there are multiple realities that can be studied through human interactions (Guba, 1996; Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Guba (1990) argued that the content and the form of the realities that exist in the form of multiple mental constructions are dependent on the persons who hold them. Hence, by approaching this study from a relativist ontology, I acknowledged the simultaneous existence of these multiple realities. Moreover, I was aware of my own responsibility as a researcher for ensuring the knowledge produced by this research should reflect the study participants’ reality. I provided a relatively equal representation of each study participant by incorporating quotes from each participant throughout the discussion of the findings. I did not only focus on the similarities but also reported the discrepant cases to ensure all the participants’ voices are heard. In conducting this research, I also acknowledged the participants of the study may hold various ontological perspectives that might be shaped by their disciplinary and cultural backgrounds. Research Design Creswell et al. (2007) defined research design to be “approaches to qualitative research that encompass formulating research questions and procedures for collecting, analyzing, and reporting findings” (p. 237). Denzin and Lincoln (2018) described research design as a set of flexible guidelines that align the theoretical paradigms with the strategies of inquiry and data collection methods in the study. This research utilized an interview approach (Kvale & 56 Brinkmann, 2009) to explore and understand faculty motivation for engaging in innovative teaching. Interview Approach I used an interview approach to study faculty motivation for engaging in ITMs. The literature discusses various types of interviews. The current study utilized conceptual interviews because these interviews are appropriate to study a subject’s conceptions of phenomena (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). More specifically, conceptual interviews are an appropriate tool to explore the faculty motivation because faculty motivation can be a difficult phenomenon to explain. Research Questions The above discussed theoretical and methodological framework guided the aims of this study at examining the following research questions: 1. What factors influence the faculty motivation in Azerbaijani higher education institutions to engage in innovative teaching methods? a. What motivational factors are more common among faculty in Azerbaijan? b. What are the most common inhibitors of teaching motivation? c. How do the faculty overcome these inhibiting factors? Data Collection Patton (2015) described qualitative data as direct quotations, detailed descriptions, and excerpts that come directly from people through interviews, observations, and various types of documents. In this study, I used the methods such as interviews, document analysis, and memoing to collect data that informed the study findings. Below, I discuss the types of the chosen methods and specify the reasons that make these techniques appropriate for this study. 57 Interviews Interviews are the most common form of data collection used in education (Brinkmann, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Brinkmann (2018) referred to Maccoby and Maccoby (1954) to define interviews as a face-to-face verbal exchange, in which the researcher attempts to receive information about an interviewee’s beliefs or opinions. Brinkmann and Kvale (2015) defined a research interview as “a conversation that has a structure and a purpose” (p. 5). Interviews can help collect useful information about the lived experiences of the study participants and their meanings (Brinkmann, 2018). The purpose of the interview as a data collection method is to facilitate the knowledge production in the research process (Brinkmann, 2018). I used semi-structured interviews (Remler & Ryzin, 2015; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) to explore the factors that influence faculty motivation for engaging in ITMs through participant sense-making of their own experiences. Semi-structured interviews allow the researcher to have more control over the direction of the conversation (Brinkmann, 2018), which helped me identify and develop relevant points the research participant offered. The probing opportunity semi- structured interviews provide was useful in generating a better understanding of the nature of faculty motivation for engaging in ITMs. Remler and Ryzin (2015) stressed the importance of probing in the interview process. The less structured nature of these interviews created more flexibility for probing on the matters that seemed more relevant to the study. The built-in structure of these semi-structured interviews, on the other hand, guided me as I went on with the emerging themes in the interview process. I developed an interview protocol (see Appendix A) that consists of the questions that helped me to generate information about the nature of the faculty motivation for engaging in innovative teaching in the Azerbaijani higher education context. The protocol included the 58 questions that facilitated an in-depth discussion of the factors influencing faculty motivation. I conducted four pilot interviews (each approximately 60-minute long) to improve my protocol. The pilot interviews also helped me create a list of possible prompts for probing. Using the conceptual model and the findings of the studies on faculty motivation, I created questions to initiate an in-depth exploration of faculty motivation for teaching innovatively. I also asked the participants to bring documents (e.g., their syllabi, lesson plans) to the interviews. Two segments of interviews were used to generate the data for this study. In the first segment of the 60-minute long interviews, I used the interview protocol and documents the participants shared with me to generate the discussion on the factors that influence faculty motivation. After the analysis of the data collected in the first segment, I met with the participants for the second segment of the interviews. During the second interview, I asked the study participants to reflect on the thoughts and ideas they had after the first interviews. This segment was more appropriate to engage in a more in-depth conversation about the challenges faculty encounter in teaching. The second interview with participants was also useful for doing member checks. I shared the themes developed from the data collected during the first interviews with the participants. Documents Merriam and Tisdell (2016) described documents as “printed and other materials relevant to a study, including public records, personal documents, popular culture and popular media, visual documents, and physical artifacts” (p. 106). Because documents contain words and images that have been recorded without a researcher’s intervention (Bowen, 2009), the possibility of positional bias is reduced. Marshall and Rossman (1995) viewed document reviews as “an unobtrusive method, rich in portraying the values and beliefs of the participants in the 59 setting” (p.116). I collected documents and artifacts I believed were somehow connected to this project. Among the documents were faculty memos and reflections on their own classes, syllabi, lesson plans, materials from the workshops/trainings, written feedback they received from their peers and administration, formal observation documents, peer evaluation documents, documents reflecting the results of student evaluation of faculty, documents related to the administrative evaluation of the faculty, and self-evaluation documents by faculty members. These documents helped me go through the changes faculty members have experienced throughout their career. The rationale behind the choice of documents as a data source is as follows: first of all, documents can provide background information as well as historical insight (Bowen, 2009). The documents I collected from the study participants and research sites helped me develop a better understanding of the institutional culture and support, professional opportunities, and individual values and beliefs of the faculty regarding their role and effort in the teaching process. Second, documents can be a source of valuable information, pointing to the important questions that need to be asked or the situations that need to be observed as a part of the research (Bowen, 2009). Document collection was conducted before and after the interviews. Data collected from these documents informed the interview questions. I acknowledged that some interviewees would be more likely to share more documents after the first round of interviews, while the possibility of the opposite scenario was also considered in this study. Third, as a means of triangulation (Bowen, 2009), documents can be the source of valuable additions to a knowledge base and reduce researcher bias (Bowen, 2009). Documents can point to issues interviewees would rather not express. For example, the discussion of institutional barriers to ITMs can be challenging for the participants. Given the cultural context of Azerbaijan, I believed participants could be rather reluctant to express their thoughts openly. Therefore, I regarded documents to be a valuable 60 source of information in this case. Through the document analysis, I had better access to the institutional policies that impact the teaching practice at the participants’ institutions. Memoing I kept a record of my personal thought process as I was proceeding with the data collection process. Memos are useful in identifying strength and weaknesses of the current data collection process. Birks, Chapman, and Francis (2008) observed memoing is a useful tool that allows the researcher to make transitions from raw data to the abstract concepts that represent phenomena within a particular context. Research Site The research was conducted at public HEIs in Azerbaijan. In selecting these sites, I considered factors such as the access to the targeted population, availability of wider range of professional activity alongside with teaching ( e.g., research and/or mentoring), and access to public records and documents. Moreover, this selection provided a chance to interview faculty from different disciplinary backgrounds. Many Azerbaijani HEIs are rather specialized in the fields and majors they are offering. This specialization can be seen in the divide between hard sciences and humanities. Universities offering majors in social sciences, for example, do not offer programs in hard sciences and vice versa. For example, Azerbaijan State Oil and Industry University offers majors in STEM fields (Azerbaijan State Oil and Industry University, 2018). Fewer universities are offering a broader range of programs, both in STEM fields, social sciences, and humanities. My goal in choosing public HEIs and not restricting the research site to a single institution was to be able to recruit faculty from across various disciplines who would help develop a better understanding of the nature of motivation across different disciplines. 61 Participants The review of literature on the faculty motivation revealed that a lot of scholarly articles on faculty motivation discuss the factors that inhibit faculty motivation for teaching. Most of the faculty in these studies expressed lower motivation for improving the quality of teaching. Fewer studies, however, focused on the qualitative analysis of the factors that influence the teaching decisions of the faculty who expressed higher levels of motivation for engaging in improved innovative teaching. The participants of this study are the faculty known to engage in innovative teaching by their colleagues, students, and/or an administrative staff. These faculty display a teaching behavior that is innovative as compared to the traditional teaching setting of Azerbaijani higher education. Also, the participants were supposed to identify as Azerbaijanis by citizenship or nationality. This definition excluded the faculty from a non-Azerbaijani cultural and academic background (e.g., visiting scholars and faculty from western countries) and included the faculty with both Azerbaijani and non-Azerbaijani cultural and academic exposure (Azerbaijani faculty with academic and cultural experience in Azerbaijan and outside of the country). Sampling Purposeful sampling (Patton, 2015) was an appropriate sampling strategy because it allowed me to select the participants I would learn most from. This type of sampling is based on the assumption of in-depth analysis of information-rich cases (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Among the various types of purposeful sampling, I used expert nomination (Prinstein, 2007) to identify and recruit study participants. Using this sampling strategy, I located the participants through referral. I contacted students, faculty, and administrators at various HEIs in Azerbaijan to identify the faculty who engage in innovative teaching. Among the students I contacted were the individuals I knew from my previous work experience and the individuals within my personal 62 social circle. I also talked to faculty and administrators I met on college campuses and various social gatherings and asked them to nominate faculty members who engage in ITMs. Then, I contacted these faculty via email and invited them to participate in the study. Overall, out of 20 faculty I contacted, 13 faculty members agreed to participate in the study. The invitation email also included a survey (see Appendix B), which helped me identify the participants. Out of 13 faculty who agreed to participate in the study, 10 participants who matched the participant description (i.e., faculty who engage in ITMS) were recruited. I recruited and interviewed faculty until I reached a point of saturation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). For the expected reasonable coverage of the phenomenon (Patton, 2015), the sample size was expected to be between 8-15. Overall, 10 faculty members participated in the study. Given the planned two-cycle interviewing, this sample size resulted in 20 interviews (total of 20 hours of interviews). Data Analysis According to Flick (2014), data analysis is “ the classification and the interpretation of the linguistic (or visual) material to make statements about the implicit and explicit dimensions and structures of meaning-making in the material and what is represented in it” (p. 5). The main purpose of the data analysis process is to find answers to the research questions through creating themes and categories (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Given the emergent nature of the qualitative research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), I was collecting and analyzing the data simultaneously. Simultaneous analysis of the data reduces the chances of repetitious, overwhelming, and unfocused data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To manage the collected data effectively, I started coding from the early stages of data collection. Saldana (2013) defined a code as “ a word or short phrase that symbolically assigns a 63 summative, salient, essence-capturing, and/ or evocative attribute for a portion of language-based or visual data” (p. 3). I was utilizing the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) to analyze data and generate findings (as cited in Merriam & Tisdell 2016). I identified the smallest meaningful units of data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) and compared them to the next meaningful units as I looked for similarities in the data set. Coded units were used to construct categories. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) defined categories as conceptual elements covering many individual elements of the category. In analyzing the data, the conceptual framework was helpful as I categorized the factors based on their types/sources (i.e., environmental, institutional, and individual-level factors). As I was grouping the codes into the above-mentioned groups, I saw the relationships among various types of factors. The following analytical questions helped me to make meaning of the collected data and build the generated codes into bigger categories: (a) how do the factors mentioned by the participants influence their teaching motivation? (b) how do these factors influence each other? (c) what is the relationship between different codes? (d) what is the relationship between different groups of codes and categories? (e) where do these categories and codes overlap? Using the above-mentioned analytical questions and referring to the conceptual framework, I constructed three overarching categories. An important feature of this study is the data collection language. The data were collected in two languages based on the participants’ preferences: in the participants’ native language, Azerbaijani, and in English. Therefore, before starting to code, the data were transcribed in the Azerbaijani language. To avoid misinterpretation and the loss of data, the coding was done on the original transcripts in Azerbaijani. Then the coded units were translated into English. Three peer reviewers who are fluent in both Azerbaijani and English also reviewed the codes. To ensure trustworthiness, three peer reviewers (one native English speaker who is fluent in 64 Azerbaijani and two native Azerbaijani speakers who are fluent in English) checked the accuracy of the translations of the data units that were quoted in the presentation of the findings. One of the important tools a qualitative researcher can use is memoing. Bogdan and Biklen (2011) argued that memoing is one of the useful ways of reflecting on the research process and relating the emerging themes to a larger theoretical, methodological, and substantive themes. The process of memoing helps guide the researcher through the constant reflection on the data collection and analysis process. I kept a memo of the interviews and the analysis process. Trustworthiness Regardless of the research design, any type of qualitative or quantitative research needs to be carried out in an ethical manner (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Because the production of valid and reliable knowledge that can be trusted is what researchers aim to achieve, meeting the standards for rigor is important. Qualitative researchers use the terms trustworthiness and rigor to refer to the objectivity, internal and external validity, and reliability of the research findings (Guba & Lincoln, 1985; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Morse, 2018). Guba and Lincoln (1985) grouped techniques for ensuring trustworthiness of qualitative research under the categories such as credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Following the assumptions of qualitative research, the concepts of credibility, dependability, and transferability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) are discussed below. Credibility In research, ensuring internal validity of the study is important (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The concept of internal validity means how well the research findings express the reality. However, given that any kind of research is some sort of representation of the reality and not the 65 reality itself (Ratcliffe, 1983), assessing the validity of the research by its credibility is significant (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). With the assumption that reality cannot be truly captured, I used the strategies such as triangulation (Denzin, 1978), member checks (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), and positionality (Probst & Berenson, 2014) to ensure credibility. Triangulation. Triangulation is one of the strategies researchers use to ensure credibility/internal validity of the research findings. Denzin (1978) proposed four types of triangulation such as the use of multiple methods, multiple sources of data, multiple investigators, and multiple theories. However, the last form of triangulation is less commonly used in qualitative research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Triangulation through multiple data sources and methods (Guba & Lincoln, 1985) were the main forms of triangulation used in this qualitative research. Among the triangulation of the multiple methods are the data collection strategies such as interviewing, data analysis, and memoing (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). For example, the data collected through interviews were checked against the data collected through document analysis. After coding the interview data, I compared the findings to the data collected from the documents. Triangulation of the data sources was done through the comparison of the data collected at different stages of the data collection process and through the second segment interviews with the study participants. Peer review. Peer debriefing is another strategy used to ensure the credibility of the research findings in this study. Morse (2018) defined peer review as the process of presenting interim findings to the colleagues and receiving feedback. Peer examination/ review was present in two forms in this study. First, as Merriam and Tisdell (2016) argued peer review is built into the dissertation process as the dissertation committee members each read and provide feedback on the research findings. The second form of peer examination was conducted by bilingual 66 colleagues who are fluent both in Azerbaijani and English. Overall, five peer reviewers who are fluent in both Azerbaijani and English reviewed the codes and the translated units. This type of review was necessary because the data collection through interviews was done in two languages: English and the participants’ native language, Azerbaijani. Therefore, validation of the research findings through the examination of bilingual peers was important. Member checks. Another strategy used for ensuring internal validity of findings, member checks, is the process of soliciting feedback on the emerging findings from the study participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Maxwell (2013) argued member checks are the most important way of eliminating misinterpretation of what the interviewees said or meant and identifying researcher’s biases and misunderstandings. I used the second segment of interviews to ensure participants find/recognize their experiences in the interpretations I made. In addition, I sent the participants a short overview of the study findings to ensure these findings reflected participants’ perspectives appropriately. Dependability Consistency or dependability of the research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) shows whether the data findings are consistent with the collected data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This concept is used in qualitative research as a measure of reliability. However, given the human behavior is not replicable, qualitative research is more concerned with the consistency and dependability of the research findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I used triangulation, positionality, and audit trail (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) to achieve dependability of the research findings. Positionality. Researcher positionality or reflexivity describes how the researcher influences the research process or how the research process affects the researcher (Probst & Berenson, 2014). Using my positionality statement, I explained my biases and assumptions 67 regarding the study. A clear communication of these important issues might help the readers to understand the lens I used to interpret the data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I provide a positionality statement later in this chapter. Audit trail. Audit trail, a method suggested by Lincoln and Guba (1985), offers a detailed account of the research process and are used to explain how the data were collected, how the researcher arrived at certain categories, and made decisions throughout the inquiry (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). For example, my audit trail consisted of keeping a research journal to record the thoughts, ideas, questions, and issues I encountered throughout the research process. I referred to these records in the process of the data analysis and the discussion of data findings to help the readers understand how I reached the results. Audit trail helped me to describe data collection and analysis processes in detail. Transferability Transferability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) or external validity refers to the concept of generalizability of the research findings. Patton (2015) suggested the notion of extrapolation versus generalization of the results. Patton (2015) defined extrapolations as modest speculations about the applicability of the research findings under similar, however, not identical situations. Researchers can create modest extrapolations that are logical, thoughtful and case derived in nature (Patton, 2015) to describe how the knowledge produced in a qualitative study is transferable. The transferability in this study was achieved by the application of peer examination, rich and thick description (Gylbert Ryle, 1948 as cited in Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), and maximum variation (Patton, 2015) in the sample. Thick and rich description. A rich description is one of the characteristic features of qualitative research and is defined as “a highly descriptive, detailed presentation of the setting 68 and in particular, the findings of the study” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Researchers use words and pictures to describe the context, study participants and the activities of interest (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In this study, I provided a rich description of the context where participants live, work, and teach. I also presented detailed background information on this study, which also included a detailed account of participants’ profiles (see Chapter 4). Moreover, I used the participant quotes (both in Azerbaijani and English) to support the study findings. Maximum variation sampling. As one of the strategies of ensuring transferability of the findings, maximum variation sampling is the purposeful selection of the participants to achieve variation in the dimensions of interest (Patton, 2015). Patton (2015) suggested two reasons for such variation. The first reason is to document diversity, whereas the second reason is to find commonalities among these diverse samples. The recruited participants are from various disciplinary backgrounds such as humanities, social sciences, and STEM fields. In selecting these participants, I also tried to ensure that both male and female faculty were equally represented in the sampling. A more detailed account of participant profiles is provided in the following chapter. Ethical Considerations of the Research Ethical conduct of the research is one of the main requirements of the trustworthiness of the qualitative research study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To ensure the ethical conduct of the study, researchers need to know how to deal with the ethical dilemmas that may arise in the process of data collection and dissemination of findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Data collection strategies such as interviews involve researcher-participant interaction, which can lead to ethical dilemmas in the research process. These strategies may present long-term negative and/or positive effects on the informants. Therefore, handling the issues that may arise in the 69 data collection and analysis process very carefully is the researcher’s responsibility. To deal with the ethical issues that may arise in the data collection, data analysis, and dissemination of the findings process, I used Patton’s (2015) Ethical Issues Checklist. As a researcher, I made sure that important participant safeguards such as confidentiality, informed consent, and data access issues were dealt with within the ethical boundaries. Ethical issues checklist. Patton (2015) offered a checklist of ethical considerations for qualitative researchers. In this study, I used several suggestions listed by Patton (2015) to ensure the ethical conduct of the study. First, Patton (2015) suggested researchers should provide a clear explanation of the purpose of the inquiry and methods to be used. I informed the participants about the purpose and the methods of the study through the informed recruitment letter, consent form, and during the interviews. Another expectation of the research ethics is the reciprocity of the research (Patton, 2015). Reciprocity means thinking about the compensation issues and what kind of benefit this research might present to the interviewees. To the study participants, this study offered an opportunity of self-reflection and an opportunity to have their voices and concerns heard. Moreover, the participants received a gift card to compensate for their time and as a symbolic gratitude for their contribution to the knowledge creation process. Patton’s (2015) checklist also includes ethical issues such as the risk assessment, confidentiality, data access, and informed consent form. In this study, detailed information about the data collection process, data analysis, and data access were presented to the study participants from the start of the recruitment process (see Appendix C). The participants signed an informed consent form (see Appendix D) that included the description of their rights and researcher obligations. 70 Positionality In conducting this research, I was aware of my positionality as a person with some teaching experience in HEIs in Azerbaijan and understood that my positionality could be an obstacle and/or an asset in this process. I worked as a faculty member at several research universities in Azerbaijan for eight years. As a faculty member who taught English, I engaged in innovative teaching starting from the early years of my career. As my teaching expertise improved through a number of teaching professional development sessions, so did my motivation to teach innovatively. My professional and college experience in Azerbaijan shaped my own teaching skills and beliefs. First of all, my own learning style influenced how I taught. As a student, I preferred classes with more teacher-student interaction in a supportive environment and learned best when I felt challenged. Also, I enjoyed lectures that were engaging in nature. However, I remember few lecturers who were successful at delivering engaging and thought-provoking lectures. My understanding of teaching and learning was further influenced and shaped in the master’s degree program. In graduate school, I majored in methods of teaching foreign languages, with my thesis being on the methods of teaching spoken English. Through this program, I gained knowledge about the psychology of teaching and learning for various age groups. These experiences shaped my understanding of effective college teaching. I came to realize the importance of learner- characteristics and understood that not all the students have learning styles that are similar to mine. Therefore, in designing class activities, I tried to incorporate assignments and activities students with various learning styles would appreciate. To do so, I initiated student feedback early in the semester and tried to incorporate this feedback into the classes. However, through my own challenges of incorporating learner- needs and program requirements into tight semester 71 deadlines, I also came to realize that engaging in innovative teaching is not always easy and/or possible. Through my faculty experience in Azerbaijani HEIs, I have gained some knowledge and hold certain beliefs about the nature of faculty motivation and motivation for teaching in general. During these years, I worked at a number of universities and worked with faculty who valued and engaged in innovative teaching and with those who resisted. Through these interactions, I have developed an understanding of why some faculty resist innovative teaching while others embrace it. That said, I was aware of the assumptions I made about the research findings as I started this study and how these assumptions may have had an influence on the research design decisions. Above all, I believe institutional and particularly, departmental requirements are among the most influential factors on faculty teaching behavior. Also, faculty motivation for teaching can be affected by the student resistance to these methods. In an Azerbaijani higher education context, students resist innovative teaching mainly because they were not introduced to these techniques in the school system. Hence, students find these methods rather challenging and/or do not value these approaches. Another factor affecting this resistance is the examinations students take during the semester. At many Azerbaijani HEIs, these examinations test students’ rote memorization skills. Therefore, students tend to prefer classes that teach to the test. In addition, I was aware that my personal background as an Azerbaijani could influence the rapport with the research participants. My nationality could situate me as an insider, which might help generate a situation where participants would be more open to conversation. My knowledge of culture-specific nonverbal elements of the conversation would be very useful in this sense. This knowledge would be an asset in understanding nonverbal signals interviewees 72 would be sending in the interview process. Moreover, being a native speaker of Azerbaijani, I would be very confident communicating in the faculty’s own language. I was aware that my Azerbaijani identity could also be an intimidating factor, as many faculty might feel less safe to share. In my own experience as a faculty member, I felt that faculty in Azerbaijan are more reluctant to discuss pressing issues with people from a similar national background, whereas many are more open to such discussions with foreigners. I relate this phenomenon to the culture-specific power relations. In my opinion, this reserved approach is the result of the long-lasting Soviet oppression of freedom of speech. Finally, I understood my skills as a starting researcher could affect the data collection and analysis processes in certain ways. Probing skills are important in the interview process. Inability to probe effectively can have a negative effect on the data collection. Although my identity and skills could have and probably have affected the flow of data collection and analysis, I believe awareness about my positionality helped me reduce the effects. Assumptions The recognition of the assumptions that are integrated into the design of the current study is important in ensuring the trustworthiness of the research results. One assumption I integrated into this study is all the faculty who engage in ITMs and those who do not, work under similar institutional and cultural context. Another assumption of this study design is all the study participants have gone through certain professional development sessions. The next assumption integrated into this study is that all the faculty behave under the influence of certain cultural, institutional and personal values, beliefs, and needs. 73 Summary In this chapter, I presented theoretical underpinnings of the study and discussed the methods of data collection and analysis. This research was guided by a constructivist perspective with subjectivist epistemology and relativist ontology. I used an interview approach to collect data, which included interviews with faculty, document analysis, and memoing. The chapter also presented a discussion of trustworthiness of the data collection and the analysis process as well as the ethical considerations of the research. Delimitations of the Study In this study, my purpose was to explore the factors that influence faculty motivation for teaching innovatively in an Azerbaijani context. The examination of the teacher motivation in the K-12 system was not within the boundaries of this study. The study participants were recruited from various higher education institutions in Azerbaijan. The exploration of the faculty motivation in the U.S. institutions was out of the boundaries of this research. The results of this study could be transferable to the faculty working in higher education institutions in Azerbaijan. The study explored the teaching motivation of those faculty members who engage in innovative teaching, and Azerbaijani faculty members who resist innovative teaching were not among the study participants. The reason for this decision was that more studies exist on faculty who resist innovative teaching, however, little is known about the motivation of the faculty who engage in innovative teaching in Azerbaijan. Moreover, more feasible policy implications can be made through the exploration of the motivation of those faculty who engage in innovative teaching. Finally, the influence of these ITMs on student learning was not within the scope of this research, nor were the student perspectives on innovative teaching and their evaluation of faculty teaching. 74 Limitations of the Study There are several limitations to the study. The first limitation of this study is the sample size. Because the exploration of the faculty motivation was done through qualitative inquiry, an interview approach, large sample size would require more time and financial resources which were restricted in this study. The second limitation of the study is the lack of literature on Azerbaijani faculty that would have better inform the context-specific findings of the study. Next, the study did not provide a quantitative approach to measuring the level of self-control strength of the participants. Because of the self-reported nature of the self-control strength, a further examination of this issue using a quantitative approach is needed to better illustrate the relationship between the self-control strength and faculty teaching behavior. 75 CHAPTER 4: BACKGROUND INFORMATION In this chapter, I provide an introduction of the background information about the study. I start the chapter with the information on the research site and participant profiles. The last section of the chapter introduces an overview of participants’ definitions of innovative teaching methods (ITMs). Research Site The data in this research study were collected from faculty working in Azerbaijani public HEIs. Exploring how these institutions are governed and how they support their faculty in teaching will help the readers to better understand participants’ perspectives. To protect participant identity, the names of their institutions have been masked. Because some of these institutions have rather unique practices (i.e., HEIs in Azerbaijan specialize in particular disciplinary areas and offer programs within their specialization) and history, matching participants to their institutions would make them more identifiable. Therefore, no matching between the participants and their home institutions have been made. Below, I present a more generalized picture of the education system of the county and institutions where the study participants work. Overview of the Education System and HEIs According to the Education Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Ministry of Education oversees all the public HEIs in the country (Ministry of Education of the Republic of Azerbaijan, n. d.). In addition to quality control and the implementation of state education standards at all HEIs, the Ministry has the authority over a number of teaching-related decisions (Ministry of Education of the Republic of Azerbaijan, n. d.). In accordance with this law, the Ministry develops and approves the state standards of education and curricula and regulates the teaching 76 load of the faculty (Ministry of Education of the Republic of Azerbaijan, n. d.), which means institutions have little control over these issues. Moreover, course-related decisions, such as the development and approval of textbooks, are also centralized (Ministry of Education of the Republic of Azerbaijan, n. d.). As I stated earlier in Chapter 1, this centralized control over the education system leaves little flexibility at the individual level. Faculty at these institutions have little or no authority over course decisions. The participants of the current study represent six public HEIs in Azerbaijan, overseen by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Some participants referred to their previous work experience at other public HEIs as they made comparisons between their current and former workplace; therefore, the number of the institutions discussed in this study is eight. While some of these HEIs were established after Azerbaijan became an independent country (North Eastern University, Eastern University, & Southern University), others have longer histories (Northern University, Caspian State University, Absheron University, Azerbaijan Central University, & Baku Central University). As stated earlier, the majority of these HEIs are highly specialized and offer programs/majors within their specialization. Only few universities offer a wide range of programs. In compliance with the Education Law, the curricula at these universities and programs are approved by the Ministry of Education (Ministry of Education of the Republic of Azerbaijan, n. d.). Despite the centralized nature of the education system in the country, the findings in this study show differences exist among institutional policies related to teaching. Institutions that are relatively young have more flexible policies than institutions with longer histories. Younger institutions provide more autonomy to their faculty, whereas institutions with Soviet heritage have a more hierarchical structure and have policies restricting faculty autonomy. Differences 77 also exist within institutions; regardless of the history of the institution, various departments within the same institution may have different policies. These departments function as autonomous structures with departmental policies that are specific to them. Some programs within institutions with longer histories present more flexibility to their faculty. The participants in this study are the representatives of all types of programs and universities with varying degrees of autonomy. The influence of these institutional policies on faculty motivation for engaging in innovative teaching methods is discussed in the next chapters. Participant Profiles As a part of this study, I interviewed 10 faculty members. To protect participant identities, their real names were replaced with surnames either chosen by faculty themselves or assigned by me. Out of 10 participants, six are women and four are men. The participants’ teaching experience ranges from 1 year up to 32 years. As an additional measure to protect participant identity, I grouped faculty teaching experience in three groups: those with less than 5 years of experience, those with 5 up to 10 years of experience, and participants with more than 10 years of experience. The study participants represent various disciplines and have various terms of employment. The disciplines these faculty represent are humanities, social sciences, business, and natural/applied sciences. As for the terms of employment, out of 10 participants, three are adjunct faculty, two have part-time faculty jobs, and five have full-time faculty positions at 6 public HEIs in Azerbaijan. Additionally, six participants have two jobs, of which three are in non-education related spheres. Four participants have one full-time job at one institution. Participants also differ in the degree of exposure to international education. Several participants either hold a degree from foreign institutions or participated in short-term 78 professional training outside of the country. All the participants are fluent in two or more languages, including English, which makes foreign research more accessible to them. Also, the participants differ in the degree of exposure to formal pedagogical education. Some participants hold a graduate or an undergraduate degree in education, whereas others never had a formal pedagogical education before. In the table below, I provide more information about each participant. All the names and surnames were changed to mask the participant identity. The information about the disciplines is also masked. Because in certain cases faculty disciplinary background differs from the disciplines in which they teach, I use the term “teaching discipline” to refer to the disciplines in which these participants teach. No particular information about the courses taught is provided. Table 1 Participant Information Mr. Ahmadov Mr. Alimardanov Mr. Rahimov Participant Information Full-time faculty Teaching experience: 5 up to 10 years Teaching discipline: Humanities and Social Sciences Study abroad experience: Yes Part-time faculty positions at two HEIs Teaching experience: more than 10 years Teaching discipline: Humanities Study abroad experience: Yes Adjunct faculty Second job: a staff member in a non-education field Teaching experience: 5 up to 10 years Teaching discipline: Business Study abroad experience: No 79 Table 1 (cont’d) Mr. Verdiyev Ms. Abbasova Ms. Jabbarova Ms. Khaligli Ms. Muradova Ms. Musayeva Ms. Sadigova Participant Information Adjunct faculty Second job: Education related position in a foreign company Teaching experience: less than 5 years Teaching discipline: Social Sciences Study abroad experience: Yes Full-time faculty Second job: an adjunct professor at a different university Teaching experience: more than 10 years Teaching discipline: Humanities Study abroad experience: No Part-time faculty Second job: a staff member at an education related institution Teaching experience: more than 10 years Teaching discipline: Business Study abroad experience: Yes Full-time faculty Teaching experience: more than 10 years Teaching discipline: Humanities Study abroad experience: No Full-time faculty Teaching experience: 5 up to 10 years Teaching discipline: Humanities Study abroad experience: No Adjunct faculty Second job: Staff member in a non-education related company Teaching experience: less than 5 years Teaching discipline: Business Study abroad experience: Yes Full-time faculty Teaching experience: less than 5 years Teaching discipline: Natural and Applied Sciences Study abroad experience: Yes The Participants’ Definition of ITMs As stated in Chapter 1, where I discussed the rationale for the decision to use of the term “innovative teaching”, I was aware of the possible differences that might exist between 80 Azerbaijani faculty’s understanding of what innovative teaching means as compared to their western counterparts’. Therefore, I present the study participants’ definition of ITMs in this section. In the following sections of the chapter, I provide the definition of the ITMs based on the participants’ description throughout the interviews. Because interviews were done in two languages, Azerbaijani and English, the participants’ thoughts are first introduced in the language they were expressed. When the original thought is in Azerbaijani, its English translation will follow the original quotation. Participants’ understanding of ITMs appeared to be a complex phenomenon. There were similarities and differences among their definitions of ITMs. The following themes appeared from the participant description of ITMs: (a) a change in the traditional faculty-student relationships, (b) learning-centeredness of teaching, and (c) the use of some relatively new teaching strategies and modern education technology. A Change in Traditional Faculty-Student Relationships Participants expressed complex ideas about what makes a teaching method innovative. One such complexity appears to be in the faculty understanding of faculty-student relationships. Several participants expressed they have moved away from a traditional understanding of faculty-student roles where a teacher is believed to be the source of the knowledge and students appear at the receiving end of the teaching and learning process. These participants refused to use the words “teacher” and “öyrətmək” [to teach], which set unequal power relationships between the parties of the teaching and learning process. According to the participants, these words were reflective of the power dynamics in the form of faculty superiority over students, specific to traditional teaching methods. Instead, these participants preferred to use the language “biliklərlə bölüşmək” [to share knowledge] and “təcrübə ilə bölüşmək” [to share experience]. 81 They stated this perspective on teaching appropriately expresses the nature of power relationships between the faculty and students that should exist in higher education classrooms. Mr. Verdiyev explained how the traditional power relationship creates two unequal parts in the learning process: “bilən” [the knower], the person in the know and “bilməyən” [ignorant person], the person who lacks knowledge (i.e., students). He believes such attitude towards undergraduate students is not appropriate. Mr. Verdiyev said: Bu prosesə öyrətmək deməzdim, çünki müəyyən mərhələdə biz ona öyrətmək deyirik amma müəyyən mərhələdə biz ona biliklərlə bölüşmək deyirik, çünki “öyrətmək” tam iki tərəf yaradır, məsələn bu bilməyən, bu isə bilən. Müəyyən mərhələdə insanlar ola bilsin ki, artıq kifayət qədər... yəni artıq uşaq, yeniyetmə deyil, artıq tam püxtələşmiş insanlardır. [I would not call this process “teaching” because at some stage we call it teaching, but at some point we call this process “sharing experience”. Because “teaching” creates two unequal sides, for example, this is the knower and this is the person who does not know. At some point, these people may have already…they are no longer kids or teenagers, they are grown-ups.] Ms. Musayeva also described the teaching and learning process in a similar way. She said, “Tədris etmək və öyrətmək deyəndə bildiyim bir şeyi basqasıyla paylaşmaq, onu məlumatlandırmaq, ona yol göstərmək, və eyni zamanda, bu tədris prosesində elə özüm də öyrənmək.” [To me, teaching and learning is sharing something I know with others, informing them, guiding them, and at the same time, learning something in this teaching and learning process.] She viewed the teaching and learning process as a mutual relationship where faculty and students share knowledge and grow. This description of teaching and learning falls away 82 from a traditional hierarchical teacher-student relationships that exist in many higher education classrooms in Azerbaijan. Ms. Abbasova also expressed similar thoughts. Referring to her own student experience, she characterized the nature of the traditional faculty-student relationships as a distant hierarchical relationships between the participants of the teaching and learning process. Ms. Abbasova believes the nature of the student-faculty relationships needs to change. She said the followings: Yəni əvvəl necə idi, müəllim bir az distant idi. Kənardan bir şey deyə bilmərsən, səsini çıxarda bilmərsən. Yəni müəllim də tələbəyə özündən aşağıdakı kimi baxırdı. Mən həmişə bunun əleyhinə olmuşam. Mənə elə gəlir ki, tələbələr … yəni əvvəlki kimi şaquli deyil, üfüqi strategiyanı seçirəm ki, hami eyni səviyyədədi. [ I mean, remember how it used to be.. the teacher was a bit distant, right? You could not say anything, you could not express your thoughts. I mean the teachers viewed their students as their inferiors. I was always against such an attitude. I believe students are.. I mean I choose not a vertical approach as it used to be, but a horizontal strategy where all the participants are equals.] The above-expressed thoughts were echoed by many study participants. Ms. Jabbarova, Ms. Muradova, and Mr. Rahimov also viewed faculty-student relationships in a non-traditional way. These responses indicate the participants have moved away from a traditional relationship that exists in higher education classrooms in Azerbaijan. Learning-Centeredness Unlike the widely accepted understanding of what ITMs mean in the Azerbaijani context (i.e., relatively new strategies adopted from western education), several participants expressed disagreement with such a definition. These participants viewed any teaching strategy that helps 83 them achieve the teaching goals and positively influences student learning outcomes as innovative. Mr. Ahmadov stated he only partially accepted the definition of ITMs as these methods were understood in Azerbaijan. He said, “Yəni bizim hal-hazırda Azərbaycanda innovativ adlandırdığımız, ola bilsin ki, hansısa ölkədə üstündən keçiblər onun. Yəni innovativ nisbi anlayışdır. Əgər sənin üçün yenidirsə, bu o deməkdir ki, artıq yenidir, innovativdir.” [I mean, maybe something that is now regarded as innovative in Azerbaijan could have been long outdated in other countries. Innovativeness is a relative concept. If it [a teaching strategy] is new for you, it means it is innovative.] He described innovative teaching as any teaching strategy that is new to a teacher. Further, he described innovative teaching as strategies that help you achieve “hədəf” [the objective]. Ms. Muradova also expressed similar thoughts. When asked what ITMs meant to her, she explained, “So the word itself, ‘innovative’ means something new compared to what was there before. And again what is new for me, might not be new for others.” She believes the concept of innovative teaching is relative and should be understood at the individual teaching level. She continued, “They also say old methods could also be helpful. So I think innovative is something compared to something before on my individual teaching level. If before I would do more of lecturing, now I think it is important to [involve] students.” Ms. Muradova echoed the above- mentioned thoughts by Mr. Ahmadov as she explained innovative teaching is any teaching strategy that works with students. A common thread in participants’ answers was viewing innovative teaching as a blend of traditional teacher-centered and non-traditional student-centered approaches. Ms. Khaligli explained ITMs as strategies that help students to succeed academically. She said: 84 Innovative… I think anything that brings to students any form of success can be called innovative. Even learning from collective experiences is a part of innovative methods. They say new methods are the forgotten old ones. Sometimes, so I would say that we cannot completely separate older teaching tradition from the new ones. Ms. Khaligli believes only the strategies that work in the classroom and help students learn are innovative. She added: I did not find some of the new strategies to be effective even though they are considered to be innovative. So innovative teaching for me is the strategy that is based on the collective experience. Learning from the common mistakes that have happened globally. Similarly, Mr. Alimardanli stated both traditional and non-traditional approaches have their own advantages and disadvantages. He described traditional methods as “instructor- centered” and criticized these methods for the lack of student autonomy, which is a hurdle to students’ growth and development. However, Mr. Alimardanli expressed disagreement with some principles of student-centeredness as he understood it. He said, “Bunda [student-centered] mən doğru görmürəm, çünki yeni birinci kursa gəlmiş tələbələr hamısı müəllimin gözünə baxır bir şey almaq istəyir, və siz də məsuliyyəti onların üzərinə qoyursuz. Onlar da neyləyəcəklərini bilmirlər.” [In student-centered approaches, all the responsibility is on students, and I think this is not right because freshman students look into teachers’ eyes and want to learn something from them and you [those who favor student-centeredness] put the whole responsibility on them, and students do not know what to do.] He criticized student-centered approaches for putting the whole responsibility for learning decisions on the students. He believes students in undergraduate programs are too young to successfully cope with such a responsibility. Mr. Alimardanli continued, “Bir az zamanla bəlkə bu balans bölüşdürülə bilər.” [Maybe this 85 responsibility can be shared gradually as students advance in their studies.] He said this process should be gradual and students should not be given the whole responsibility for making their own learning decisions right from the early years of undergraduate education. He believes a gradual increase in the degree of student responsibility and autonomy may increase students’ chances of making the right decisions and improve student learning outcomes. While several participants echoed the above mentioned thoughts about a non-traditional view of ITMs, not all the participants shared similar views. Faculty with fewer years of teaching experience favored non-traditional teaching methods over traditional methods and defined innovative teaching as the methods that are new to the educational setting of Azerbaijan. In their words, only these methods satisfy students and keep them engaged. Ms. Sadigova, for example, explained ITMs as the methods addressing students’ needs. She said, “Yəni bilmək lazımdır ki, tələbənin özünün istəyi nədir [...], necə bir mühit arzulayırlarsa, tələbələrə onu vermək lazımdır.” [I mean we need to know what students want, what kind of learning environment they are looking for, and we need to give that to students.] She viewed ITMs as methods that keep learners interested in classes and help them enjoy the learning process. Relatively New Teaching Strategies In addition to the above-discussed points about innovative teaching, participants also talked about a number of teaching strategies they use in their classrooms. Among these methods are teaching strategies and approaches such as student-centered teaching, active learning, collaborative learning, flipped learning, problem-based learning, and interactive lectures. Several participants referred to these methods as “qərb təhsilindən gələn metodlar” [methods adopted from western education]. 86 Interactive teaching. Many participants described their classes as learning spaces where interaction is an essential component of the teaching process. This type of teaching and learning deviates from traditional lecturing, specific to higher education classes in Azerbaijan. Ms. Musayeva talked about the importance of interaction in the lectures. Comparing ITMs to traditional lectures, she said, “Məsələn, mühazirələrdə necə idi? Müəllim gəlirdi, saatlarla danışırdı, uşaqlar qeydiyyat götürürdü, dinləyirdi, bəzən götürmürdü, yuxulayırdı dərsdə. Amma müasir innovativ üsulda mən daha çox müəllimənin interaktivliyini, tələbə ilə interaktivliyini düşünürəm.” [For example, remember how it used to be? A teacher would lecture for hours and students would take notes, sometimes some of them did not even take notes and fell asleep, but in ITMs, there should be more interaction between a teacher and students.] Ms. Jabbarova shared similar views about the importance of interactive teaching. She stated often times she uses her lectures to organize debates where students interact and learn from each other. Many participants stated they use interactive lecturing strategies to actively engage students in the learning process. The benefits of such lectures, in their words, outnumber the benefits of traditional lectures. This interactive lectures do not only promote active engagement of students but also create a space where the participants of the teaching and learning process can challenge each other’s perspectives on the matters discussed. Ms. Jabbarova explained “öz sözünü demək” [stating one’s opinion] is an important skill for students to learn. Problem-based learning. Several participants expressed they use problem-based teaching strategies to improve students’ problem-solving skills and critical thinking abilities. Mr. Rahimov described field trips he organizes for his students where he facilitates hands-on problem-based learning opportunities. He said, “Mən çox vaxt dərsimi texnoparklarda, [...] istehsalatda, sərgilərdə keçirəm, harada ki, [...] situasiya, problem yaranır və onu həll edirik.” [I 87 usually arrange my classes in technoparks, production fields, or in various expositions where I use problematic situations as a teaching opportunity where students solve problems.] In his words, these field trips are rich in opportunities that develop students’ critical thinking abilities. Classroom techniques. A common thread among the participant responses was strategies targeting team-work and presentation skills. Participants shared they use group work, individual presentations, group presentations, debates, pop-quizzes, fishbowl discussions, and games to engage their students in learning experiences that help them develop as individuals who are equally competent in working in teams and individually. In addition, a skillful use of teaching facilities, such as classrooms and modern education technology, was also believed to be an essential part of successful teaching. A special emphasis was on the use of teaching facilities. Mr. Verdiyev explained how he rearranged classrooms in a u-shape form to help facilitate a discussion among students. He said, “Mən məsələn xoslamıram ki, auditoriyada insanlar bir-birinin arxasında otursunlar, çünki bunun bir çox mənfi təsirləri var. Birincisi, tələbə o köhnə tradisional üsul ilə oturanda, onlar qabaqda oturanın üzünün mimikasını görə bilmirlər.” [I do not like when students sit behind each other because it can have a negative influence on several things. In this traditional classroom arrangement, students cannot see each other’s faces.] He stated traditional classrooms where students do not see each other’s faces limits their chances for a productive and respectful engagement in a discussion. Instead, Mr. Verdiyev stated “u-shape” classrooms facilitate a classroom discussion as students can see when it is appropriate to join the discussion and build on each other’s ideas. A skillful use of modern education technologies such as smartboards, projectors, various presentation software, internet, and online education platforms also became a part of the 88 discussion in many participants’ responses. While a group of participants viewed these technologies as an important part of modern classes, others hesitated to call the use of these facilities as an innovative teaching method. Several participants expressed faculty should be able to teach equally well without modern technology. Mr. Verdiyev’s opinion in this regard was particularly standing out as he stated the use of modern education technologies can no longer be called innovative. He said, ‘Əlbəttə ki, bu gün deyək ki, proyektoru və yaxud PowerPointi nə dərəcədə innovativ üslub saymaq olar ki?! O artıq innovativ üslub deyil. Bəlkə də artıq bundan yavaş-yavaş uzaqlaşmaq lazımdır.” [Of course, to what extent can we refer to the use of projectors, monitors, or PowerPoint as engagement in ITMs?! Maybe, this [the use of modern education technology] is even no longer an innovative method and we need to eliminate its usage in classes.] He expressed his doubts about the effectiveness of modern education technology and suggested to limit its use to a certain extent. From the participants’ responses, I realized their definition of ITMs falls outside of the widespread definitions of ITMs. Partially influenced by the contextual elements and participants’ own teaching and academic experiences, the study participants’ understanding of innovative teaching is mostly formed around student learning outcomes. Depending on faculty beliefs of what works best with students, a group of faculty viewed innovative methods as “a fine blend” of traditional and non-traditional approaches, whereas other group defined ITMs as those that are relatively new to the higher education setting of Azerbaijan. However, in both cases, learning- centeredness appears to be dominant in both definitions. Among particular teaching strategies, participants mentioned teaching approaches and strategies such as active learning, interactive teaching, collaborative learning, problem-based learning, student-centered teaching [i.e., learner- 89 centered teaching], and flipped learning. In addition, the use of modern education technologies was also referred to as an innovative method of teaching. Summary In this chapter, I presented background information about the study. The first section of the chapter presented an overview of the centralized higher education system in Azerbaijan and provided general information about the HEIs where the study participants work. In the second section, I presented participant profiles and explained details about the measures taken to protect participant identities. Finally, in the last section of the chapter, I presented a discussion of participant definition of ITMs. Participants defined ITMs as learning-centered teaching that requires a shift from the traditional faculty-student relationships and involves the use of traditional and non-traditional teaching methods that positively influence student learning outcomes. The discussed strategies and approaches are interactive lecturing, flipped learning, active learning, student-centered teaching, problem-based learning, and collaborative learning, among many. 90 CHAPTER 5: FACTORS INFLUENCING FACULTY TEACHING MOTIVATION This study explored the following research question: What factors influence faculty motivation in Azerbaijani higher education institutions (HEIs) for engaging in innovative teaching methods (ITMs)? The research sub-questions aimed to explore common motivators and inhibitors of faculty teaching motivation and sought to understand the ways faculty overcome inhibitors of teaching motivation. In this chapter, I first provide an overview of the findings as guided by the conceptual framework of the study. I use the remainder of this chapter to present a detailed account of the findings. Overview of the Findings The findings in this study indicate certain environmental, individual, and institutional level factors may influence faculty motivation for engaging in ITMs. Below, I provide a brief classification of the factors influencing faculty teaching motivation as guided by the conceptual framework of this study, the Faculty Teaching Motivation Model (FTMM). Environmental Factors The data suggest environmental factors have an important influence on faculty teaching motivation. The environment within which faculty live and work may shape their teaching beliefs and influence their well-being, thus promote or obstruct faculty engagement in a particular teaching method. Alongside the higher education environment in the country, the data indicate the environment in a larger sense is equally critical to faculty teaching motivation. Common categories of environmental factors influencing faculty teaching motivation discussed by the participants are global and local environment, higher education environment in the country, and family (see Table 2). The relationship between these environmental factors and faculty teaching motivation for engaging in ITMs is presented in the remainder of this chapter. 91 Table 2 Environmental Factors Influencing Faculty Engagement in ITMs y r o g e t a C s r o t c a F l a t n e m n o r i v n E Motivators/Facilitators Inhibitors/Barriers ❖ Global and local environment ▪ Economy ● Transition to capitalism Society ● Expectations ● Status of the teaching job ❖ Higher education environment in the country and the world ▪ Education laws ● Adoption of international education standards Students ● Student needs ● Student success ▪ Colleagues ▪ ▪ ❖ Global and local environment ▪ Economy ● Economic crisis ❖ Higher education environment in the country and the world ▪ Education laws ▪ ● Little/no faculty autonomy Students ● Grade-oriented students ▪ Colleagues ● Resisting colleagues (to ITMs) ● Lack of collaboration among colleagues ● Lack of support from colleagues ● Supportive colleagues ● Collaboration with colleagues ▪ Lack of support ▪ Responsibilities and problems ❖ Family ❖ Family Support ▪ Responsibilities ▪ ▪ Having children ▪ Teachers in the family Institutional-Level Factors A number of factors within the institutional environment can either facilitate or hinder faculty engagement in ITMs (see Table 3). The findings show the existence of certain institutional-level factors may promote faculty engagement in ITMs (e.g., teaching professional development [TPD]). The lack of these circumstances, on the other hand, may constitute a barrier to faculty teaching motivation. The data also suggest these extrinsic factors can also influence a number of individual-level factors, thus instrinsically motivate or inhibit faculty engagement in one or anotehr form of teaching. The following subsection presents a discussion of the individual level factors that influence and shape faculty teaching behavior. 92 Table 3 Institutional-Level Factors Influencing Faculty Engagement in ITMs Cate gory ❖ Facilitators Barriers Institutional rewards and promotion ▪ Faculty evaluation procedures ● Clear communication of evaluation criteria ● Link between the quality of teaching and rewards and promotion ● Formative feedback from evaluation procedures ❖ Monetary incentives ❖ Institutional rewards and promotion systems ▪ ▪ Focus on research Faculty evaluation procedures ● Ambiguity in the evaluation criteria ● No link between the quality of teaching and rewards and promotion ● Quantity vs. quality based promotion ● No/summative feedback from evaluation procedures ▪ Higher salaries ▪ Financial rewards for teaching quality ❖ Monetary incentives ▪ Low salaries ▪ Lack of financial rewards for teaching ❖ Greater faculty autonomy ❖ Workload ▪ Manageable teaching loads ▪ ❖ Student body at a particular university Student academic background (higher selectivity) Positive student learning outcomes Student support ▪ ▪ Motivated students ▪ ❖ Institutional environment ▪ Competitive environment ▪ ▪ Interdepartmental collaboration Institutional practices increasing faculty sense of belonging ❖ Professional development opportunities ▪ Availability of teaching related ❖ Facilities professional development trainings, Financial support for TPDs ▪ ▪ Availability of exchange opportunities ▪ Well-equipped classrooms ▪ Rich libraries ▪ Beautiful campus ▪ Availability of office spaces for faculty quality ❖ Little/no faculty autonomy ❖ Workload ▪ High teaching loads ❖ Student body at a particular university ▪ Student academic background (low selectivity) Poor student learning outcomes ▪ ▪ Unmotivated students ❖ Institutional environment ▪ Lack of competitive environment ▪ Lack of interdepartmental collaboration ▪ Institutional practices increasing faculty sense of isolation ❖ Professional development opportunities ▪ Lack of teaching related professional development trainings, ▪ Lack of financial support for TPDs ▪ Lack of TPD post training follow-ups ▪ Lack of exchange opportunities ❖ Facilities Poorly-equipped classrooms ▪ ▪ Lack of rich libraries ▪ Lack of green spaces on campus ▪ No office space for faculty ▪ Lack of internet access on campus ▪ Lack of local research ▪ Lack of academic resources in the local language 93 s r o t c a f l e v e l - l a n o i t u t i t s n I Individual-level Factors The following set of individual-level factors were found to influence faculty teaching motivation: faculty teaching beliefs, skills, and knowledge; faculty physical well-being and faculty emotional well-being; faculty personality traits; and faculty experience (see Table 4). Findings also show these personal-level factors can be influenced by a number of environmental and institutional-level factors. The influence of these factors on faculty teaching motivation is discussed later in this chapter. Table 4 Individual-Level Factors Influencing Participant Teaching Motivation Motivators Inhibitors ❖ Faculty teaching beliefs, skills, and knowledge ❖ Faculty teaching beliefs, skills, and ▪ Beliefs about the goals of university teaching ▪ Beliefs about the effectiveness of various knowledge teaching methods ● Beliefs about ITMs ♦ Effectiveness of ITMs in achieving teaching goals ♦ Definition of ITMs ▪ Faculty teaching knowledge and skills ♦ Skillful use of ITMs ♦ Well-developed technology skills ❖ Faculty well-being ▪ Emotional well-being ● Professional satisfaction ❖ Faculty well-being Cate gory s r o t c a f l e v e l - l a u d i v i d n I ♦ Positive emotions associated with ITMs Interest in the subject matter ♦ ♦ Faculty fears (cid:0) Fear of lagging behind (cid:0) Fear of losing reputation ● Personal life satisfaction ♦ Better life standards ▪ Physical well-being ❖ Faculty personality traits ▪ Higher self-esteem ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Sense of responsibility Self-control/higher self-control strength Self-analysis Prone to be famous (i.e., seeking reputation) Prone to self-development ❖ Faculty experience ▪ Teaching experience ▪ Student experience 94 ▪ Beliefs about the goals of university teaching ▪ Beliefs about the effectiveness of various teaching methods Faculty teaching knowledge and skills ♦ Lack of skills to use ITMs effectively ♦ Poor technology skills Poor emotional well-being ● Lack of professional satisfaction ♦ Negative emotions associated with ITMs ● Problems in personal life Poor physical well-being ● Physical tiredness ● Health issues ▪ ▪ ▪ ❖ Faculty personality traits ▪ Lower self-esteem ▪ Lower self-control strength ❖ Faculty experience ▪ Teaching experience ▪ Student experience The aforementioned groups of factors represent common motivators/facilitators and inhibitors/barriers of faculty engagement in ITMs shared by the study participants. The data collected in this study indicate faculty teaching motivation is a complex phenomenon influenced by a network of complex interactions among the factors in the environment within which faculty live, work, and learn. Regardless of their sources, these factors do not exist or function in isolation; they interact, influence, and shape one another. The results of these processes may reveal themselves in the degree to which faculty are motivated to engage in one or another form of teaching. To create a more comprehensive picture of this system of interwoven and mutually influential factors, I categorized these factors around their possible influence areas: (a) faculty teaching beliefs, skills, and knowledge, (b) faculty well-being, and (c) faculty personality traits. I developed these categories based on the possible relationships I saw among the common factors. The visualization of these relationships among salient factors helped me understand the role of different types of factors in faculty teaching motivation and their engagement in ITMs. I present the findings in two chapters. This organization helps incorporate optimal amount of participant quotes to provide readers with an in-depth understanding of participant perspectives. I believe when combined with long quotes (including their translations) from participants, multiple sections and subsections can easily confuse the readers. Therefore, to present the findings in a more comprehensible way, in this chapter, I only present the first overarching category, faculty teaching beliefs, skills, and knowledge. The next chapter introduces the following overarching categories that emerged from the data: faculty well-being and faculty personality traits. 95 Faculty Teaching Beliefs, Skills, and Knowledge Influence Their Teaching Decisions and Motivation A common thread throughout participant responses was the discussion of the factors related to faculty beliefs about teaching and learning and their teaching skills and knowledge. The data in this study suggest the participants engaged in ITMs because they believed in the effectiveness of these methods in achieving the teaching goals the participants had. The data also indicate participants’ teaching skills and knowledge influenced their engagement in ITMs. Better exposure to teaching methods helped the participants make well-informed teaching decisions, which, in their opinion, was the use of ITMs in their classes. In addition, participants’ confidence in the skillful use of ITMs boosted their likelihood of engagement in these methods. Below, I present a more detailed discussion of the participants’ teaching beliefs, skills, and knowledge and their influence on faculty engagement in ITMs. Defining the Goals of University Teaching The analysis of the study participants’ teaching philosophy show similarities existed among their beliefs about what good teaching and being a good teacher meant to them. A strong basis guiding these beliefs was participants’ sense of responsible citizenship. The majority of the participants used the expressions such as “cəmiyyətə tövhə” [contributing to society] and “vətəndaş yetişdirmək” [developing citizens] as they described their “daxili tələbat” [innate need] that motivated them to teach in the first place. Speaking about her responsibility as a citizen and a teacher Ms. Abbasova said, “Mən gələcək nəslin çox şeyi dəyişə biləcəyinə inanıram.” [I believe future generations will be able to make many changes.] Therefore, she expressed, teachers need to develop responsible citizens, the driving force of the change in the 96 country. Many participants shared similar teaching beliefs and stated this goal can be achieved by taking a holistic approach to student learning and growth. The participants’ thoughts about what needs to be taught was another important factor influencing their teaching motivation. All the participants agreed students should receive practically useful knowledge that meets students’ needs. Echoing other participants’ thoughts on this issue Mr. Verdiyev said, “Universitetlərdə verilən təhsil daha çox tətbiqi olmalıdır. Yəni, oxuyan tələbələr sonra bunu iş fəaliyyətlərində tətbiq etməyi bacarmalıdırlar.” [University education should include more practical knowledge and skills. Students who have learned this knowledge and these skills would then be able to use them later in their jobs.] These participants referred to the development of higher-order thinking and analysis skills as the most important goal of college teaching. The achievement of these goals, according to many participants, was possible through the use of ITMs. A more detailed description of participant perspectives on the relationship between the goals of university teaching and ITMs is provided below. Faculty engage in ITMs because of their effectiveness. A common thread in the participant interviews was the discussion of the effective methods that work in the classroom and help achieve the above-stated objectives of college teaching. Central to these discussions was the methods participants engaged in in their daily classes (i.e., ITMs). While all the participants agreed ITMs are the most effective methods that promote student learning, differences emerged among participants’ perspectives based on how they defined ITMs. Some participants with fewer years of teaching experience who defined ITMs as newly adopted and non-traditional teaching approaches favored these methods over traditional methods. Describing ITMs as the most effective methods promoting student learning Ms. Musayeva said, “Düşünmürəm yeni metodların, müasir üsulun tələbəyə qarşı mənfi cəhəti ola bilər.” [I do not 97 believe new methods and modern techniques can have a negative impact on students.] Ms. Sadigova also shared similar views and stated she did not see any possible shortcomings of these methods. Both participants’ beliefs about teaching influenced the methods they engaged in: they both expressed to have engaged in methods such as learner-centered teaching and active learning, among many relatively new teaching approaches. The participants with more years of teaching experience did not completely agree with the above-stated views. As stated in the previous chapter, many participants had a more complex understanding of ITMs. These faculty viewed ITMs as a blend of various traditional and non- traditional teaching methods and approaches that work in the classroom and promote student learning (see Chapter 4). While faculty with more years of teaching experience agreed with the effectiveness of ITMs, their definitions of ITMs point to the differences in faculty beliefs about the effectiveness of different teaching methods under this umbrella term. Despite the differences that existed among participants’ definitions of ITMs, they all viewed ITMs as effective methods that introduce ways to achieve students’ holistic growth. Given the majority of the participants expressed the country needed well-trained specialists with higher order thinking skills and responsible citizens who should be able to change the country for the better, one possible motivator of their engagement in ITMs is the participant beliefs about the effectiveness of these methods in holistic development of students, which they viewed as one of the most important goals of higher education. The aforementioned points suggest a faculty definition of good teaching may influence their teaching goals, and their beliefs about various teaching methods may influence their intrinsic motivation to engage in one or another teaching behaviour to achieve these goals. 98 Faculty Teaching Knowledge and Skills Influence Their Engagement in ITMs The participants of the study differed in the degree of exposure to teaching literature. Some participants received formal education training built into their academic programs and others’ teaching knowledge and skills were informed through various trainings and sources outside the formal training environment. For example, speaking about her teacher training Ms. Muradova said, “Honestly, I have never had formal training, formal university degree in teaching.” She stated “online courses” and “some small sessions” facilitated her professional development as a teacher. Participants such as Mr. Verdiyev and Ms. Jabbarova also shared their knowledge of teaching and pedagogical literature came from PD trainings. Ms. Sadigova and Ms. Musayeva, on the other hand, shared their teaching decisions and knowledge were informed by their student experiences and the feedback they received from students in the teaching process. For instance, Ms. Sadigova said, “Düzü, təlimlərdə iştirak etməmişəm. Sadəcə, tələbə ilə işlədikcə və təcrübə qazandıqca özümü daha da təkmilləşdirməyə çalışıram.” [To be honest, I have never participated in a teaching-related training. As I work with students and gain experience, I try to improve my teaching.] These differences may have dictated how the participants viewed the effectiveness of various teaching methods and how they defined ITMs. As discussed earlier in this section, participants with limited exposure to formal teacher training (Ms. Musayeva and Ms. Sadigova) were more exclusive about the teaching methods and approaches they viewed effective and defined under the umbrella term ITMs. Participants with more exposure to formal teacher training, however, were more critical of various teaching methods and presented a more complex definition to ITMs (see Chapter 4). Consequently, participants engaged more often in the teaching methods they thought were more effective and resulted in better learning outcomes for students. The degree of exposure to teaching literature 99 may influence faculty judgment of the effectiveness of various teaching methods and result in the adoption of or resistance to these methods. Another aspect of teaching skills and knowledge discussed by the participants was the use of modern education technologies. Most participants expressed confidence in their skills to use and facilitate modern education technologies for their classes. Ms. Khaligli, who identified as a technophobe, for example, gained confidence in her use of technology for class purposes after she started to work on her skills. She said: I will be honest, I think I am the most technophobic teacher ever, and I am happy that I realized it, and I am doing my very best to overcome this fear because, in the 21st century, it is impossible to be successful not having enough insight into technology. Ms. Khaligli stated overcoming her fears boosted her “self-confidence” in terms of using technology in the classroom. Given that the use of modern education technologies was one of the descriptors of participants’ definition of ITMs, having good technology skills may also promote their self-confidence for engaging in these methods (i.e., satisfaction of the needs for competence) and increase the level of motivation for engaging in ITMs. Findings suggest faculty skills and knowledge may influence faculty teaching beliefs. The study participants believed in their own skills of effectively engaging in ITMs. As faculty teaching knowledge and skills may be an important factor contributing to a successful application of a particular teaching method in class, having well-developed teaching skills, such as the use of technology, can be a motivator of faculty engagement in ITMs. The lack of such skills, however, may prevent faculty from engaging in ITMs. Summing up, faculty teaching beliefs, an intrinsic/autonomous motivator, play an important role in their motivation to engage in ITMs. As the participant responses indicate, their 100 beliefs in the effectiveness of ITMs promoted their engagement in these methods. Their teaching decisions were tied to their beliefs about the content of teaching and the effective methods of teaching. In addition to teaching beliefs, the above-discussed findings suggest faculty teaching knowledge and skills can influence their engagement in ITMs. Being well-informed about ITMs and having well-developed skills in using these methods may promote faculty engagement in ITMs. As I mentioned earlier in this chapter, however, faculty teaching beliefs, skills, and knowledge are not isolated from the influence of surrounding factors. The following section presents a discussion of the factors that help shape faculty teaching beliefs, skills, and knowledge. Factors Shaping Faculty Teaching Beliefs, Skills, and Knowledge Faculty teaching beliefs, a driving force of teaching motivation, are not a fixed phenomenon and can be changed and shaped as faculty go through new experiences that promote learning. The data collected in this study show the environment in a larger sense and institutional environment are rich in factors that may support or hinder this learning process. The study participants’ responses indicate their teaching beliefs were formed in various learning platforms throughout their lives. These sources of learning introduced experiences that influenced the participants’ beliefs about teaching and learning, thus promoting or obstructing participants’ engagement in one or another method of teaching. As shown in Figure 2, two categories of learning sources that influenced participants’ teaching and learning beliefs emerged from the collected data: sources of learning outside academe and sources of learning within academe. In the following subsections, I present the findings on how various factors (i.e., individual, institutional, and environmental factors) within 101 these two subcategories contributed to participants’ learning, thus influenced their intention to engage in ITMs. Faculty Teaching Beliefs, Skills, and Knowledge and Engagement in ITMs Environment Learning promotes a change in faculty teaching Intention to engage in ITMs beliefs, skills, and knowledge. Faculty Teaching Beliefs, Skills, & Knowledge Outside Academe Sources of Learning Within Academe Figure 2. Faculty Teaching Beliefs, Skills, and Knowledge and Engagement in ITMs. Learning Sources Outside Academe As noted earlier, faculty motivation for engaging in ITMs is influenced by their teaching beliefs shaped by various instances of learning within and outside academe. The data suggest the environment within which the participants live and interact with others is rich with opportunities for learning. The agents of learning in this environment (outside academe) vary from the macro- level factors, such as culture in the country, to the participants’ microenvironment such as their families. Environment in the country. One common thread in the participant responses was the relationship between faculty teaching beliefs and various aspects of the country’s life. The participants used phrases such as “ağır dövr” [difficult period] and “keçid dövrü” [transition 102 period] as they described the developments of the 1990s. Especially, the participants who were young adults or adults as these transitions started were influenced by these developments. For example, Ms. Khaligli, who imitated her teachers’ behavior in the early years of her teaching career, experienced a shift in her teaching beliefs. Explaining the reasons for a change in her teaching she said, “I realized I should keep pace with the times because the Soviet Union collapsed and a lot of things changed since then.” Ms. Khaligli continued, “Now, I realize there should have been given more space to practice, rather than the theory, but again this is with all my gratitude to my teachers because those were the requirements of those times.” One of the main goals of university education, in Ms. Khaligli’s opinion, is preparing students for life, and the education she received in a Soviet university did not prepare her for this life. Understanding the shortcomings in the education she receive helped change Ms. Khaligli’s beliefs about college teaching. Economy. One variable influencing faculty teaching beliefs is the economic setting in the country. Economic transitioning of the 1990s influenced the way individuals and organizations thought about higher education. One of the participants, Ms. Jabbarova, stated her understanding of what valuable knowledge was changed as the economy changed and people lost their jobs. Like many others in Azerbaijan, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ms. Jabbarova’s family (all the members had higher education degrees) could no longer afford the life they once had. She described the developments of the 1990s as a “dəhşətli” [terrible] period in her family’s life. She said, “Mən özümə dedim ki, sən nəyi bilirsən? Biz [ailə üzvləri] nə isə etməli idik.” [I asked myself what I knew/what I could do. We [family members] had to do something to change this situation.] She added, “Sovet dövründə biz [tələbələr] çox şeyi bilirdik, amma nailiyyətimiz o qədər deyildi.” [During the Soviet period we, students, had a lot of content knowledge, but we 103 did not achieve much in practice.] Ms. Jabbarova noted self-analysis of her own knowledge and skills in that situation promoted thoughts about the types of knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in this new economic situation: practical knowledge and skills. This shift in the teaching goals influenced the participant’s teaching decisions later in her teaching career. Throughout the interviews Ms. Jabbarova compared Soviet higher education to the university education of our times, stating the main difference being in students’ employment needs. The data also indicate the changes happening in the economic life of the country influenced the participants’ teaching beliefs either directly through their personal experience and observations or through the changes in the national education standards. The relationship between the national/state education standards and faculty teaching beliefs is discussed later in this chapter. Society. The findings suggest society is another important source of learning that influences faculty teaching beliefs. The expectations of the society built into the existing teacher stereotypes in Azerbaijan form the basis for this process. Teachers in Azerbaijan are viewed as role models for future generations and are expected to set exemplary behavior. For example, several participants shared in order to be “nümunəvi müəllim” [exemplary teacher], you were expected to follow the society’s expectations of faculty-student relationships (formal and distant) and display a reserved behavior in and outside of the classroom (even in personal life). While these expectations influenced how the participants perceived themselves as teachers, this influence was not always one-directional; in certain cases, participants rejected to conform to the societal expectations. Several participants described how they tried to live up to all the positive expectations of society and tried to be role models for future generations. Positive expectations built into the teacher stereotype included characteristics such as responsibility, tolerance, patriotism, and 104 reserved behavior in all social circumstances. Mr. Alimardanli, for example, stated being a role model meant not only controlling his teaching behavior but also his behavior outside academe. He said, “Şəxsi həyatınızda çox rahat ola bilmirsiniz, belə ki, hər kəsin gözü sizdədir, bir müəllim kimi.” [You cannot be very relaxed in your personal life because even outside academe, people expect you to be exemplary as a teacher.] Similar perspectives were stated in the responses by the participants with more than 10 years of teaching experience. One such participant was Ms. Abbasova whose perceptions of a good teacher conformed to the existing role model stereotype. She said, “Müəllim auditoriyaya daxil olanda artıq onun görünüşü və davranışı öyrədici olmalıdır.” [A teacher should set an example with his/her appearance and behaviour.] She viewed an ideal teacher as someone with a presentable teacher appearance, who holds values such as tolerance and patriotism and sets examples with his/her own behavior. Within the classroom, these social expectations may be related to teaching objectives, such as the development of responsible citizens. Society’s expectations also influenced participants’ teaching behavior by instilling in them a higher sense of social responsibility. The analysis of the participant responses indicate they felt responsible for the future of the country (discussed earlier), a belief that intrinsically promoted their engagement in ITMs. Another group of participants, however, rejected to conform to some societal expectations. Mr. Ahmadov and Mr. Rahimov, for example, both were proud of setting a less traditional example of a teacher behavior. When Mr. Rahimov described his relationships with his students, for example, he said: Bizdə bir az cəmiyyətdə də, mentalitetdə də belə bir şey var ki, yaşlı müəllim əl uzatmır və uzaqdan salam, sağ ol deyir. Amma mən ilk dəfə özüm əlimi uzadıram, danışıram, və düşünürəm ki, bu tələbələrdə özünə bir hörmət göstəricisi kimidir və onlara müsbət təsir 105 edir. [In our society because of our mentality, older faculty do not shake hands with their students, and greetings with students are rather short and formal. But, I usually initiate a handshake with my students because I think it is a sign of respect to students and positively influences faculty-student relationships.] Mr. Rahimov explained by disregarding this commonly accepted behavior, he managed to overcome a barrier to positive faculty-student relationships. He questioned the rightfulness of many expectations about higher education classes and faculty behavior and stood in a less conformist ground in this sense. Participant rejection of some societal expectations could explain the shift in their attitude towards faculty-student relationships. Given the existing societal expectations are more traditional in nature, their rejection could help faculty display a counter- cultural teaching behavior. Participants’ description of their own personality and the teacher stereotypes that exist in society point to the possible relationship between these variables. The expectations of society influenced participants’ teacher identity in two ways; one group of participants expressed they tried to live up to these expectations, whereas other group rejected to conform to these expectations. In both cases, the existing social expectations became a source of learning and influenced the way the majority of the study participants saw themselves as teachers. Influence of the family. The findings of this study show family is a valuable source of learning for faculty. For example, Ms. Jabbarova shared the relationships with her family members informed her perspectives about faculty-student relationships. She stated, “Valideynlərimiz imkan verirdi ki, biz onlarla diskussiyaya girək və fikirlərimizi bölüşək. Mənim bu ənənəvi Azərbaycan mühitində başa düşmədiyim cəhət o idi.” [Our parents allowed us to engage in family discussions and express our opinions. Therefore, I always struggled to 106 understand/accept the lack of this freedom in a traditional Azerbaijani environment.] She learned to value expressing one’s own opinion from her parents, who treated their children as equals and created a safe space for discussions. For Ms. Jabbarova, the nature of this relationship guided all her relationships with the people in her environment, including the relationships with her students. For Ms. Khaligli this learning source in her family was her daughter. She said, “My daughter helps me a lot in my professional development. I ask her for advice because she is my students’ age, and she knows better what will be more attractive and what will be less.” Ms. Khaligli viewed her daughter’s perspective as a valuable addition to her professional development because her daughter is a representative of her students’ generation. Another participant, Ms. Muradova, also emphasized the role of her children in her own development as a teacher. She stated: Having children who are studying at school and who have certain issues with their studies probably makes me more compassionate towards my students. [...] As my kids are growing, I think, okay, these people are going to be in higher education. Ms. Muradova shared how the difficulties her children were facing in school made her think about her students’ challenges in a more personal way and become more empathetic toward her students. These examples suggest faculty beliefs about teaching and learning are also informed by their family members’ learning experiences and relationships. Learning Sources within Academe Faculty learning within academe happens in two major stages of their lives: (a) learning happening during student years and (b) learning happening throughout their teaching experience. Both stages contribute to faculty learning and their teaching beliefs, skills and knowledge 107 through the influence of a number of environmental, individual and institutional-level factors. Below, I provide a discussion of these factors that facilitate or hinder faculty learning within academe. Student experience. One of the key phases where people learn about teaching is when they are students. The majority of the participants did not have a formal teacher training/pedagogical training built into their graduate or undergraduate programs. Most of their knowledge of what good teaching was and how classes should be arranged and taught came from their own classroom experiences as students. During this period, two sources of learning that influenced participants’ beliefs about teaching and learning were (1) their own learning styles and needs as students and (2) learning sourced from their teachers and peers. Personal learning styles and needs as students. Participants’ personal learning styles and needs informed their teaching decisions later in their teaching career. For example, Ms. Sadigova stated her teaching was informed by her own learning style. She said, “Mən tələbə olanda, hansı müəllimin dərs keçmək metodikası mənə daha asan gəlirdisə və kimin dərsini daha asan qavramışamsa, çalışıram ki, özüm də dərs deyəndə onlar kimi dərs keçim, yəni o cəhətləri götürmüşəm onlardan.” [I imitate my teachers whose teaching methods worked for me and made learning easier for me. I try to use the methods that helped me learn best when I was a student.] Describing her learning style, Ms. Sadigova also stated she learned best when her teachers did not limit learning to classroom experiences and incorporated classroom techniques that involved students’ research and presentations. Another participant, Ms. Muradova believed students need to gain metacognitive skills, the skills she lacked as a student. She said: 108 Learning how to study is important because you can save a lot of time. As I said I was inquisitive, I wanted to learn new things, and read new books. Sometimes, I did not know how to do it, how to do it effectively. Therefore, in her classes, Ms. Muradova supported her students by providing them with the “guidance of how to study effectively”. The influence of participants’ own learning styles and needs was common among many participants. Mr. Verdiyev, Ms. Abbasova, Ms. Jabbarova, and Ms. Musayeva were among the participants whose personal learning styles and needs influenced their teaching beliefs. University teachers and peers. When describing their student years, many participants mentioned the influence of their university teachers and peers. All the participants expressed the way they see teaching was influenced by who their teachers were and how they taught and behaved in classes. Ms. Khaligli shared she imitated her teachers in the early years of her teaching career. She said, “I can say that I was imitating their [my teachers’] work. I had some role models in my mind. Definitely, their teaching left a trace.” Ms. Khaligli was not the only participant whose teaching decisions were informed by her teachers; Mr. Ahmadov, Ms. Musayeva, and Ms. Sadigova shared similar stories. The data also suggest teacher influence on participants’ teaching beliefs was not always one directional. Unlike the participants who imitated their teachers early in the career, several participants avoided the teaching behavior their teachers displayed. For example, Mr. Rahimov described how discriminative attitude of his teachers put him under a lot of stress as a student. He said, “Mən rayon məktəbindən gəlmişdim. Bizim müəyyən müəllimlər var ki, hansı ki rayondan gələn tələbələri görməzdən gəlirlər.” [I went to school in one of the rural regions of Azerbaijan. There are some faculty who discriminate against such students; if a student is from a 109 rural region, they are automatically ignored.] Having been through this experience, Mr. Rahimov became a firm believer of the equal treatment of students from all backgrounds. In addition, some participants described their own experiences in traditional college classes as dull, uninteresting, and demotivating long classes. For example, when Ms. Musayeva described her college classes, she said: “Əksər vaxtlarda mühazirələr darıxdırıcı idi, və mən bu mühazirələrə qulaq asmaq istəmirdim.” [The lectures were usually boring, and I did not want to listen to these lectures.] Participants who had similar college experiences (Mr. Verdiyev, Ms. Abbasova, and Ms. Jabbarova) avoided imitating a teaching behavior (namely, traditional teaching methods) that was associated with these negative feelings. Peer attitude toward teaching methods is another factor shaping faculty teaching beliefs. Mr. Ahmadov, for example, shared he observed his peers’ reactions to various teaching strategies used by his teachers. He said, “Özün tələbə olanda müəllimin etdiklərinin hansı effekti verdiyini öz tələbə yoldaşlarında görə bilirsən.” [When you are a student, you can see how your peers react to the methods your teachers use.] He stated reflecting on his peers’ reaction to teaching methods helped him with his own teaching. Peer influence was also mentioned in the interviews with Ms. Musayeva and Mr. Verdiyev. Describing various teaching strategies used by their teachers, often times, both participants looked at these strategies through their peers’ perspectives. For example, when describing whether his college teachers could or could not engage the class by increasing their interest in class activities, Mr. Verdiyev often used the pronouns such as “biz” [we] and “bizi” [us], which implies he was also reflecting on how his peers reacted to various teaching methods. Both participants viewed teaching methods favored by their peers as effective teaching methods. 110 Teaching experience. Teaching experience is another phase shaping faculty teaching beliefs. The participants’ teaching behavior and beliefs changed throughout the years of teaching. Participants regarded this change and improvement in their teaching as a natural process. For example, comparing her current teaching to the early years of her teaching career, Ms. Abbasova used the expression “lifelong learning” and viewed the transformation of her teaching style as a “təbii” [natural] process. She said, “Yəni bu [müəllim] işlədiyi müddətdə həm öz üzərində çalışır, həm həyat dəyişir, hər şey yenilənir, təzə metodlar çıxır, və yaxud müəllimlər öz metodlarını bölüşməyə başlayır, öyrənirsən və öyrənə-öyrənə gedirsən.” [I mean faculty work on their teaching throughout their teaching career. Life changes, everything gets updated, new methods appear, or colleagues start to share their methods with you; you keep learning and growing.] Ms. Abbasova concluded the years of teaching contributed to her learning and growth as a teacher. These thoughts were echoed by other participants with more than five years of teaching experience. Another participant, Ms. Muradova, shared the gained experience in teaching helped her become a more independent teacher who is “not afraid to make decisions” about her courses and learned that “if you trust the students, with proper guidance, they will reach the goal.” Faculty with fewer years of teaching experience, however, shared they observed slight changes in their teaching. One of these participants, Ms. Verdiyev, said, “Çox olmasa da müəyyən dəyişikliklər görürəm.” [Although I cannot say there have been too many changes, I still believe my teaching developed over time.] He stated although he did not experience fundamental changes, he started to pay more attention to his students’ learning interests as he gained more experience in teaching. Participant responses indicate the changes happening throughout their teaching career are tied to a number of internal and external factors that promote faculty learning. This stage of 111 faculty life introduces channels of personal and professional growth that shape faculty teaching beliefs, skills, and knowledge. The findings indicate the following factors can be critical in shaping faculty teaching beliefs in this period: national and global education standards, collaboration and feedback, TPD, and students. Following subsections present a discussion of these factors. National and global education standards. Findings suggest national and global education standards may facilitate learning and shape faculty teaching beliefs. The analysis of the documents on the websites of the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Azerbaijan and a number of Azerbaijani HEIs shows governmental and institutional level policies on the quality of education are tied to international education standards, which points to a relationship between global education standards and faculty teaching beliefs. According to Article 9 of the Education Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan (2009): [In Azerbaijan] the level of education quality is determined in accordance with the system of corresponding quality indicators (educational programs – curricula, the readiness level of matriculates, material and technical foundation, infrastructure, information resources, professionalism and scientific-pedagogic level of educators, progressive teaching technologies, etc.) by each academic level, having adjusted to the principles of international and European education systems under the national educational standards adopted in the country. (para. 10) This statement shows the education standards in the country are defined in accordance with the international education standards, particularly European standards. As discussed previously, because of the worldwide interest in ITMs (see Chapter 1), the adopted standards influenced the state encouragement of the use of ITMs by the universities’ academic staff. A 112 comparative analysis of various data sources showed participant statements of their teaching philosophy included similar descriptors mentioned in the Law on Education, such as “prepare them [students] for life and professional activity”, “train progressively thinking and competitive specialists and personnel”, “protect and promote national, moral, and universal values”, “[develop/train students] committed to the ideas of patriotism and loyal to Azerbaijanism”, and “[gaining] theoretical and practical knowledge”. The discussion of the aforementioned qualities and values were dominant in participants’ responses, which suggests changing education standards in the country were another source of learning for many participants. One such example comes from Mr. Alimardanli who started his teaching career as the new education standards were adopted. He said, “Mənim üçün çətin olmadı o dəyişikliklər, çünki mən onsuz da təcrübəsiz idim, dəyişikliklər başladı, və mən o dəyişiklikləri dərs deyə-deyə tətbiq edib, öyrənməyə başladım.” [I did not experience any difficulties incorporating these new standards into my teaching because I was just starting my teaching career. The changes started, and I learned them by applying them.] Given the Law on Education is the basis for the change and improvement in the country, the education standards set by the central government and adopted by institutions may influence faculty beliefs about teaching and student academic needs, thus influencing their intention to engage in ITMs. Several participants’ responses also indicate institutional-level encouragement of a particular teaching method influenced their engagement in various teaching methods. For example, Ms. Khaligli, Ms. Jabbarova, and Ms. Muradova, participants who had teaching experience at a number of HEIs, shared when they worked at the institutions that made a strong emphasis on the use of ITMs, these participants had more interest in integrating these methods into their teaching. These participants also shared when they worked at institutions that did not 113 show a similar level of encouragement for ITMs, they were more resistant to these methods. For example, comparing her teaching at the current institution to the previous workplace Ms. Khaligli said: At first, I myself was very skeptical about it [the use of ITMs]. It is not correct to ignore everything that led up to the modern stage of teaching and cross out everything that has been collected throughout centuries, cross it out and start something new. Innovation is a good thing, but it should be based on previous experiences. I was skeptical about some moments, but luckily time proved that some of them were quite effective. Let us say when I started teaching at this institution, a lot of space was given to peer work and group work. I did not like this idea because I could not check these students at the individual level at each stage of the lesson. So this is the main focus of Soviet methodology, an individual approach at every stage of the lesson. But once you start group work, peer work… I just did it because I was told to do so, but at the end of the first academic year here, I saw that it was justified. It is something that is strongly recommended in teaching because it fosters students’ autonomy, which is very important because they have started adult life, and they will transfer these skills at the workplace as well. The institutional requirement to engage in ITMs (external motivator) gave Ms. Khaligli an opportunity to change her perspectives toward these methods, which later encouraged her to facilitate the use of ITMs on a regular basis. She realized these methods helped her achieve important teaching goals such as preparing students for an independent life. The data suggest alongside the state level encouragement for change, institutional-level encouragement is critical to faculty engagement in ITMs. The participants were more invested in ITMs when a higher degree of institutional encouragement for engaging in ITMs existed. Within the institutional 114 environment, the participants highlighted the role of several factors such as institutional focus on collaboration and professional development in facilitating their learning and engagement in ITMs. Collaboration and feedback. Several participants highlighted the role of collaboration with their colleagues as an important source of learning and motivation. Talking about collaboration Ms. Sadigova said, “Biz [müəllimlər] öz dərs keçmək metodikalarımızı, yenilikləri bir-birimizlə bölüşürük, və bəlkə də bir-birimizdən nə isə öyrənmiş oluruq.” [We [faculty] collaborate with each other; share our new methods and innovations with each other, and maybe, we learn from each other.] Collaboration with colleagues helped Ms. Sadigova to learn more about teaching methods from her colleagues and also contribute to their professional development. In addition to collaboration with colleagues from similar disciplinary fields, several participants (Mr. Alimardanli, Ms. Abbasova, and Ms. Sadigova) also highlighted the role of interdisciplinary and interdepartmental collaboration in broadening their perspectives. Mr. Alimardanli expressed collaboration with colleagues from different disciplinary fields greatly contributed to his professional and personal growth. For example, “interdisciplinary” discussion of various issues helped Mr. Alimardanli to approach these issues from “digər perspektivlərdən” [different/other perspectives]. For the study participants, collaboration with colleagues was a source of knowledge exchange and feedback that increased participants’ likelihood to engage in ITMs. The participants showed proneness to collaboration on a course and syllabus design, classroom observations, and mentoring. Several participants (Mr. Ahmadov, Ms. Abbasova, and Ms. Muradova) shared these types of collaboration among academic staff was most useful when they received some sort of constructive feedback. Expressing concerns about the summative 115 faculty evaluations, for example, Mr. Ahmadov said, “Məncə, [summativ qiymətləndirmənin] müəllimin inkişafına heç bir təsiri yoxdur.” [I believe summative evaluation does not contribute to faculty development.] Participants believed the feedback received from these collaborative efforts contributed to their learning. Although the participants shared collaboration with their colleagues and feedback they received from these collaborations were very critical to their learning and professional growth, many of them were also concerned that collaboration and feedback are neglected by many Azerbaijani HEIs. Several issues related to collaboration and feedback were dominant in the interviews that interfered with the participants’ professional development. First, the data show little collaboration exists among faculty working in the same departments at the same institutions covered by this study. Several participants felt they needed to seek and/or initiate collaboration within their institutions, which suggests institutional policies do not enforce collaboration among academic staff. The unstructured nature of individually initiated collaborations speaks to the possibility of the lack of collaboration among those who do not seek collaboration or are not motivated enough to collaborate with those who reach out to them. Ms. Muradova was one of those participants who initiated collaboration with her peers. She described in her first year at the current institution, she felt the need for guidance by an experienced mentor familiar with the institutional mission and culture. She said, “It was my personal desire to go find [someone/a mentor] and talk to [them].” Having a mentor, in Ms. Muradova’s opinion, guides faculty with little/no teaching experience and with little/no teaching experience at a particular institution throughout the challenging period of adaptation and learning. Therefore, Ms. Muradova believed these collaborations should be enforced at the institutional level. Given collaboration was one of the main sources of teaching knowledge and 116 motivation for many participants of this study, the lack of collaboration among faculty at HEIs in Azerbaijan could lead to epistemic isolation for many faculty who are left outside of such collaborative network. Limited access to teaching literature and inability to learn from colleagues could explain the resistance to ITMs as these faculty may lack information on how to facilitate ITMs more skillfully for class purposes. Second, the data show even the established systems of collaboration at several Azerbaijani HEIs fail to function effectively due to a number of barriers. One such barrier discussed was the cultural expectations that exist among Azerbaijani faculty. Ms. Abbasova shared faculty restrain from providing constructive feedback (i.e., pointing out weaknesses) to each other because this kind of feedback is usually taken quite personal. She said: [Müəllimlər] düşünürlər ki, müəllimin səhvini demək onun xətrinə dəyər. Görürsən ki, [müəllim] gedir kafedrada oturur, təhlil haqqında yazı yazanda eyni şablon şeylər yazılır. Hamısını götürüb oxusanız, eyni şeylər yazılacaq ki, oturduq, dərs çox maraqlı keçdi, tələbələr fəal idi, müəllim videolardan istifadə elədi. [Faculty think pointing out someone’s mistakes will hurt their colleagues’ feelings. Therefore, classroom observations are nothing but a formality that do not depict the real picture of the observed classes. If you read those observation feedback forms, you would see how similar everyone’s observation feedback is: the lesson was very interesting, students were active, and the teacher utilized videos.] Sharing these issues, Ms. Abbasova also pointed out this unwritten cultural expectation interfered with her professional development and prevented her from contributing to other faculty members’ professional growth because she could not provide honest constructive feedback. She said, “Mənim dərsimə kimsə gəlirsə, mən istəyirəm mənim çatışmayan tərəflərimi 117 desinlər.” [If someone observes my class, I want them to tell me what my weaknesses are.] In Ms. Abbasova’s opinion, this cultural expectation limited faculty’s learning opportunities even when faculty truly sought constructive feedback. Another possible way this practice interferes with faculty engagement in ITMs is through unobjective evaluation results that do not depict the actual quality of teaching in college classes. Relying on the above-stated cultural expectation, faculty may expect favorable comments from colleagues and may not focus on the quality of teaching. This scenario is more likely to happen within the institutions that do not create competitive work environment among colleagues. Particularly, when the institutional policies lack the link between the quality of teaching and rewards and promotion, this cultural expectation may interfere with faculty engagement ITMs. Another barrier to participant learning was the manner with which these collaborations, especially faculty evaluations, were implemented at the institutional level. For instance, Mr. Ahmadov, who also believed feedback is a valuable input to faculty teaching development, expressed dissatisfaction with the way faculty evaluations were handled at his institution. He said, “[Müəllim fəaliyyətinin qiymətləndirilməsi] uğurlu deyildi, ona görə ki, kifayət qədər summamtiv formada keçirildi, yəni məncə müəllimin inkişafına heç bir təsiri yoxdur.” [Faculty evaluation at my institution was not successful because summative in its nature, this evaluation did not contribute to faculty professional development.] In his opinion, to contribute to faculty’s professional growth, feedback should be formative. Given the lack of the link between the quality of teaching and institutional rewards already creates a barrier to faculty teaching motivation, the lack of input into faculty learning could also interfere with their teaching motivation. Evaluation procedures, which can be stressful and time-consuming for faculty, may add more workload to faculty’s already busy schedules; when these procedures fail to introduce 118 any benefits to faculty (e.g., lack of rewards and promotion, lack of feedback contributing to faculty learning), they may decrease faculty’s overall teaching motivation. Third, existing collaboration and feedback policies at Azerbaijani HEIs do not address the entire population of faculty with various employment terms; adjunct faculty are left out of this collaboration network. Participants who were employed on adjunct-based terms (Mr. Rahimov, Mr. Verdiyev, and Ms. Musayeva) shared they had little involvement in the institutional life. These participants did not collaborate with their colleagues to their desired extent, which would contribute to their teaching professional growth. While one big barrier to their involvement was the lack of time (adjunct faculty work several jobs), other reasons contributing to this issue were the lack of institutional encouragement and the lack of the common shared space for faculty working together. When describing the relationships with his colleagues, Mr. Rahimov stated interaction and collaboration can be difficult because all his colleagues in the same department were adjunct faculty who worked several jobs. He said, “Biz sadəcə öz dərslərimiz vaxtı universitetə gəlirik və arada olan 5-10 dəqiqə fasilə zamanı isə çox vaxt tələbələrlə ünsiyyətdə oluruq. Ona görə sadəcə imtahan və yaxud basqa testlər olanda, biz müəllimlərlə təsadüfən rastlaşa bilərik.” [We only go to the university when we have classes, and we have only 5 or 10 minute breaks between classes during which we talk to students. Therefore, we rarely meet colleagues; only when there is an exam or a quiz.] According to Mr. Rahimov, faculty interaction and collaboration in his department was limited to the rare cases of collaboration on syllabus design early in the semester and faculty interaction via social networks. This type of collaboration, however, seemed to lack when issues related to classroom teaching were involved. 119 To add to the existing barriers, all the adjunct faculty indicated they did not receive any form of feedback on their teaching by anyone in their institution. For example, when Ms. Musayeva spoke about feedback she said, “Mənim üçün çox yaxşı olardı ki, dekan bir feedback [sic] versin, amma bizdə heç bir feedback [sic] olmadı, və əksər saathesabı müəllimlərdə vəziyyət belədir.” [Receiving some feedback from the dean would be very helpful, but I did not receive any feedback. The majority of adjunct faculty are in the same situation: they do not get any feedback.] The majority of the adjunct participants shared they were intrinsically motivated to teach; this motivation encouraged them to learn about teaching and learning throughout their experience within academe. These participants compensated this lack of feedback with the learning that was based on intentional and careful observation of their teachers and peers (Mr. Verdiyev and Ms. Musayeva) and participation in various TPD (Mr. Rahimov and Mr. Verdiyev). Given the possibility that not all the adjunct faculty may be intrinsically motivated to teach and learn, limited learning opportunities sourced from the lack of collaboration and feedback among colleagues may interfere with faculty learning and engagement in ITMs. Teaching professional development (TPD). The study findings show another factor influencing and shaping faculty teaching beliefs throughout their teaching career is professional development opportunities targeting classroom teaching. Many participants (except Ms. Musayeva and Ms. Sadigova) attended several teaching-related professional development trainings. Among TPD contributing to faculty learning, participants stated exchange programs sending/bringing faculty to/from foreign countries and teaching-related training influenced and shaped their teaching beliefs. Exchange programs. Exchange programs are an important facilitator for shaping faculty teaching beliefs. Participants shared interactions with foreigners within and outside of the 120 country positively influenced their teaching development. Ms. Jabbarova shared critical moments in her exchange experiences abroad changed her perspectives toward teaching and learning, particularly her beliefs about faculty-student relationships. She described a meeting with one of her advisors abroad where she found herself in a difficult situation due to language barriers (i.e., as a non-native English speaker). She said, “Elmi rəhbərimin mənə dediyi bir cümlə, mənim həyatımı istiqamətləndirən şeylərdən biri oldu. O mənə dedi ki, mən Azərbaycan dilində bir dənə də söz bilmirəm, heç bir söz bilmirəm. Sən amma ingilis dilində bir sözü tapa bilmirsən, sən niyə həyəcan keçirdirsənki, indi onu taparıq.” [My advisor’s support in that situation was one of the influential moments that changed my life. He said, “I do not know any words in Azerbaijani, but you do not know only one word in English. Why are you so nervous? We will find that word now, do not worry.”] Ms. Jabbarova expressed the advisor’s support in that very stressful situation helped her gain self-confidence and changed her beliefs. She continued, “İnsan həyatda elə insanlara rast gəlir ki, onlar onun daha yaxşı yolda olmasına kömək edir.” [Sometimes you meet people who help you become a better person.] This experience inspired Ms. Jabbarova to be more supportive to her students. Exchange experiences also contribute to the learning of the faculty at host institutions. Several participants (Ms. Abbasova, Ms. Jabbarova, and Ms. Khaligli) shared collaboration and interaction with international faculty informed their teaching and lifestyle. For example, Ms. Khaligli stated she utilized various games she learned from her international colleagues in her classroom teaching. She said: More exposure to foreign culture was a gigantic part of my professional development. Getting together with my foreign colleagues and playing even board games can 121 sometimes help creativity. Yes, it is definitely a part of professional development and culture as well. Many participants’ responses suggest working with international colleagues and/or participation in trainings given by international experts contributed to their learning and professional growth. Given the majority of the exchange experiences described by the participants involved western institutions with longer history of ITMs encouragement, the learning happening through these experiences could explain participant engagement in ITMs. Teaching-related trainings. Another facilitator of learning discussed by participants was teaching-related trainings. For many participants, these trainings were the sole formal platform where they were trained to teach effectively. In addition to the content knowledge (teaching- related), participants agreed TPD promoted their teaching creativity. For example, Ms. Abbasova shared participation in TPD positively influenced her motivation for professional growth, and she became more creative in terms of classroom strategies. She said, “Bu təlimlərin bizə öyrətdiklərindən başqa, onların bizə verdiyi həvəs də dərsin gedişatına daha yaradıcı yanaşmağa kömək edir.” [Teaching-related trainings help us learn more about teaching and learning and motivate us to be more creative in terms of classroom teaching.] Further, she added these training sessions provided a space to meet “maraqlı müəllimlər, həmkarlar” [interesting teachers, colleagues] who contributed to her own learning and helped build relationships with faculty from other departments and institutions. Similar perspectives were stated by Mr. Ahmadov, Mr. Alimardanli, Mr. Rahimov, and Mr. Verdiyev. While participants spoke about possible benefits of teaching-related trainings, many of them also indicated the lack of institutional support for TPD. The findings show several factors interfere with faculty participation in these trainings. First, as indicated by several participants 122 (Mr. Ahmadov, Mr. Alimardanli, and Ms. Muradova), institutions do not provide enough trainings that are teaching-related. Speaking about teaching-related trainings, for instance, Mr. Alimardanli said, “Açıqcası, pedaqoji baxımdan kiçik miqdarda var, yəni o qədər yoxdur.” [To be honest, the number of teaching-related trainings is not satisfactory; only a small amount of trainings offered are teaching-related.] Second, participants’ workloads and the lack of financial support by institutions also interfered with their ability to attend TPD. Ms. Muradova, for instance, explained despite her intrinsic interest in professional development, too much workload minimized her chances of participating in TPD. She said, “Honestly, I would like to do more [participate in teaching-related training], but it is hard.” She added “with the workload” she had, engagement in various professional development opportunities was “very hard”. Mr. Verdiyev spoke about the financial side of the problem. He said, “Ödənişli olduğuna görə mən şəxsən bu təlimlərdə iştirakdan imtina etmişəm, cünki ödəniş də kifayət qədərdir. Deməzdim ki, lap çox baha, amma bu təlimlər müəllim üçün kifayət qədər bahadır.” [I decided not to participate in these TPD sessions because of the participation fees. I am not saying they are extortionate, but for a teacher’s budget these trainings are too expensive.] Document analysis and participant responses indicate the lack of institutional support for various forms of professional development is even greater for adjunct faculty. Ms. Musayeva stated exchange opportunities and financial support for TPD were more often open to the core academic staff than for those working on adjunct-based terms. She said, “Saathesabı müəllim üçün onu deyərdim ki, pedaqoji təlimlərdə və mübadilə proramlarında iştirak üçün dəstək yoxdur. O proqramlar daha çox öz ştat müəllimləri üçün təşkil olunur.” [Adjunct faculty do not receive any institutional support for participating in exchange programs or TPD. These professional development opportunities are usually open to the core academic staff of the 123 institution.] Mr. Rahimov and Mr. Verdiyev, who are also employed on adjunct-based terms, shared similar concerns. Unfortunately, the situation is not ideal for the core academic staff as well. Ms. Abbasova, for example, pointed disciplinary specialization of the institution also influenced the degree of support for TPD to the faculty from various disciplinary backgrounds. She said, “Universitet hesabına xaricə göndərilən müəllimlər daha çox ixtisas müəllimləridir.” [Faculty who go on university sponsored exchange programs are usually from disciplines within the narrowed specialization of the institution.] In Ms. Abbasova’s words, faculty whose disciplinary background differed from the institutional specialization did not receive equal amount of support from the institution to participate in this type of professional development. Participant responses point to the problems related to TPD, an important source of faculty teaching knowledge. Limited access to TPD may interfere with faculty engagement in ITMs because of the possible relationship between faculty teaching knowledge and skills and their engagement in a particular teaching method. Given the majority of the institutions do not provide financial support for TPD, faculty resistance to innovative methods at many Azerbaijani HEIs could be related to the limited engagement in TPD. Students. Student influence on faculty teaching motivation was the most common thread in the interviews with the participants. The study findings suggest students influence various aspects of faculty teaching and are the driving source of teaching motivation. All the participants indicated students played an important role in their engagement in ITMs. The data show student feedback and student success are important facilitators that shape faculty teaching beliefs. Both factors contribute to faculty perception of student academic needs and enforce one or another form of teaching behavior. 124 Student feedback. Participants shared student feedback was central to their teaching motivation. They used expressions such as “tələbələrin marağı” [student interest], “tələbələrin fəal iştirakı” [active student participation], “xoşlamaq” [to like], “motivated students”, “unmotivated students”, and “grade-oriented students” as they were describing various forms of student feedback toward class content and teaching strategies. In addition to these unstructured means of communicating student attitude toward course design and teaching strategies, student feedback can also be received via structured evaluation procedures. The first form of student feedback is more common in the Azerbaijani higher education context, as the data in this study show. By showing interest and motivation in one or another form of teaching, students communicate what and how they want/do not want to learn. In participant responses, the most common feedback of informal student feedback was student activeness and engagement in various class activities. One good example comes from Ms. Abbasova who described her students’ reactions to ITMs. She said, “Tələbələrin birinci necə cəlb olunduğunu görmək, onların gözlərində parıltı ilə baxdıqlarını görmək müəllimə böyük motivasiyadır.” [Seeing your students so engaged in the class activity and seeing how they look at you with their sparkling eyes is really motivating for a teacher.] Several participants shared positive feedback they received from their students shaped their understanding of how students learn best and what methods are most effective in advancing student learning outcomes. Mr. Rahimov, Ms. Abbasova, Ms. Jabbarova, and Ms. Sadigova shared their students’ positive feedback on their teaching (i.e., when they engaged in ITMs) was one of the reasons behind these participants’ engagement in ITMs. Another variable influencing faculty teaching beliefs is structured evaluation of teaching by students. The data show these formal evaluations of teaching can be done at the institutional or individual level. Speaking about formal evaluations held at the institutional level where 125 students were encouraged to evaluate courses and faculty teaching, Mr. Alimardanli stated the feedback received from “course evaluation” informed his teaching decisions. Ms. Khaligli and Ms. Muradova, on the other hand, indicated they also conducted structured evaluations at the individual level by asking students to provide written feedback to their courses. Ms. Khaligli said, “I conduct needs analysis at the beginning of the session, and based on this analysis, I try to make some amendments to my plan.” She also conducted a daily-based analysis of her teaching and paid attention to how various methods worked in classes. Received student feedback (informal and formal) informed participants’ beliefs about students needs and interests. These beliefs encouraged them to engage in teaching methods they believed best met these needs. Given the majority of the participants shared their students favored ITMs, this factor could also explain participants’ engagement in ITMs. Student success. Student success is another factor shaping faculty beliefs about student needs. What helped students succeed academically and in personal life influenced participants’ perceptions of student needs. However, student success seemed to be a complex phenomenon in participant discussions. They used expressions such as “tələbələrin qiymətləri” [students’ grades], “işə girmək” [getting employed/finding a job], “karyerada uğur” [career success], “şəxsiyyət olaraq böyümək” [personal growth], and “praktik bacarıqlar” [practical skills] as they were defining student success. Speaking about student success Ms. Khaligli offered the following perspective: For me, it [seeing her student succeed] was a motivation. I realized that [content knowledge] is not the only component of my success as a teacher and his success as a student. So, we cannot isolate one from the other, we are all humans and a part of community, and we have to be supportive at each stage of life. 126 Seeing the success of her students, who went through difficulties in their personal lives, shaped Ms. Khaligli’s beliefs about student needs and faculty-student relationships. Common in participant answers was defining their own success as teachers as their students’ success. Participants expressed teacher success should be measured with the degree of students’ success because student success indicated the achievement of teaching and learning objectives. To Ms. Abbasova and Ms. Musayeva, for example, a possible measurement of teacher success was positive student learning outcomes, “tələbələrin karyerada uğur qazanması” [students’ career achievements], and/or “tələbənin bir şəxsiyyət olaraq böyüməsi” [students’ personal development]. Given the participants expressed satisfaction with the student learning outcomes or their students’ employment success and related these success stories to their teaching decisions (i.e., engagement in ITMs), student success could inform participants’ beliefs about the effectiveness of ITMs, and participants’ judgement of their own teaching skills and knowledge. Conclusion This section presented the findings on how faculty teaching beliefs, skills, and knowledge influence their engagement in ITMs and introduced the factors that influence these beliefs, skills, and knowledge. The above-stated data suggest faculty beliefs about teaching and learning influence their classroom teaching behavior, intrinsically promoting or hindering their engagement in a particular teaching method. Faculty tend to engage in teaching methods they believe are the most influential in achieving their teaching goals. Participants’ teaching beliefs were based on their sense of responsibility to their society, particularly to students. Participant perspectives indicate helping students succeed in life and contributing to the country’s future through the development of responsible citizens were the main teaching objectives influencing their teaching decisions. To achieve these goals, participants relied on ITMs because of the 127 believed effectiveness of these methods in increasing student employability as well as holistic growth. In addition, the data suggest even under the unfavorable institutional environment where faculty encounter a number of teaching barriers, their teaching beliefs are the most influential intrinsic motivator promoting faculty engagement in ITMs. The data also indicate faculty teaching beliefs are formed, shaped, and changed throughout their lives. The key factor contributing to this change is faculty learning that happens in various platforms outside academe (e.g., environment in the country and family) and within academe (e.g., student experience and teacher experience). Within these environments, a number of institutional and environmental factors facilitate or obstruct faculty learning, the main factor shaping faculty teaching beliefs. When the existing institutional and environmental factors favor ITMs over other traditional teaching methods, faculty are more likely to believe in the effectiveness of these methods, thus engaging in ITMs more regularly. The findings also suggest faculty teaching beliefs, skills, and knowledge are not the only factors influencing faculty teaching motivation. Many factors within the environment influence faculty well-being and impact the teaching behaviour faculty tend to engage in. In addition, the data also point to the role of faculty personality traits in their teaching motivation. A more detailed account of the findings on these categories is presented in the next chapter. 128 CHAPTER 6: FACULTY WELL-BEING AND PERSONALITY TRAITS In the previous chapter, I presented an overview of the study findings and introduced the first overarching category of factors that emerged from the data: faculty teaching beliefs, skills, and knowledge. In doing so, I stated faculty teaching beliefs, skills, and knowledge are central to their engagement in innovative teaching methods (ITMs) and highlighted the role of a number of environmental, individual, and institutional-level factors that influence and shape these teaching- related beliefs, skills, and knowledge. In addition, I concluded faculty teaching motivation is influenced by a wide range of factors, including (a) faculty well-being and (b) faculty personality traits. In this chapter, I continue the discussion of findings on these overarching categories of factors. First, I introduce the types of faculty well-being that emerged from the data and their role in faculty engagement in ITMs. Next, I present various environmental, institutional, and individual-level factors that influence faculty well-being and promote and/or inhibit faculty from engaging in ITMs. The final section of the chapter discusses the role of the faculty personality traits in their engagement in ITMs. Faculty Well-Being The data suggest a relationship exists between faculty well-being (i.e., emotional and physical well-being) and their motivation to engage in ITMs (see Figure 3). First, faculty engage in ITMs because of their positive influence on faculty emotional well-being. When faculty engage in a desired form of teaching (i.e., the most effective teaching methods according to faculty beliefs), they are more likely to be satisfied with their teaching productivity (i.e., professional satisfaction). Professional satisfaction, in its turn, positively influences faculty emotional well-being. Given the participants believed in the effectiveness of ITMs, their motivation to engage in ITMs can be explained by the relationship between the application of 129 ITMs and an increased level of professional satisfaction, which positively influenced participants’ emotional well-being. Faculty Well-Being and Engagement in ITMs Faculty Well-Being Engagement in ITMs Emotional Well-Being Physical Well-Being Professional Satisfaction Personal Life Satisfaction Figure 3. Faculty Well-Being and Engagement in ITMs. Faculty professional and personal life satisfaction, which contributes to their well-being, is influenced by environmental, institutional, and individual-level factors. Second, faculty with better emotional and physical well-being are more likely to persist in an intended method of teaching (in this case, ITMs). When faculty needs for emotional and physical well-being are met, they are more successful in overcoming the challenges in the teaching process. For example, within the favorable environmental and institutional conditions that supported them, the participants were more successful in persisting in ITMs. On the other hand, the challenges encountered were perceived as threats to participant well-being and inhibited their teaching motivation. Participants experienced more challenges and a loss of teaching motivation when they were in a poor emotional and/or physical state, which points to a relationship between faculty well-being and their teaching behavior. 130 Two distinct aspects of faculty well-being emerged from the data: faculty emotional well-being and faculty physical well-being. In the subsections below, I present a more detailed account of faculty emotional and physical well-being. These subsections also introduce the factors (i.e., individual, institutional, and environmental factors) that influence faculty well- being. Faculty Emotional Well-Being As mentioned above, participant engagement in ITMs positively influenced their emotional well-being. Participants viewed ITMs as effective teaching methods; therefore, engagement in these methods increased their self-esteem and sense of competence in teaching. Participants’ self-esteem was informed by the feelings they experienced in the process of teaching. Many participants used phrases such as “xoş” [pleasant], “adrenalin” [adrenaline], “yaxşı” [good], “zövq” [enjoyment], and “xoşbəxt” [happy] to describe the feelings associated with their successful classes and the use of new classroom techniques (i.e., ITMs). For example, when asked to reflect on the feelings associated with ITMs, Ms. Abbasova said, “Dərsin axırında bir dərsə verilən materialı [tələbələrin] necə ürəklə öyrəndiklərini görürsənsə, dərs sonunda bir feedback [sic] alırsansa, görürsən ki, dediklərinin hamısı sənə qayıdır, o böyük motivasiyadır. Deməli düz yol ilə gəlmişik.” [At the end of the lesson, if you see your students are so invested in learning, if you receive some feedback, and if you see students have assimilated all that you have taught them during the lesson, it is really motivating for a teacher. It means we have chosen the right way/methods.] Her students’ positive learning outcomes motivated Ms. Abbasova because these results justified her teaching decisions and increased her self-esteem as a teacher. Another participant, Ms. Musayeva, had a similar perspective. She said, “Yəni, belə deyək də, nəyi isə öyrədirsən, və görürsən uşaq götürüb. Yəni, onu mənə qaytarması mənə ilham verir. 131 [Bu] ilham mənbəyidir mənim üçün, buna görə dərsi daha gözəl, daha interaktiv şəkildə keçməyə çalışıram.” [Let us say, you teach something to your students, and you see your students have learned it. I mean their positive learning outcomes motivate me, and I try to teach better, to create more interactivity in classes.] Positive feelings associated with successful teaching and learning outcomes were dominant in the interviews with all the participants. These feelings positively influenced participants’ professional satisfaction and their emotional well-being, which motivated them to engage in ITMs. The data also show the relationship between participant engagement in ITMs and their emotional well-being was not one-directional: participant emotional well-being, in its turn, influenced their engagement in ITMs. Participants were more successful to engage in ITMs when they felt happy and professionally satisfied, whilst the challenges were difficult to overcome when they felt demotivated and unhappy. For example, Mr. Alimardanli described the influence of poor emotional state on his teaching and expressed the need for self-control in such cases. He said, “Dərsə fərqli əhval-ruhiyyədə girməyə çalısıram.” [I try to start/enter classes in a different mood.] He managed to engage in ITMs by controlling his emotional state. Several participants took a similar approach to overcoming challenges related to a poor emotional state, and they engaged in self-control before entering classes. This relationship between emotional well-being and self-control suggests the following: given the self-control is a depleting resource, the failure to persist in ITMs can be explained by a longer period of a poor emotional state, particularly for the faculty with lower self-control strength (i.e., because of depletion of self-control resources, engagement in a particular behavior requiring self-control can be more difficult). The above- mentioned points suggest faculty are more likely to succeed to engage in ITMs when they are in a good emotional state, whereas poor emotional well-being creates more challenges to teaching 132 and requires purposeful control of faculty behavior to overcome these challenges, making faculty engagement in ITMs more difficult. Findings also suggest a number of factors contribute to faculty emotional well-being. Two distinct areas of faculty emotional well-being, professional satisfaction and personal life satisfaction, influence faculty engagement in ITMs. Each aspect of faculty emotional well-being and factors influencing them are further discussed below. First, I present a discussion of the factors that influence faculty professional satisfaction. Next, I introduce the role of personal life satisfaction in faculty engagement in ITMs and the factors contributing to participants’ satisfaction with their personal life. Professional Satisfaction As stated above, faculty professional satisfaction plays an important role in supporting their emotional well-being and promoting their engagement in ITMs. Participant responses indicate faculty who are satisfied with their professional life are more likely to engage in ITMs even when they encounter challenges. All the participants indicated when they worked in an environment that supported their teaching, they felt more motivated and were more committed to persisting in ITMs despite the possible barriers to teaching. The indicators of professional satisfaction that emerged from participant responses constituted factors such as higher self- esteem in their own teaching expertise (i.e., competence); interest in the subject matter and teaching profession; the availability of personal and professional growth in the workplace; recognition of faculty teaching by their students, colleagues, administrators, family members, and society (i.e., having good reputation); and availability of the rewards and promotions for teaching quality. The data indicate when the above-mentioned factors informing participants’ professional satisfaction existed, they were more likely to engage in an intended method of 133 teaching (in this case ITMs). Findings also suggest a number of individual-level factors (e.g., faculty fears), institutional-level factors (e.g., faculty autonomy), and environmental factors (e.g., job prestige) influence the degree of faculty professional satisfaction. Below, I present a more detailed account of these factors. Environmental factors. The data suggest environment plays an important role in faculty engagement in ITMs through maintaining their professional satisfaction. For example, the status of a teaching job in Azerbaijani society positively influenced participants’ perception of their own profession. According to the participants, a teaching job is one of the highly respected jobs in Azerbaijan. Speaking about the status of a teaching job, Mr. Ahmadov explained, “Yaxşı müəllimə bizim cəmiyyətdə çox yüksək qiymət verirlər.” [Our society shows high respect to good teachers.] An interesting emphasis in this quote is made on how society differentiates between “good teachers” and others. Similarly, Mr. Verdiyev expressed satisfaction with the existing respect to teachers. He said, “Ölkəmizdə müəllimə çox böyük bir hörmət var.” [Teachers are highly respected in our country.] He used the expression “daha çox hörmət” [more/higher respect] as he was describing a higher status of “good teachers”. Implicit in these participants’ responses is the connection between the recognized form of teaching by society (see Chapter 5), participants’ satisfaction with their profession, and their teaching decisions. The participants enjoyed the recognition of their teaching by society, which influenced their professional satisfaction. One possible influence of this relationship is through the enforcement of a particular teaching behavior. The participants conformed to the societal expectations of good teaching to enjoy this higher status and to be differentiated from other groups of teachers. Institutional-level factors. The findings show institutional-level factors influence faculty professional satisfaction. Among these factors, participants mentioned the role of institutional 134 support for professional growth, faculty autonomy, institutional rewards and promotion systems, workloads, relationships with colleagues and students, and well-equipped teaching infrastructure. Below, I provide a more detailed discussion of how these factors influence faculty emotional well-being. Institutional support for professional growth. One factor positively contributing to faculty professional satisfaction is the availability of professional growth opportunities at work. The analyses of participants’ teaching philosophies (see Chapters 4 and 5) and their personality traits indicate all of the participants seek professional growth and value working in an institutional environment that support such growth. For example, when participants described their beliefs about a teaching job, the expressions they used such as “müəllimin inkisafı” [teacher’s development], “inkişaf üçün perspektivlər” [development opportunities], “professional development”, and “I want to develop” suggest these participants are intrinsically prone to continuous professional growth. Another indicator suggesting professional growth is central to participants’ professional satisfaction is their career decisions. Professional growth was one of the reasons why some participants changed their workplace (Ms. Khaligli) or chose to work at their current institutions (Mr. Alimardanli, Ms. Khaligli, and Ms. Muradova). For Mr. Alimardanli, who worked at two different institutions, one reason for having two jobs was the existing development opportunities at one of these institutions (e.g., support to attend conferences). He said, “[Bu universitetdə çalışmağımın səbəbi] burada inkişaf üçün perspektivlərin olmasıdır.” [I joined this institution because there are professional development opportunities here.] Another participants, Ms. Khaligli, who had similar reasons for joining another institution said, “I felt I needed even more professional development.” For Ms. Khaligli, 135 lack of professional development at her former workplace was a push-factor that encouraged her to find a new job. Participants sought different forms of support for professional growth which varied from institutional support for research (Mr. Ahmadov, Ms. Abbasova, Ms. Khaligli, and Ms. Muradova), participation in TPD (see Chapter 5), attending conferences (Mr.Alimardanli), involvement in academic events (Ms. Musayeva), and exchange opportunities (see Chapter 5) to mentoring and feedback (see Chapter 5). For instance, institutional support for research was mentioned to facilitate faculty teaching. Therefore, to promote faculty engagement in ITMs, participants (Mr. Ahmadov, Ms. Khaligli, and Ms. Muradova) believed institutions need to provide support to faculty research, which was viewed as a source of learning. Sharing his concerns about the lack of local research, for instance, Mr. Ahmadov said, “Universitet olaraq tədqiqatımız çox zəifdir. Tədqiqat olmayan yerdə, dərs keçmək çətindir. Yerli tədqiqatımız yoxdur, cünki müəllimlərin tədqiqata vaxtı yoxdur.” [The research productivity of our university is very low, which makes teaching even more challenging for us. We do not have local research because our teachers do not have time for research.] The lack of institutional support for research decreased participants’ opportunities to engage in teaching-related research, thus negatively influencing their professional satisfaction. Participants’ perspectives indicate professional growth opportunities increase professional satisfaction by informing faculty sense of competence. Faculty who are in a good professional standing are more likely to have higher self-esteem as teachers, a motivator of faculty engagement in ITMs. Faculty autonomy. Having autonomy or the lack of autonomy over course-related decisions may influence faculty emotional well-being and teaching motivation. As stated earlier in Chapter 4, the study participants work at a number of HEIs with varying degree of faculty 136 autonomy over course decisions. Participants with some autonomy over teaching-related decisions (Mr. Ahmadov, Mr. Alimardanli, Mr. Rahimov, Mr. Verdiyev, Ms. Muradova, and Ms. Musayeva) expressed satisfaction with this “freedom”. One of these participants, Ms. Muradova, said: It [autonomy] gives me another source of motivation. I can have a little area of mine where I can try things and work because, you know, when the teachers do the same things all the time, it gets boring. I can try out and always do something new. Having autonomy promoted Ms. Muradova’s self-realization by allowing her to be more creative and independent of teaching-related decisions. Several other participants echoed Ms. Muradova’s thoughts about how having autonomy increased their creativity. Mr. Rahimov shared although there was no autonomy at the institutional level, the department he worked in provided autonomy and supported him in all his teaching decisions. He said, “Bu [dəstək] da düşünürəm ki, mənim dərs deməyimə və mənə olan o inamın göstəricisidir. Hər halda, xoş bir şeydir.” [I think this support is a sign of institutional trust in my teaching expertise and myself, which is pleasant.] He viewed this autonomy as institutional support and trust in his teaching expertise and competence, which increased Mr. Rahimov’s self-esteem and professional satisfaction. Faculty autonomy was a sign of institutional “güvən” [trust] for Ms. Musayeva as well, who expressed satisfaction with her own autonomy over the course-related decisions. Participants with no autonomy, on the other hand, expressed dissatisfaction with the limitations that came with the lack of flexibility (e.g., inability to make adjustments to the course content; no control over the decisions related to the course materials, overall timeline, and the design of the syllabi; and inability to make adjustments to address particular students’/groups’ needs). Ms. Sadigova said, “[Kursların tərtibi üzərində sərbəstliyin olmaması] demotivasiya edir, 137 çünki bizim də öz idealarımız var. Yenilik tətbiq etmək istəyirik, bəzən o təhsil müəssisəsinin qoyduğu şərtlər imkan vermir.” [The lack of autonomy over course design is demotivating because we also have good ideas. We want to try new approaches, but, sometimes, the institutional requirements do not allow us to do so.] In her words, the institutional requirements restricting adjustments to the courses she taught interfered with her teaching. Given the intensity of the course content in her program, Ms. Sadigova expressed the difficulty to make additions to course content that would address students’ academic interests and needs. Ms. Abbasova and Ms. Khaligli also expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of autonomy. They stated standardized courses and syllabus design did not allow them to adjust their courses to students’ needs. Ms. Abbasova stated, “Eyni sillabusu, eyni dərsliyi bütün qruplara keçmək məcburiyyətindəsən.” [We have to use the same syllabus, the same textbooks in all the groups we teach.] In addition, according to Ms. Abbasova, standardization of the course content brought about student resistance toward ITMs. Centralized tests that cover standardized course content create limitations around what can be used by faculty in classes. Ms. Abbasova explained: Bu sillabuslardan kənara çıxanda da tələbə oxumaq istəmir. Məsələn, tələbələrə yararlı olacağını düşündüyün bir kitab gətirirsən ki, gəlin bunu oxuyaq. İmtahan sualları [bütün qruplar üçün] ümumidir deyə, tələbə dərhal sual verir ki, bu imtahana düşəcək? Deyəndə ki, xeyr, imtahana düşməyəcək, onda heç həmin kitabın üzünə də baxmayacaqlar.” [Even when you do not exactly follow these syllabi, you encounter students’ resistance. For example, when you decide to include a book that you think can be very helpful to your students, their immediate reaction is asking whether the content of the book will be covered in exams, which are standardized for all the groups within the same program. If the answer is no, then students will not even consider reading that book.] 138 In her words, the majority of today’s students are grade-oriented and refuse to learn anything that is not covered by these centralized tests. These limitations that came with lack of autonomy negatively influenced faculty professional satisfaction and interfered with their teaching. An interesting thread in several participants’ responses, on the other hand, suggests autonomy can best facilitate professional satisfaction when accompanied by some form of quality control. Findings indicate autonomy helps faculty self-esteem best when quality control is implemented at the institutional level. Several participants (Mr. Ahmadov, Mr. Verdiyev, Ms. Muradova, and Ms. Musayeva) who had autonomy over their course design stated little/no quality control existed in their institutions. Speaking about this situation, Mr. Ahmadov and Mr. Verdiyev both questioned institutional interest in teaching quality. For example, Mr. Ahmadov stated, “Bu universitet dərslə, yəni sinifdə gedən proseslə maraqlanmır.” [This university is not interested in the quality of classroom teaching.] He expressed a concern over the lack of “dərsin keyfiyyətinə nəzarət” [institutional control over the quality of classroom teaching]. Another participant, Ms. Muradova, stressed faculty should also receive feedback “on the way a teacher works, the teaching, the pedagogy side”. For these participants, the availability of feedback alongside autonomy provided professional growth opportunities and increased their self-esteem as teachers, thus resulting in professional satisfaction. Moreover, participants with less than five years of teaching experience and some autonomy expressed the need for some professional input, such as feedback. Mr. Verdiyev stated, “Əmin deyiləm ki, kimsə onu [sillabus] oxuyubmu?” [I am not sure if anybody ever read the syllabus I designed.] He expressed availability of feedback would inform his teaching decisions and influence his self-esteem as a teacher. Ms. Musayeva, another adjunct faculty, 139 stated availability of some feedback on her courses would be helpful guidance that would inform her teaching decisions. She said, “Məsələn, mənimlə müzakirə də eləyə bilərlər, çünki mən xoşlayıram tənqidi yanaşılsın.” [For example, they could provide some feedback to my courses because I like receiving constructive feedback.] Feedback and guidance was an important form of institutional support for Ms. Muradova as well. She stated the availability of guidance to faculty with little or no teaching experience at a particular institution would help these faculty with their teaching. Ms. Muradova valued faculty autonomy as “believing in teacher” but also stated institutional input (i.e., mentoring and feedback) is “empowering them”. The aforementioned points suggest faculty autonomy positively influences faculty self- esteem and professional satisfaction and promotes faculty engagement in ITMs. When faculty have autonomy over their teaching, they are more likely to try new ideas and new methods of teaching in the teaching and learning process. The lack of autonomy, on the other hand, interferes with faculty teaching and decreases their professional satisfaction. Findings also indicate the availability of feedback alongside autonomy informs faculty teaching decisions and positively influences their self-esteem, particularly for those with fewer years of teaching experience. Institutional rewards and promotion systems. One common thread in participant responses was the influence of the institutional rewards and promotion systems on their teaching motivation. The majority of the participants expressed dissatisfaction with the existing rewards and promotion systems. One reason for dissatisfaction was the focus on faculty research productivity and the lack of evaluation of classroom teaching. The data show only some institutions have policies regarding the evaluation of the classroom teaching that may include strategies such as administrative evaluation, peer evaluation (i.e., by colleagues), and student 140 evaluation. However, several participants explained these evaluation procedures did not succeed to motivate faculty because of several reasons. First, institutional policies lacked the focus on the quality of teaching. At several institutions, faculty rewards and promotion are based on quantity-based vs. quality-based evaluation criteria. In quantity-based evaluation, institutions reward and promote faculty depending on the number of years faculty worked at that particular institution and/or an overall number of teaching years, whilst in quality-based evaluation, the main focus is on the quality of teaching. Sharing this concern Ms. Khaligli said, “A lot of emphasis is made on number of teaching years rather than the quality of the teaching.” She added: For example, let us say you will be promoted for working at this institution for five years. In the next five years, a teacher can decide if it [promotion] is in five years, why should I join any extra trainings, why should I continue my capstone project? If it is only for five years, I will just create my comfort zone, stay in my comfort zone, and wait for these five years to get the promotion. Ms. Khaligli believed teaching quality suffered because faculty relied on the number of years to get promoted and did not work on their professional development. For Ms. Khaligli, this factor was a teaching barrier because she felt the institution did not value the quality of her classroom teaching. Moreover, the data suggest even when existing faculty evaluation procedures include the evaluation of teaching productivity, no link exists between the results from these evaluations and rewards and promotion decisions. Speaking about the lack of a link between teaching quality and reward, Mr. Verdiyev said, “Yaxşı olardı ki, müəllimin dərsinin keyfiyyəti daha yüksək olduqca, əməkhaqqısı da yüksək olsun.” [It would be very nice if faculty salaries depended on the quality of their classroom teaching.] Participant responses (Mr. 141 Ahmadov, Mr. Rahimov, Mr. Verdiyev, Ms. Abbasova, and Ms. Khaligli) indicate the lack of a link between teaching quality and institutional rewards and promotion negatively influenced their professional satisfaction. Second, ambiguity in the institutional evaluation strategies interferes with faculty professional satisfaction. Ms. Khaligli and Mr. Ahmadov both expressed concerns regarding the lack of clear standards for faculty evaluations. Speaking about this issue Mr. Ahmadov said, “[Müəllimlərin fəaliyyətinin qiymətləndirilməsi] meyarları bəlli olsa, müəllim öz işini ona görə qurar.” [If faculty knew the criteria they are being evaluated on, they can plan/design their work based on these criteria.] He indicated understanding the criteria (e.g., clear communication of institutional requirements for teaching and the use of rubrics for evaluation) faculty are being evaluated on would help with the confusion over institutional expectations for classroom teaching. Ms. Khaligli echoed Mr. Ahmadov’s thoughts and added she would feel “confident” because she “would have a clear cut distinctions for this or that criteria and would have an explanation” for her current evaluation results. These responses suggest when faculty are unaware of the evaluation criteria, they have more questions related to their own evaluation results. Finding answers to these questions would help faculty make more informed teaching decisions to meet the institutional expectations for teaching and decrease the level of dissatisfaction with faculty evaluation results. Third, student evaluation of faculty, one of the faculty evaluation strategies used by several Azerbaijani HEIs, also influenced participants’ professional satisfaction. Ms. Musayeva, for example, talked proudly about her students’ feedback to her classes using expressions such as “yüksək rəy” [positive student feedback] and “qiymətləndirmə yaxşı olub” [good evaluation results]. Positive student feedback increased her self-esteem as a teacher. On the other hand, 142 some participants shared concerns related to student evaluation of faculty teaching. Ms. Jabbarova, for example, stated student evaluation of faculty led to undesired practices by some faculty who wanted to rank higher in the rating systems. She explained, “Bəzi müəllimlər tələbəyə deyir ki, sən mənə yüksək məmnunluq balı yaz, mən də sənə yüksək bal yazım.” [Some teachers ask their students to rate their courses higher in return for higher grades.] Ms. Abbasova echoed Ms. Jabbarova’s thoughts on this issue. Given the possibility that faculty who do not engage in such a behaviour can rate lower in the ranking system and consequently, are less likely to be rewarded, this shortcoming in the student evaluation of faculty may negatively influence their professional satisfaction and teaching motivation. Another aspect of students’ evaluation of faculty questioned by Ms. Khaligli was student assessment of faculty content knowledge (i.e., some student questionnaires included this question). She described this practice as a “humiliating” experience, which showed institutional distrust in faculty expertise. Ms. Khaligli stated: Once the teacher is a part of a higher education institution, it is already the proof of his/her qualification. If you ask this question to the student, it means that you put the process of recruitment under a big question. Ms. Khaligli’s perspective on this issue suggests questioning faculty expertise negatively influences their professional satisfaction and emotional well-being. Participant responses indicate institutional rewards and promotion policies at Azerbaijani HEIs fail to motivate faculty to focus on the quality of teaching. In particular, the lack of emphasis on teaching quality in rewards and promotion decisions interfere with faculty teaching motivation. Existing shortcomings in faculty evaluation procedures negatively influenced participants’ emotional well-being, thus interfering with their engagement in ITMs. 143 Workloads. Participants who spoke about the role of physical challenges in the teaching process stated too high a workload resulted in physical inability to cope with all their teaching objectives, which negatively influenced their emotional well-being and teaching motivation. Speaking about this issue, Ms. Muradova said, “Another demotivating factor can be load, honestly, because sometimes, load is much more than we can manage.” Another example comes from Mr. Ahmadov who said, “Dərslərdə, sinifdə tələbə sayının çoxalması kifayət qədər innovativ metoddan, innovativ deməyək, yəni leksiyaya qayıtma deməkdir, çünki o boyda tələbə müəllim arasında heç bir qrup işi eləmək mümkün deyil.” [Increased numbers of students in classes interfere with a teacher’s ability to engage in innovative methods and means going back to lecturing because no group work can be possible among this massive number of students and a teacher.] He stated when faculty have too high workloads, they are physically unable to engage in a learner-centered approach. Inability to engage in a desired form of teaching, in its turn, negatively influences faculty professional satisfaction. Adding to faculty workloads is the intensity of the course content in many programs at Azerbaijani HEIs. Ms. Khaligli and Ms. Sadigova, for example, mentioned their courses were content-intensive and expressed concerns related to the inability to effectively present and teach content and address students’ needs in a timely manner. Increased workloads result in faculty inability to attain all the objectives of teaching and meet students’ academic needs. When participants realized fulfilling their teaching responsibilities was physically impossible because of the workloads, they felt demotivated. Under these circumstances, faculty who believe university education should address students’ academic needs become less satisfied with their professional performance and experience amotivation. 144 Further, too high workloads also limited participants’ ability to attend TPD and/or interact with their colleagues, which lowered participants’ learning chances. Ms. Abbasova, for example, stated too much workload interfered with her professional development. She said, “Bir müəllimin həm iki növbədə dərs deməsi, həm araşdırma aparması çox çətindir.” [Conducting research is very difficult for a teacher who teaches in two various shifts.] Ms. Abbasova explained teaching in two various shifts (i.e., mornings and evenings) made research a challenging aspect of her professional performance and lowered her chances for professional development. Given the possible relationship between faculty learning and change in faculty teaching beliefs, limited professional development opportunities may prevent faculty from widening their teaching perspectives and gaining knowledge about ITMs. While participants with too high a workload expressed concerns about physical challenges for teaching and faculty development, participants who expressed satisfaction with their current teaching loads did not share any concerns related to physical inability to engage in professional development. On the contrary, these participants (Mr. Alimardanli, Mr. Rahimov, & Ms. Sadigova) shared they could also benefit from professional development opportunities and conduct research and/or participate in TPD. Describing her workload, Ms. Sadigova said, “[Tədqiqat və dərsi] yanaşı olaraq aparmaq mümkündür, çünki 240 saat dərs hər semestrə iki ya üç qrup hesab olunur. Onlar da həftədə iki və ya üç dəfə gəlirlər. Fərqlidir. Yəni [tədqiqat üçün] vaxt kifayət edir.” [Our workload allows us to conduct research because 240 hours of teaching per semester means teaching in three groups every semester. Each class/group meets two or three times per week, but it can vary. I mean we have enough time for research.] Faculty teaching loads, the intensity of the course content, and/or working several jobs (i.e., participants’ general workloads) may interfere with faculty professional development, an 145 important source of faculty learning and motivation for teaching. Physical inability to engage in their desired form of teaching may result in emotional challenges for faculty, which can lower faculty teaching motivation. Relationships with colleagues. Another important factor influencing professional satisfaction mentioned by all the participants was the relationships with their colleagues. Mr. Ahmadov, for example, shared “kolleqalar ilə ünsiyyət” [interaction with colleagues] was one of the biggest sources of professional satisfaction and teaching creativity for him. He said, “[İş yerində ünsiyyət zamanı], yəni bir insanla bir məsələni müzakirə edərkən ağlına yeni bir fikir gəlir.” [Interaction with others at work is very important because conversation with someone can lead to new ideas.] Mr. Alimardanli, who worked two jobs, stated well-built relationships with his colleagues informed his sense of belonging to the workplace. Comparing his relationships with his colleagues at these institutions he said, “Bu universitetlerden birində müəllimləri tələbəlik illərindən tanıyıram, yəni biz bir qrupuq. Onlarla fərqlidir, fərqli hisslər yaşayıram onlarla. Bu mənada mən çalışdığım digər universitetdə tək qalıram.” [At one of these universities, I have colleagues whom I know from my student years, therefore I feel like a part of a group/community. I feel different when I am in their company. In this sense, I do not feel the same way/ I feel isolated at the other university I work.] Participants’ responses suggest close relationships with their colleagues increased their sense of belonging and promoted professional satisfaction. However, for many participants, this interaction was limited to few instances of professional collaboration. While some participants (namely, adjunct faculty) did not complain about this situation, the responses of the participants who have full-time faculty positions suggest the quality and the quantity of interactions with colleagues can be crucial in supporting their sense of belonging in the workplace. Limited interaction among colleagues, on the other hand, 146 led to a sense of isolation. As evidenced above, for example, interaction with colleagues was one of the most influential motivators of teaching for Mr. Ahmadov. When describing the role of his colleagues in his teaching motivation, Mr. Ahmadov shared, at his institution, the lack of institutional team-building strategies (e.g., having a shared space for interaction, social events) “motivasiyama mənfi təsir göstərir” [negatively influenced his motivation]. Mr. Alimardanli, Ms. Abbasova, and Ms. Khaligli were among the participants whose responses suggest interaction among colleagues is an important source of faculty professional satisfaction and emotional well- being. Students. The discussion of students’ influence on faculty teaching and their motivation was the most common thread throughout the interviews. All the participants stated “tələbələrin dəstəyi” [student support], “tələbələrdən gələn müsbət rəy” [students’ positive feedback], and “tələbələrin müsbət göstəriciləri/nəticələri” [positive student learning outcomes] promoted their professional satisfaction and helped them persist in ITMs even after they had unsuccessful classes (i.e., classes when faculty did not see the expected student learning outcomes). For example, Ms. Sadigova said, “Yəni tələbələrin müsbət rəyi, onların uğurları, və mənim fənnimə olan maraqları mənim üçün böyük bir motivasiyadır ki, gələcək tələbələrimi daha da yaxşı öyrədim.” [I mean students’ positive feedback, their success, and their interest in my subject are really motivating me to teach well/better.] Participants mentioned their relationships with their students, student personality, and student body at a particular institution influenced their teaching motivation. For example, Mr. Rahimov proudly talked about his relationships with students (e.g., his students could contact him any time without hesitation). He said, “Hər kəs görür tələbələrim necə mənim arxamda dayanırlar.” [Everyone knows how supportive my students are of me.] For him, this sort of relationship was an indicator of student trust and respect to him, a source of 147 professionals satisfaction and teaching motivation. Another participant, Ms. Abbasova, talked about the importance of student personality and academic background. Seeing how brilliant her female students were made Ms. Abbasova believe in the future of the country and encouraged her to work harder. Describing her students as “savadlı və yaradıcı” [smart and creative] she said, “Hiss edirsən ki, gələcəyimiz yaxşı əllərə gedir.” [I feel our future will be in good hands.] Mr. Rahimov, Ms. Musayeva, and Ms. Sadigova spoke about their students with enthusiasm as they expressed similar perspectives. Participant responses also indicate the availability of institutional support for students positively influenced their professional satisfaction. When asked to make recommendations to institutions to support faculty engagement in ITMs, most participants focused on their students’ needs and suggested solutions that would benefit their students. For example, Mr. Verdiyev said, “İstəyərdim ki, universitetlərdə tələbələr üçün yaxşı şərait olsun.” [Institutions should provide better facilities/better learning environment for students.] The same suggestion was echoed by many participants. All these responses suggest students are one of the most important factors influencing faculty professional satisfaction that promote faculty teaching motivation. Well-equipped workspace. Throughout the interviews, participants described the teaching environment and infrastructure promoted professional satisfaction. They stated availability of “yaşıllıq” [green trees and spaces on campus], “office”, “Internet”, “smart boards”, “kitabxana” [library], “laboratoriya” [a laboratory] and “tələbələr üçün lazımi şərait” [necessary support and facilities for students] positively influenced satisfaction with their jobs. For example, rich libraries on campus, those that provided resources in both local and foreign languages, supported faculty teaching and student research. However, several participants (Mr. Alimardanli, Ms. Muradova, and Ms. Musayeva) shared they faced challenges in this regard due to the lack of 148 recently published books, local research, and textbooks in the local language. Ms. Musayeva expressed her concerns about the lack of rich libraries and books in Azerbaijani as she said, “Kitabxanaları zənginləşdirməyi, elektron kitabxanaya girişi asanlaşdırmağı, xarici dildə olan kitabların Azərbaycan dilinə tərcumə edilməsini tövsiyə edərdim.” [I would suggest institutions enrich their libraries, provide easier access to online libraries/resources, and get more books translated into Azerbaijani.] Participants believed the availability of such resources would greatly help faculty who have limited access to international research due to language restrictions. Another important barrier was the lack of university-wide internet support. Mr. Verdiyev said, “Siniflərdə ümümiyyətlə internet yoxdur və bəzən mənə internetdən axtarış etmək lazım olanda, internetdən istifadə etmək olmurdu, və bu əslində bizim işimizi çox geri salırdı.” [There is no Internet in classrooms, and when I needed to look up something on the Internet, I could not do it since there was no Internet, which interfered with the teaching process.] He explained the lack of public access to the Internet on college campuses created challenges for teaching. For Ms. Sadigova, the challenge was the lack of well-equipped laboratories and facilities that would help her students with practical skills. She said, “Təəssuf ki, bizdə praktik olaraq tələbələrin vərdişlərini inkişaf elətdirmək çətindir, çünki lazımi şərait yoxdur, və yaxud şərait kifayət qədər yaxşı deyil.” [Unfortunately, improving students’ practical skills is difficult for us because we do not have the necessary facilities or the facilities we have are not good enough.] She added the lack of necessary teaching infrastructure was a demotivating factor for her and her students. Participant responses indicate faculty are professionally more satisfied when they work in well-equipped workspace. Working in well-equipped institutional environment informs faculty perceptions of institutional support and increases their motivation to engage in quality teaching. 149 The lack of such circumstances, on the other hand, lowers their satisfaction and negatively influences faculty emotional well-being, inhibiting their engagement in ITMs. Individual-level factors. A positive emotional state related to individual-level factors promotes faculty teaching motivation. These factors can help faculty persist in ITMs even when certain institutional and environmental barriers exist. At the individual level, faculty emotional well-being and their engagement in ITMs are related to factors such as their career choices and interest in the subject matter, feelings associated with various forms of teaching, and faculty fears. Career choice and interest in the subject. One common thread among the participant responses was the role of satisfaction with the teaching profession in promoting their teaching motivation. Several participants used expressions “daxili tələbat” [innate need] and “sevimli iş” [favorite profession] when they described teaching. For example, Ms. Khaligli referred to teaching as her “calling” and stated she fell in love with teaching when she was still in middle school. She said, “Müəllimimiz ilk dəfə sinifə addımını atanda, mən bu fənnə aşiq oldum demək olar. Həmin andan qərara gəldim ki, bu fənn müəllimi olum.” [I would say I fell in love with this subject the second our teacher stepped into the classroom. At that very moment, I decided to become a teacher and teach this subject.] All the participants expressed satisfaction with their career choice and stated they favored their teaching job. In addition, several participants (Ms. Khaligli, Ms. Jabbarova, and Mr. Verdiyev) expressed deep interest in the subjects taught. Ms. Jabbarova, whose disciplinary background and teaching disciplines differed, shared she “zövq alırdı” [enjoyed] her teaching discipline. The above-mentioned participant responses indicate a relationship exists between satisfaction with teaching career and faculty emotional well-being. Interest in the subjects taught 150 is another positive contributor to faculty emotional well-being. Faculty who are satisfied with their career choice and have a genuine interest in their teaching discipline are more likely to overcome barriers and persist in ITMs, to achieve professional self-realization. Feelings associated with various teaching methods. Another aspect of faculty emotional well-being is the feelings associated with a particular method of teaching. The participants described two categories of feelings related to teaching: positive feelings related to success and negative feelings related to a failure. The majority of the participants experienced positive feelings when they engaged in ITMs. Several participants used expressions such as “məmnun olmaq” [to be satisfied] and “xoşbəxt olmaq” [to be happy] to describe their reaction to successful teaching. A common measurement of a successful teaching, in these conversations, was student success, especially positive student learning outcomes. These positive outcomes informed participants’ sense of teaching competence and increased their self-esteem as a teacher. One such participant is Ms. Khaligli whose self-esteem as a teacher was informed by success in her daily classes. Defining successful teaching she said: When the students leave the classroom happy and thank me for an exciting and interesting lesson, for example, I feel they made my week, and I can go on. Sometimes, when it is time to finish the lesson and nobody wants to leave, I feel that it [the lesson] was a success. Also, based on the production stage of the lesson, [I can tell if the lesson was successful]: If I see effective production, I feel satisfied. If at the end of the lesson I see my students rushing to the canteen, I realize that the lesson might have been more interesting. 151 Long-term outcomes of teaching also influence faculty sense of accomplishment and their teaching self-esteem. A group of participants (e.g., Mr. Alimardanli, Ms. Musayeva, and Mr. Muradova) described the teaching success in long-term teaching achievements (e.g., positive learning outcomes at the end of the course, practical use of knowledge and skills learned in their courses in other courses and/or jobs by students). For example, Ms. Musayeva stated, “I want to see my students apply the knowledge and skills they learned in my courses in other life situations and courses.” Seeing these long-term achievements made participants feel good about their teaching. Participants also shared instances of failure or unsuccessful teaching (e.g., negative student learning outcomes) were associated with negative feelings. For example, when speaking about an unsuccessful attempt of using a new strategy Mr. Verdiyev said, “Deyək ki, siz innovativ bir metod düşünmüsünüz və qarşınızdakı tələbəyə bunu tətbiq edirsiz, və görürsünüz ki, bu qarşınızdakı tələbəyə heç də gözlənilən reaksiyanı vermir. Əlbəttə, ilk beyninizə gələn odur ki, mən bunu niyə elədim, kaş ki bunu etməzdim.” [Imagine you use a new innovative method and see this method does not result in expected outcomes. Of course, the first reaction is regretting the decision to apply that particular method.] He described the immediate reaction to cases of failure is regret using that strategy. Another participant, Ms. Muradova felt “a little bit of panic” when her lessons were not successful enough. These responses suggest negative feelings related to instances of failure when ITMs were used in classes may interfere with faculty engagement in ITMs and lower their professional satisfaction, unless other factors supporting faculty persistence in ITMs (e.g., self-control) exist. The data suggest the way a teaching method makes faculty feel can inform their understanding of their teaching competence, thus either promote or hinder their engagement in 152 that particular teaching method. The participants experienced positive feelings as they applied ITMs. These feelings also increased participants’ sense of accomplishment, which influenced their self-esteem. The findings suggest participants engaged in ITMs because these methods positively informed their sense of professional competence, thus helped increase professional satisfaction. Faculty fears. Several participants discussed the influence of their fears on their teaching decisions. For example, Ms. Muradova stated her “fears” (e.g., losing the audience, not being ready for classes) could result in demotivation. She said, “One of my feelings is my fear to lose the audience. You know I get nervous, and I start making mistakes.” However, this same fear was the reason she managed to keep working on her classroom teaching. Mr. Verdiyev and Ms. Abbasova shared a similar perspective about the role of their fears (e.g., the fear to lag behind). For example, Ms. Abbasova said, “Belə hiss edirsən ki, hər şey gedəcək, sən qalacaqsan.” [You feel as if the environment will improve, but you will be left behind.] For Ms. Abbasova the fear of lagging behind in a competitive institutional environment was a motivator of her professional development. The analysis of the participant responses and analytical memos suggests one common factor influencing participants’ teaching motivation was the fear of losing reputation. Participants enjoyed the reputation that came with the engagement in quality teaching. Particularly, the participants with more years of teaching experience mentioned one of the benefits of engaging in ITMs was the reputation they earned. Losing this reputation, on the other hand, was one reason why these participants were so committed to maintaining the quality of teaching and professional development. A good example comes from the interview with Ms. Khaligli. She said, “Since I felt demotivated, I constantly remind myself that your reputation matters, and that is something 153 that will follow you for the years to come, and do it for the sake of not ruining efforts of the previous years.” Participants engaged in ITMs because these methods helped them gain and maintain reputation, which positively influenced their emotional well-being. Another factor influencing faculty engagement in ITMs that emerged from the data is faculty fears to lose their job. Ms. Abbasova, stated if faculty were paid higher salaries, they would be more likely to fear to lose their jobs and would work harder on their teaching. “Yüksək maaş” [higher salary], in her words, “məsuliyyəti artırır” [increases sense of responsibility/accountability]. Mr. Rahimov’s teaching decisions in the early years of his teaching career when he worked in a program with no faculty autonomy indicates he had a similar attitude. Answering the question how this lack of autonomy influenced his motivation, he said, “Yəni, əvvəlki qruplarda pulsuz, heç bir əməkhaqqı olmadan dərs dediyimə görə, mən rəhbərlikdən yenə də sərbəst idim.” [I mean when I taught in my previous groups because I was not being paid, I did not depend on the authorities.] He continued, “Bu səbəbdən, mən eyni üsulları və eyni yanaşmanı orada da tətbiq edirdim.” [Therefore, I applied the same strategies and approaches in those groups.] Mr. Rahimov stated because he was not being paid, he felt little obligation to follow the standard course syllabus he was provided with and made his own autonomous teaching decisions. This behavior suggests, in a less rewarding and less competitive institutional environment, faculty who may feel less obligated to follow institutionally encouraged forms of teaching are more likely to engage in teaching methods that require little or no self-control. Given the low level of faculty salaries in Azerbaijani HEIs, faculty resistance to ITMs can be explained by the relationship between the salaries and faculty fears to lose jobs. When faculty salaries are low, faculty are more likely to fear less for losing their jobs as compared to the case of higher salaries. 154 In this subsection, I presented how various environmental, institutional, and individual- level factors influence faculty professional satisfaction. Faculty professional satisfaction, in its turn, promotes faculty emotional well-being and supports their engagement in ITMs. In the following subsection, I present the role of personal life satisfaction in maintaining quality teaching. I also introduce several environmental (e.g., family support), institutional (e.g., workload and financial rewards), and individual-level factors (e.g., personal goals) in supporting faculty personal life satisfaction and engaging in ITMs. Personal Life Satisfaction and Emotional Well-Being Satisfaction with personal life is another aspect of faculty emotional well-being that can promote their engagement in ITMs. A group of participants faced challenges to engage in ITMs when they felt “demotivated” due to the challenges in their personal lives. For instance, Ms. Jabbarova mentioned problems in her personal life negatively influenced her teaching motivation. She said, “Yəni, şəxsi həyatımda olan problemlər motivasiyama təsir edib.” [I mean the problems in my personal life influenced my motivation.] Mr. Ahmadov and Ms. Muradova shared their busy personal life may negatively influence their teaching motivation. In this category, the participants mentioned the role of their families, personal goals, and institutional factors contributing to the quality of their personal lives. Family support. Participant responses show the availability of family support positively influenced their motivation. For example, Mr. Alimardanli, Ms. Khaligli, Ms. Musayeva, and Ms. Sadigova indicated their families were supportive of their teaching and stated this support made overcoming challenges easier for them. Ms. Khaligli shared her “inner motivation and family” were the most important factors supporting her teaching. Particularly, those with teachers in the family who understood the challenges of a teaching job explained this factor 155 helped them cope with the responsibilities that came with a teaching job. Mr. Alimardanli explained, “Yaxın insanlar arasında müəllimlərin olması biraz bizim işimizi asanlaşdırır.” [Having teachers among the closest people/family supports our work as teachers.] Problems related to their personal lives, on the other hand, such as family responsibilities were among the possible challenges to teaching motivation. Speaking about the influence of family-related problems on her teaching motivation Ms. Muradova said, “Sometimes, I am not really able to [focus on the quality of classroom teaching] because of external factors. Maybe family… maybe, your child gets sick. This does demotivate.” Family-related problems may negatively influence faculty emotional well-being and consequently, decrease their likelihood of engaging in an intended method of teaching. Personal goals. The degree to which participants achieved their personal goals (i.e., non- academic goals) also influenced their emotional well-being. One participant, Mr. Rahimov, stated engagement in quality teaching was one way of achieving his personal goals (i.e., non- teaching related goals). He said: Rəhbər şəxs olanda da mən işçilərimlə necə davranmalıyam, bax onu öyrənməliyəm. Bu [auditoriya] mənim üçün bir laboratoriyadır. Bu mənə bir şərait yaradır ki, mən bir çox rolları artıq özüm üçün müəyyən eləyim, artıq bu gün tələbələrin motivasiyası, sabah mənim işçilərimin motivasiyasıdır. Bu gün tələbəmin mənə verdiyi müsbət nəticə sabah mənə rəhbər kimi nə verə bilər. Ən son motivasiya kadr məsələsidir. Mən onların [tələbələrin] hər birinə öz gələcək kadrım kimi baxıram. [I need to learn how to manage and lead my staff as a future administrator/leader. For me, this classroom is a kind of laboratory, which creates opportunities for me to learn how to motivate people. If I can motivate my students today, I can motivate my employees in the future, and if I can 156 achieve some positive results with my students, I can similarly do well with my employees. Finally, the last motivation for me is preparing my staff members. I see/consider my students as my future employees.] For Mr. Rahimov, teaching was a platform to develop as a leader and also train his future staff. He understood his students needed an education that would develop them not only as competent employees but also as independent thinkers and responsible citizens. Mr. Rahimov viewed ITMs as a means of attaining this goal. Ms. Jabbarova who had a similar attitude toward training future specialists said, “O gələcək sabah da mənə işləyəcək.” [My future depends on this generation of students.] She stated one of her goals in maintaining good quality of teaching was to build the future that one day would work for her. Achieving personal goals brought about the feelings of satisfaction with their lives and positively influenced participants’ emotional well- being. Because of their teaching beliefs, participants were motivated to engage in ITMs to achieve these goals. Workloads and financial stability. Institutional-level factors such as workloads and financial rewards may influence the quality of personal life and influence faculty emotional well- being. Some participants shared high workloads interfered with healthy life-work balance. These participants spent more time preparing for classes and teaching at the cost of their personal life. Ms. Khaligli, for example, stated, “Unfortunately, there is little time for family and personal life.” She continued, “So, there should be a balance between your leisure time, spending time with your family, and your classroom environment. One should not be done at the expense of the other.” Ms. Abbasova and Mr. Verdiyev also stated they faced similar concerns. Another institutional-level factor that impacts the quality of personal life is financial rewards. Financial rewards discussed in the interviews include faculty salaries and additional 157 monetary incentives that can motivate faculty to engage in ITMs. Despite the differences that exist among various institutions (i.e., higher salaries at private and relatively younger public institutions), the overall picture of faculty salaries puts faculty jobs among the lowest paid jobs in the country. Many participants expressed dissatisfaction with this situation. Speaking about faculty salaries, Ms. Musayeva stated: Hal-hazırda, onu [tam-ştat müəllimlik fəaliyyətini] fikirləşmirəm, çünki Azərbaycanda müəllimlərin əməkhaqqları çox aşağıdır. Yəni, səmimi desək, indiki işimdə qazandığım əməkhaqqını tam ştat müəllim işləməklə əldə etmək çətindir. Bunun üçün bir neçə universitetdə dərs götürməyə və bir universitetdən digərinə qaçmağa məcbursan. Ona gorə də, maaliyyə sabitliyi cəhətdən hələ ki, yəni yaxın bir neçə ildə tam ştat müəllimliyi düşünmürəm. [Right now, I am not considering a full-time teaching career because faculty salaries are too low in Azerbaijan. To be honest, to make the same income that I am making now is almost impossible as a teacher. You would have to work several jobs and constantly rush from one university to another. Therefore, because of the financial instability of a faculty job, I am not considering it in the close future.] Despite her passion for teaching, Ms. Musayeva would not consider taking a full-time teaching job because of the financial instability of the teaching profession. Further, as stated earlier in this chapter, there is no link between the quality of teaching and rewards, particularly financial rewards. Given the majority of these participants could not engage in research (a rewarded form of faculty performance) and they did not receive any financial rewards for the quality of their teaching, faculty financial earnings may be limited to fixed salaries if they do not have other sources of income. Problematic in this situation is (a) lower salaries for teachers that decrease faculty chances for better life standards and (b) negative feelings related to the lack of 158 recognition of good teaching at the institutional level. Highlighting these issues, Mr. Rahimov said, “Reallıq budur ki, maddi baxımdan, innovativ metodlardan istifadə edən müəllimlər ilə [bu metodlardan] istifadə etməyən [müəllimlər] arasında heç bir fərq qoyulmur. Ona gorə, çox adam da əgər daxildə motivasiyası yoxdursa, sadəcə gəlir, dərsini deyir və gedir.” [The reality is institutions do not differentiate between the faculty who engage in ITMs and those who do not, in terms of financial rewards. Therefore, many faculty who are not intrinsically interested in ITMs do not show any effort in engaging in ITMs in their classes.] In his opinion, in such a work environment, only the faculty with intrinsic motivation would be able to focus on the quality of classroom teaching. Many participants echoed Mr. Rahimov’s thoughts and expressed there should be monetary incentives to those who excel in teaching. The above-discussed findings show there is a relationship between faculty emotional well-being and their engagement in ITMs. Given the participants favoured these methods, their engagement in ITMs increased the level of professional satisfaction and positively influenced their emotional well-being. In addition, the data suggest faculty who are emotionally in a good standing have more chances of overcoming the challenges to teaching, whereas poor emotional state may inhibit faculty teaching motivation. The findings also suggest certain environmental, institutional, and individual-level factors influence faculty emotional well-being. Faculty Physical Well-Being A group of participants talked about physical challenges that may inhibit their engagement in ITMs. Expressions such as “yorğun olanda” [when I am tired], “başım ağrıya bilər” [I can have headaches/when I have headaches], and “boyun ağrısı” [neck pain] describe some of the physical challenges the participants faced in the lesson planning and teaching processes. Some participants (Ms. Abbasova, Ms. Khaligli, and Ms. Musayeva) shared engaging 159 in ITMs was more difficult when they experienced physical challenges. For example, Ms. Abbasova mentioned that “yorğun olanda” [when I am tired] and “iş çox olanda” [when there is too much work to do], she experienced more difficulties in teaching. A similar perspective was offered by Ms. Musayeva. She stated, “Məsələn, başım və ya boynum ağrıya bilər. Amma buna rəğmən kontrolumu itirmədən, özümü ələ alıb dərs demişəm və çalışmışam ki, heç nə hiss olunmasın.” [Despite headaches or sore neck, for example, I have always tried to control myself while teaching, without letting anyone notice these issues.] These responses point to the possible relationship between faculty physical well-being and their motivation to engage in ITMs. One possible factor leading to poor physical well-being is faculty workload. Given some of the participants who mentioned physical challenges work several jobs (Ms. Abbasova and Ms. Musayeva), the amount of the work they do for each job could be the reason why these participants were more likely to experience physical challenges, such as tiredness. When faculty spend long hours teaching and planning teaching, their physical strength is depleted, which negatively influences faculty teaching productivity. Ms. Khaligli, who had too high a workload stated when she was “extremely tired”, she managed to persist in ITMs at the cost of her own health. She said: I do not have any right to relax. Once I have to do it, I have to display an equal level of energy, responsibility in all the classrooms. Of course, this meant taking some extra medicine, sometimes, taking short naps in between, in the office, at my workplace in order to restore my energy. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, participants who had similar concerns shared too high a workload interfered with their teaching also because they were physically unable to manage all this workload, which negatively influenced their emotional well-being. The above- 160 mentioned points indicate poor physical well-being related to workload can be a barrier to faculty engagement in ITMs. In summary, findings suggest faculty well-being (i.e., faculty physical and emotional well-being) is one of the most important factors that can promote/inhibit faculty engagement in ITMs. While poor physical and emotional well-being may interfere with faculty engagement in ITMs, better physical and emotional state may increase faculty motivation for engaging in these methods. In addition, the data suggest faculty engage in ITMs because these methods help promote emotional well-being. Engagement in ITMs may increase their professional satisfaction by informing faculty judgment of their own teaching competence. Faculty who believe in their teaching competence are more likely to try new unfamiliar teaching methods. While satisfaction of professional needs increases faculty teaching motivation, thwarting these needs may result in poor emotional well-being and can interfere with faculty engagement in ITMs. Finally, environment at large and institutional environment influence faculty well-being, thus either promote or hinder their engagement in ITMs. Faculty Personality Traits The third biggest category of factors that influence faculty motivation for engaging in ITMs is faculty personality traits. To this category belong personality traits such as higher self- esteem, proneness to self-analysis, self-development, and reputation. Because the role of these factors have already been discussed throughout Chapters 5 and 6, in this section, I only present the following personality traits: faculty sense of responsibility and self-control/strength. Participant responses indicate sense of responsibility and self-control are important in promoting faculty teaching motivation. They used phrases such as “məsuliyyət hissi” [sense of responsibility] and “özünü-idarə” [self-control] to describe the driving force of teaching when 161 participants faced challenges in the teaching process. In the following subsections of this chapter, I present the role of each factor in faculty engagement in ITMs. Sense of Responsibility All the participants shared sense of responsibility was critical to their engagement in quality teaching. They described themselves as persons with a high sense of responsibility in all areas of their lives and shared this sense of responsibility also influenced their teaching decisions. When describing the sense of responsibility, for example, Ms. Khaligli stated: Discipline and responsibility were firmly instilled in me when I was a child, and I would say even more than I would prefer because you are always under pressure and you always fear that something has been missed. Now, if you relax, you will set a bad example for your students. You cannot require something from them if you do not show it yourself. Participants mentioned they had a responsibility to their students to be exemplary teachers and to promote students’ holistic growth through teaching. For example, Mr. Rahimov described his responsibility as follows, “Bu [müəllimlik] sosial məsuliyyətdir, böyük məsuliyyətdir ki, yəni sən tələbələri necə yönələcəksən.” [Teaching is a big social responsibility because you are responsible to lead and guide your students.] In Mr. Rahimov’s opinion, students’ future success could depend on their teacher’s guidance; therefore, teachers should take this teaching responsibility seriously. One-way this sense of responsibility influenced faculty engagement in ITMs is through the promotion of self-improvement. Participants felt responsible for improving their teaching and achieved this growth by engaging in various forms of professional development. One of the participants who stressed the importance of constant self-improvement was Mr. Verdiyev. He said, “Müəllim bilavasitə özünün üzərində işləməyə cavabdehdir.” [A teacher is responsible to 162 engage in self-development.] He shared a person who does not work on his/her knowledge and skills cannot work as a teacher. Many other participants’ responses also suggest sense of responsibility is an important factor contributing to faculty engagement in TPD. In addition to professional growth, sense of responsibility had a direct influence on participants’ teaching behavior through the promotion of self-control. Many participants spoke about their sense of responsibility as they were describing the control of their teaching behavior and motivation. One such participant, Ms. Muradova, stressed the role of sense of responsibility in persisting in ITMs when she felt overwhelmed with the workload. She said, “Sense of responsibility helps me complete what I started. It is okay to quit the job, there is nothing wrong in that, but you have to complete what you started.” Ms. Muradova stated when she was overwhelmed with high teaching loads, sense of responsibility helped her persist in teaching and engage in ITMs. Similar perspectives stated by all the other participants point to the possible connection between sense of responsibility and self-control. I provide a discussion of participant perspectives on the role of self-control and self-control strength (SCS) in the following subsection. Self-Control and Self-Control Strength As stated above, sense of responsibility fueled participants’ responses to challenging situations where they encountered teaching barriers. One such response was self-control over their teaching behavior. Phrases such as “çalışıram” [I am trying] and “özünü məcbur edirsən” [you make/force yourself] suggest the participants engaged in self-control over their teaching behavior. For example, Mr. Ahmadov shared self-control helped him to start working, which usually resulted in an increased level of motivation later. He said, “Bəzən belə fikirləşirik ki, motivasiya olmalıdır ki, işə başlayaq. Amma bəzən işə başlayırsan, motivasiya gəlir.” 163 [Sometimes, we think you should be motivated before you start working, but sometimes you start working, and then you get motivated.] Mr. Ahmadov expressed starting work despite the lack of motivation helped him get motivated, which shows he controlled his behavior when he felt the lack of motivation. An interesting aspect of self-control that emerged from the data is this factor is more dominant in the pre-teaching/class stage. Participants shared they faced more challenges during the process of lesson planning and before they entered the classroom. When the participants felt lack of motivation, time spent planning and preparing for the classes proved to be more challenging for them. Therefore, participants felt the need to control their emotions and behavior during the pre-teaching stage. Mr. Alimardanli, Mr. Verdiyev, Ms. Abbasova, Ms. Jabbarova, and Ms. Sadigova were among the participants who controlled their emotions and teaching behavior before they entered the classroom. Ms. Sadigova said: Problem varsa, çalışıram onu auditoriyaya gətirməyim. Yəni, bu ailə problemi və yaxud işlə bağlı problem ola bilər. Dərs əsnasında çalışıram ki, onların hamısını kənara qoyum. Yəni, o 90 dəqiqə dərsin məsuliyyəti mənim üzərimdədir, o problemlərlə dərsə gəlməməliyəm. [If there is a problem, I try to leave it behind when I enter the classroom. It can be a family problem or a work-related problem. During the class, I try to put them all aside because I am responsible for that 90-minute class, I should not take my problems to my classes.] Mr. Alimardanli offered a similar perspective. He said, “Motivasiyasız olduğum zaman, hər nə qədər tam mənada üzərimdən ata bilməsəm də, amma sinifə girmədən əvvəl hardasa bir 15-20 dəqiqə psixoloji cəhətdən onu üzərimdən atmağa çalışıram.” [When I feel demotivated, although getting completely rid of it may not be possible, before classes, I still try to 164 psychologically overcome this feeling by engaging in self-control for about 15 or 20 minutes.] Participants’ responses suggest self-control is an influential factor that can impact faculty engagement in ITMs. Further, self-control was also an important factor for participants in a failed attempt of engagement in a particular teaching method. Many participants persisted in ITMs even when the application of these methods was unsuccessful. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, several participants experienced negative feelings when they had unsuccessful classes upon the use of a new method or an approach. Interestingly, despite these negative feelings, participants managed to control themselves and rationalize their teaching decisions. The data suggest the participants who had such experiences controlled their responses to unsuccessful teaching. One group of participants (Ms. Muradova, Ms. Jabbarova, and Mr. Alimardanli) expressed their personal philosophy of life (e.g., nothing in this life is permanent and everything can be changed) helped them overcome negative feelings associated with failure. Ms. Muradova said, “What helps me keep going is understanding that it will pass. It will not always be the same.” Another group of participants (Mr. Verdiyev, Ms. Abbasova, and Ms. Khaligli) indicated the role of analysis in overcoming negative feelings. Ms. Abbasova explained: Bəzən görürsünüz ki, tələbələr cəlb olunmadı və ya metodlar istədiyiniz nəticəni vermədi. Bu zaman çalışırsan ki, həmin tələbəninin özünə uyğun bir başqa yanaşma seçəsən. Yəni, burada kefim pozuldu və yaxud mən həvəsdən düşdüm demirsən. Başqa yolların axtarşına başlayırsan. [Bad mood or amotivation do not keep/hold me back when the methods I use in classes fail to engage students or do not reult in expected learning outcomes. In such cases, I try to find other approaches and strategies that would work with these students.] 165 These participants shared they conducted analyses of these unsuccessful classes, found the reasons behind the failure, and tried a slightly different approach in the following classes or with particular groups of students. The participant responses indicate self-control plays an important role in maintaining good quality of teaching. Because of the participant beliefs about the effectiveness of ITMs, the data also suggest these participants intended to engage in these methods, which was promoted by participant self-control. However, as the data suggest, the possibility of participants’ engagement in an intended form of teaching also depends on the degree of demotivation and participants’ SCS. Given the possible relationship between SCS and faculty teaching behavior, I asked the participants to rate the strength of their self-control on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being the weakest and 5 being the strongest when they felt little or no motivation to engage in ITMs. Because participants’ responses varied, and some participants’ measurement of their SCS was rather qualitative than quantitative, I present a qualitative picture of the data collected from the interviews. The data suggest a relationship exists between faculty SCS and their engagement in ITMs. For example, Mr. Ahmadov, expressed confidence in his ability to control his teaching behavior. When asked to rate his SCS within this 5-point scale, he said, “Birdən beşə mən deyerdim beş. Beş, çünki çətin anlarımda da dərs keçdiyim olubdur. Çox çətin!” [On a scale from 1 to 5, I would rate my self-control strength as 5 because I even taught when I was going through difficult times. Very difficult times!] He added: Kontrol eləmək sadəcə olaraq… Mən deyərdim 100%. Elə bir şey ola bilər ki, mən onu tamamilə unudum həmin müddət ərzində. Yəni, onu sonraya saxlaya bilərəm. Yəni, elə 166 bir situasiya olmayıb ki, nə isə fikrimdə qalsın, dərsə də maneə olsun. Olmayıb elə bir şey. [Only by controlling… I would say 100% control. I completely forget my concerns during the class. I can leave them for later. I mean there was no such a case when I entered the class with these concerns, or that these concerns somehow influenced my teaching. Never!] Mr. Ahmadov shared he was able to control his teaching behavior even in very difficult situations. He shared he was able to display the desired teaching behavior in spite of the situation or concerns. Another group of participants (Mr. Alimardanli, Mr. Veridyev, Ms. Jabbarova, Ms. Muradova, Ms. Musayeva, and Ms. Sadigova) shared their strong self-control (SCS=4) helped them persist in ITMs in cases of low motivation and amotivation. Describing her self-control throughout the period of “motivasiyasız günlər” [days of amotivation], Ms. Jabbarova rated her SCS as four and compared it to that of five in the early years of her teaching career. She explained this change with the standardization of the higher education system in the country and the lack of student feedback. She said, “Əgər mən şablondayamsa və kreativ tələbə yarada bilmirəmsə, mənə tənqidi yanaşa biləcək tələbəm də olmayacaq. Tənqidi yanasma olmadığı halda isə bir müəllim olaraq inkişaf edə bilmirəm.” [If I have little or no autonomy over my teaching and have to be a standard teacher, I cannot train creative students, which limits my chances of getting constructive feedback from my students. When you do not receive such feedback, you cannot develop as a teacher.] In Ms. Jabbarova’s words, the standardization process makes creativity unnecessary and difficult. She said, “Sənin kimi isə təəccübləndirməyinə ehtiyac yoxdur.” [You no longer need to impress/surprise anybody.] She explained within this system a teacher only needed to meet the required standards, which 167 decreased the degree of self-control over her teaching behavior. Another participant, Mr. Verdiyev, used the sentence “heç yol verməmişəm” [I have never let this happen] when he spoke about the influence of low motivation on the teaching process. Rating his SCS Mr. Verdiyev said, “Nə isə belə super demotivasiya edici bir şey olsa, nədəsə dəhşətli bir şey olsa bəlkə də üç, amma adi hallarda yox. Stabil olaraq dörd, yəni imkan vermirəm kimsə motivasiyam olmadığını hiss eləsin.” [If something extremely demotivating happens, something terrible happens, then maybe three, but normally my self-control strength is four. I mean I do not let anybody understand I am demotivated.] Similarly, Mr. Alimardanli shared he managed to control his teaching behavior. He explained, “Yəni, beş heç bir zaman olmaz, çünki bu mümkün deyil. Nə qədər fikrimdən uzaqlaşdırsam da, qısa-müddətli də olsa, dərsdə də olsa… Somehow being a human being, it is a part of your life. Amma dörd deyərdim ki, maksimum.” [I mean five is impossible because as much as I try to leave these thoughts/problems behind even if for a short term during the lessons, sometimes you still remember, somehow being a human being, it is a part of your life. But I would say four, maximum.] Mr. Alimardanli also expressed these cases of low motivation were rare in his experience because he intrinsically enjoyed teaching. Another group of participants (Mr. Rahimov, Ms. Khaligli, and Ms. Abbasova) shared the strength to which they were able to control their teaching behavior depended on the circumstances. When asked to rate her self-control strength, Ms. Khaligli who found it difficult to rate her self-control strength using this scale pointed to two aspects of her self-control: “professional development” and “emotional side of the matter”. Ms. Khaligli expressed confidence in her ability to control engagement in professional development, which she was “definitely doing on a daily basis”. She added: 168 Speaking about the emotional side of the matter, so this is something that causes me problems. It is not a problem for the observer, for someone who observes me, but when you are extremely tired, when you do not have balance between your work and leisure, sometimes you feel that this negative energy is accumulated, and if you do not let the steam off, it can bring to some unpleasant situations, incidents in the classroom, which I am always trying to avoid. Ms. Khaligli added she tried to control her emotions by taking a rational approach to the existing problems. Speaking about one of the possible factors that can influence her teaching motivation (i.e., student attitude), she said: Disrespectful behavior that can sometimes be in the classroom should not be taken personally by teachers. Again, students also have sleepless nights, and they can accumulate negative reaction. They are humans like me and you, and once you do not take it personally, once you do not exaggerate it and create a natural atmosphere as if you are treating your children as if it … let us say not formal atmosphere, informal but place for information exchange with the due respect to each other, of course. Then, you do not have this generation gap. Once, you are trying to make friends, this emotional side of the matter can be controlled. They say if you have your students’ hearts, you will have their brains. Mr. Rahimov, who had a similar perspective, described his self-control strength within the terms of existing circumstances. He said, “Məsələn, elə günlər olub ki, orada motivasiyam olmayıb, [düşünmüşəm ki], məsələn, bu dərsi ötəri keçim. Bir də ola bilər, iki də ola bilər, yəni bu beş ballıq sistemdə hər şey ola bilər.” [For example, there were some days when I did not have any motivation, and I only tried to deliver the lesson without focusing on teaching quality. 169 Therefore, my self-control strength can be one, or two or anything within this 5-point scale.] Another participant, Ms. Abbasova, rated her self-control as three on this 5-point scale, but also added, “Yenə baxır vəziyyətə.” [It again depends on the situation.] These participants’ responses indicate while self-control was an important factor helping them persist in ITMs, the strength with which the participants could control their behavior was not isolated from the influence of the sources of amotivation. The data suggest participants’ personality traits such as sense of responsibility and self- control /strength play an important role in their engagement in ITMs. Sense of responsibility promotes faculty engagement in self-development and also fuels their self-control. In its turn, self-control/strength helps faculty persist in an intended method of teaching. Conclusion In this chapter, I presented the role of faculty well-being and faculty personality traits in promoting faculty motivation for engaging in ITMs. Participant responses indicate faculty well- being (i.e., faculty physical well-being and faculty emotional well-being) can influence their teaching motivation. Satisfactory emotional and physical well-being promoted participant engagement in ITMs, whereas poor physical and emotional well-being created challenges in their teaching. In addition, the data suggest faculty personality traits such as sense of responsibility and self-control/strength may support faculty engagement in ITMs. Faculty with higher sense of responsibility and higher self-control strength are more likely to engage in ITMs. In the following chapter, I present the discussion and implications of the study findings. 170 CHAPTER 7: DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS In Chapters 5 and 6, I provided a detailed account of study findings that covered the overarching research question: What factors influence faculty motivation in Azerbaijani higher education institutions (HEIs) for engaging in innovative teaching methods (ITMs)? The sub- questions embedded in this study were: (1) What motivational factors are more common among faculty in Azerbaijan?, (2) What are the most common inhibitors of teaching motivation?, and (3) How do these faculty overcome inhibiting factors? Before the discussion of the findings, revisiting participants’ definitions of ITMs is important because the participants’ perspectives on this matter help to define the types of teaching methods and approaches they referred to as ITMs throughout the interviews. Participants viewed ITMs as learning-centered teaching that requires a shift from the traditional faculty-student relationships and defined ITMs as a blend of traditional and non-traditional teaching methods that positively influence student learning outcomes. The listed strategies in this group were interactive lecturing, flipped learning, active learning, student-centered teaching, problem-based learning, and collaborative learning, among many. Their definition of ITMs also included the use of modern education technologies in classes. Earlier in Chapter 2, I presented the conceptual framework that guided this study, the Faculty Teaching Motivation Model (the FTMM). This model was driven by self-determination theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000), self-control strength model (Muraven et al., 1998), and the review of literature on faculty motivation. The model posits embedded in a larger environment, faculty teaching motivation (i.e., their motivation to engage in ITMs) is influenced by a number of individual and institutional-level factors (e.g., needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness; Deci & Ryan, 2008) and faculty’s self-control strength (Muraven et 171 al., 1998). In Figure 4, I present how various factors that emerged from the data fit within the FTMM. -Faculty teaching beliefs, skills, and knowledge -Faculty well- being -Personality traits: self-esteem, mindset, self- analysis, self- development, reputation, sense of responsibility -Faculty experience: years of experience The FTMM and the Study Findings Environment Global and local environment Higher education environment Family Intention to act Self-control strength Amotivation Figure 4. The FTMM and the Study Findings. I n n o v a t i v e T e a c h i n g -Rewards and promotion systems -Monetary incentives -Faculty autonomy -Workloads -PD -Institutional environment: relationships with colleagues -Students Failure to engage in innovative teaching Consistent with the FTMM, the findings suggest participants’ motivation for teaching and engagement in ITMs is embedded in the larger environment, within which a number of institutional (see Table 2) and individual-level factors (see Table 3) influence their teaching behavior. The data suggest when the existing individual and institutional-level factors create favorable conditions for engagement in ITMs (e.g., when faculty believe in the effectiveness of 172 ITMs, and when institutions reward and promote faculty for the quality of teaching), faculty are more likely to successfully engage in these methods. Given the findings are consistent with the conceptual framework and the earlier usefulness of this model in reviewing the literature for the study, I decided to use the FTMM to guide the readers through the discussion of the study findings. I start the discussion with environmental factors and then proceed with the discussion of individual and institutional-level factors in the order they appear in the FTMM. Next, I present a revision of the conceptual framework, the FTMM. The last section of the chapter introduces the implications for practice and research. Environment Consistent with the conceptual framework of the study, the findings indicate faculty motivation to engage in ITMs is embedded in the larger environment. As mentioned in Chapters 5 and 6, environmental factors may influence faculty teaching motivation and their engagement in ITMs by promoting or disrupting faculty learning that shapes their teaching beliefs, skills, and knowledge and by influencing faculty’s well-being. The findings of the study indicate the most influential factors on faculty teaching motivation in this category are (a) global and local environment, (b) higher education environment in the country and the world, and (c) participants’ families. Participants’ responses indicate faculty micro-environments may directly influence their teaching motivation. This finding is consistent with the FTMM and the scholarly work that reported the influence of factors such as family (Tariq & Ali, 2014; Austin, 1992b), colleagues (Austin, 2014), and students (Blickenstaff et al., 2015; Haas & Keeley, 1998) on faculty teaching motivation. However, the results of this study also indicate the influence of these microsystems (Bronfenbrenner, 1993) is by far more influential and heterogeneous than reported in literature. 173 Consistent with the FTMM, the data also show the environment in a larger sense has an indirect influence on faculty teaching behavior. Given the relationships with colleagues and students are influenced by the culture and policies of the institution where these relationships are formed and shaped, I present the discussion of these factors under the section on institutional-level facilitators and barriers. Below, the discussion of the environmental factors are organized from macro-level to micro-level factors. Global and Local Environment The findings show global and local environment influences faculty teaching motivation in many ways. Factors such as global and local economic changes, societal expectations for a teaching job, and the status of a teaching job influence faculty teaching beliefs and their well- being, thus promote or obstruct their engagement in a particular teaching method. Economy. Above all, participants’ responses suggested the economic changes happening in the country and around the world influenced their teaching beliefs. For example, the economic transitioning that started in the country in the early 1990s influenced several participants’ beliefs on the necessary skills and knowledge that would help college graduates to succeed in the newly established economic setting. To help increase graduate employability and the country’s economic situation in the world, the national education standards, which have immense influence on faculty teaching beliefs, were changed to meet western education standards (The Ministry of Education of the Republic of Azerbaijan, n.d.). In addition, as stated by the participants, the economic crises that happened in the last few years triggered many expat faculty to leave the country, limiting cultural diversity (a positive contributor to faculty teaching beliefs and their well-being) in the workplace. When talking about the influence of the cultural diversity at the workplace, for example, Ms. Khaligli said, “Devaluation made some negative changes in our 174 current life, but before devaluation there were much more exposure to foreign culture.” These changes facilitated and/or disrupted faculty learning and influenced faculty well-being, thus affecting their teaching motivation. Society. On the societal level, a relationship exists between faculty teaching motivation, societal expectations, and the status of a teaching job in the country. In line with the national education standards discussed later in this chapter, societal expectations for a teaching job shaped faculty teaching beliefs about the role of a teacher in the community and influenced how the participants perceived their teacher identity, defining the type of teaching participants intrinsically valued. A high status of a teaching job (Bodrov, 2001; Zayarnaya, 2016), particularly the respect extended to “good teachers”, as Mr. Verdiyev and Mr. Ahmadov put it, enforced certain teaching behaviors that are valued by society. For example, characteristics embedded in a teacher stereotype (e.g., responsibility, tolerance, patriotism, and reserved behavior in all social circumstances) were embraced by many participants. Therefore, I conclude participants acted duly to gain and maintain high respect that came along with the teaching behaviors enforced by society. Very important in this situation is the difference made between good teachers and others at the societal level. The above-mentioned societal expectations built into the teacher stereotype influenced how many faculty viewed their teacher identity and behaved within and outside academe. However, the influence of these expectations was not always one directional. For example, participants such as Mr. Ahmadov and Mr. Rahimov shared they refused to conform to many traditional Soviet-inspired expectations, which, in their opinion, negatively influenced teacher autonomy and faculty-student relationships. Mr. Rahimov shared he did not embrace the societal 175 expectations for distant and formal faculty-student relationships, a widely accepted norm among Azerbaijani faculty, and initiated friendlier relationships with his students. Literature on faculty teaching uses culture models (Quinn & Holland, 1987) to explain faculty teaching behavior. The findings of this study not only confirm multiple cultures within which faculty work influence their teaching beliefs (Austin, 1990; 1992a; 1994) but also indicate the culture that influences faculty teaching beliefs is not limited to this collegial culture (Austin & Gamson, 1983 as cited in Austin, 1994): the culture of society also influences faculty teaching beliefs. This relationship, however, does not suggest disciplinary culture directs faculty teaching behavior (Gibbons et al., 2018; Gibbons et al., 2017; Veal et al., 2016; Woodbury & Gess- Newsome, 2002), which implies faculty conform to the existing culture. In fact, many participants in this study rejected embracing many traditionally accepted teaching behaviors within their disciplinary and societal cultures. By reflecting on the existing cultural expectations and widely accepted teaching behavior within and outside academe, the participants managed to approach their teaching from a different perspective, a learning process that promoted transformation (Dirkx, 2006) of participants’ teaching. Faculty pre-existing knowledge (Ferrare & Hora, 2014) about teaching and learning, which is informed by societal and disciplinary culture, in this situation, acts as a foundation for further development through analysis and learning. These cultural expectations contributed to participants’ learning and informed their teacher identity and beliefs. Moreover, the status of a teaching job in Azerbaijani society (e.g., high respect to teachers) positively influenced participants’ perceptions of their profession and increased their professional satisfaction. Participants perceived this respect as societal support of their profession, a factor that satisfies the basic psychological needs, such as relatedness (Deci & 176 Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000). In addition, a high status of a teaching job encouraged participants to engage in self-development (i.e., engagement in teaching professional development [TPD]) to help them maintain that high status. For example, when describing the early years of her teaching career, Ms. Jabbarova stated she worked hard to gain recognition as a good teacher who brings innovation to her classes. Another participant, Ms. Khaligli, stated even when she experienced amotivation, the fear to lose the reputation as a good teacher urged her to persist. These examples suggest faculty engage in ITMs (highly encouraged and recognized form of teaching in society) because of the existing societal respect to good teachers and to maintain this high status. This finding confirms a relationship exists between social status of faculty and their professional satisfaction (Vyzhigin, 2016), and their teaching motivation. The above- discussed findings are also consistent with the FTMM, which posits faculty members’ macro- environments influence their teaching motivation. Higher Education Environment and Faculty Motivation In this study, I also aimed to explore how and whether the changing higher education environment influences faculty engagement in ITMs. Participants shared higher education environment had an important influence on their teaching motivation. Change in the national and global education standards, students, and the relationships with colleagues influenced participants’ teaching by shaping their teaching beliefs and influencing their well-being. The following subsections present a more detailed discussion of these factors. National and global education standards. The findings indicate national and global education standards inform faculty teaching beliefs, which enforce their engagement in a particular teaching method. The data suggest the country’s national education standards have been influenced by the global education standards (The Ministry of Education of the Republic of 177 Azerbaijan, n.d.). In addition, similarities between the participants’ teaching philosophies and the national standards for higher education suggest a relationship exists between these two variables. The standards such as “preparing them [students] for life and professional activity”, “training progressively thinking and competitive specialists and personnel”, and “[gaining] theoretical and practical knowledge” stated in the Education Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan (2009) were also among the values shared by the participants. While the relationship among the national and global education standards and faculty teaching behavior is implied across studies, the discussion of the direct influence of these standards on daily teaching practices of faculty is understated in the literature. Although the above-mentioned standards are embraced by the participants, the restrictions that come with the standardization process within the centralized system of education (e.g., prescribed curriculum) disrupt faculty engagement in ITMs. Participants’ responses suggest this standardization process may limit faculty learning opportunities and negatively influence their professional satisfaction. A more in-depth discussion of this relationship is presented later in this chapter under the faculty autonomy. Family and Teaching Motivation Consistent with literature on faculty teaching motivation and the conceptual framework of the study, the findings suggest family has an important influence on faculty teaching motivation. Two aspects of family influence such as (a) family support, responsibilities, and problems (Tariq & Ali, 2014; Austin, 1992b) that can promote or disrupt faculty teaching motivation and (b) faculty’s immediate family’s influence on their teaching beliefs (Oleson & Hora, 2013) are reported in the literature. As evidenced in participants’ responses, family are an important source of learning outside academe, which can influence faculty’s teaching beliefs, an 178 intrinsic/autonomous motivator (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000). When Ms. Khaligli and Ms. Muradova described the influence of their families, for example, they highlighted the role of their children in understanding their students’ learning styles, interests, and challenges, which supports Oleson and Hora’s (2013) findings on the influence of the faculty’s immediate family on their teaching beliefs. Moreover, the data showed family are central to faculty’s personal life satisfaction, an important aspect of faculty well-being, one of the overarching themes that emerged from the data. The concept of personal well-being was explored by SDT authors who stated the satisfaction of the basic psychological needs for relatedness through the support of the environment positively influences an individual’s personal well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000). The findings of the study are consistent with this argument and show perceived support from the family helped satisfy participants’ needs for relatedness, a factor that enhances intrinsic/autonomous motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Participants viewed their families as their support systems and relied on them in cases of amotivation/low motivation. Despite this positive influence, however, some participants also stated family responsibilities and family-related problems could interfere with their teaching (Tariq & Ali, 2014; Austin, 1992) by inhibiting their teaching motivation. Individual-Level Motivators and Inhibitors Consistent with the FTMM, findings suggest individual-level motivators and inhibitors have a direct influence on faculty teaching motivation. The following groups of motivators and inhibitors emerged from the data: (a) faculty teaching beliefs, skills, and knowledge, (b) faculty well-being, (c) faculty personality traits, and (d) faculty experience. I discuss these factors in the subsections below. 179 Faculty Teaching Beliefs, Skills, and Knowledge Consistent with the literature, the findings indicate faculty teaching beliefs, skills, and knowledge influence their teaching motivation (Dirkx et al., 2004; Emenike & Holme, 2012; Fairweather, 1999; Gorbunova et al., 2012; Gibbons et al., 2017; Gibbons et al., 2018; Hora, 2014; Prosser, Trigwell, & Taylor, 1996; Samuelowicz & Bain, 2001; Veal, Riley Lloyd, Howell, & Peters, 2016; Zayarnaya, 2016). Participants’ teaching perspectives indicated they valued the teaching methods that helped achieve their teaching goals. Influenced by their values of responsible citizenship and contribution to society, participants believed their role as faculty is to contribute to the holistic growth of students who are the future of the country. Participants also agreed the attainment of this goal required an exposure of students to learning experiences that facilitate the development of higher-order thinking and analysis skills, which they believed were among the multiple benefits of ITMs. Under these circumstances, participants’ beliefs about the effectiveness of ITMs was an intrinsic/autonomous motivator (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000) enforcing their engagement in these methods. In addition, consistent with the FTMM, the findings also suggest because the participants were intrinsically motivated to engage in ITMs, they were less likely to engage in constant self-regulation, which is usually required when a person engages in a behavior that presents little/no intrinsic value to them (Muraven et al., 1998). The relationship between faculty teaching beliefs and their teaching motivation also suggests faculty skepticism of a particular teaching method (Feldman, 2000; Gibbons et al., 2018; Orgill, Bussey, & Bodner, 2015), in this case skepticism of ITMs, may inhibit faculty engagement in these methods. However, as the data show, even faculty who are skeptical of a teaching method can later develop a different perspective when they integrate ITMs into their 180 teaching. For example, Ms. Khaligli who was skeptical of ITMs started to integrate these methods into her teaching because of the institutional requirement to engage in ITMs. Engagement in ITMs, in its turn, helped Ms. Khaligli develop a different perspective about these methods after seeing their positive influence on student learning outcomes. This example illustrates a mutual relationship exists between faculty teaching beliefs and the integration of new teaching methods (Andrews & Lemons, 2015; Gallos, van den Berg, & Treagust, 2005; Gibbons et al., 2017; Orgill et al., 2015; Roehrig & Kruse, 2005; Struyven, Dochy, & Janssens, 2010), which means engagement in ITMs can help shape faculty teaching beliefs about these methods. In addition to teaching beliefs, the data also pointed to the importance of faculty judgement of their own teaching skills and knowledge (i.e., competence), which was reported as one of the factors influencing faculty teaching behavior (Andrews & Lemons, 2015; Gallos, van den Berg, & Treagust, 2005; Gibbons et al., 2017; Orgill et al., 2015; Roehrig & Kruse, 2005; Struyven, Dochy, & Janssens, 2010). The participants reported high self-esteem in their teaching skills and knowledge. Higher self-esteem promoted participants’ engagement in ITMs by decreasing the fear to use new methods in their classes. The findings are also consistent with the concept of competence within SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000) and the FTMM, which suggests participants engaged in ITMs also because they wanted to feel competent in their teaching. Widely accepted beliefs about teaching competence in and outside academe promoted this process (e.g., interactivity in lectures as one of the widely recognized indicators of teaching competence). This relationship suggests to feel competent, participants embraced the teaching behaviors that were associated with the concept of competence in Azerbaijani society. 181 In addition, better exposure to teaching literature influenced the methods of teaching valued at the individual level. One example that involved this relationship was the difference between participants’ definitions of ITMs. Faculty with more years of teaching experience and higher degree of exposure to TPD considered the benefits of a wider range of teaching methods when they defined ITMs, whereas faculty with fewer years of teaching experience and little or no exposure to TPD favored a limited number of teaching methods as ITMs. These differences dictated the teaching methods participants intrinsically valued and intended to engage in. The data also showed the level of self-esteem in one’s own teaching skills and knowledge and engagement in an intrinsically valued forms of teaching positively influenced participants’ well-being. A skillful engagement in an intrinsically valued teaching behavior influenced participants’ self-esteem (i.e., competence), thus promoting faculty professional satisfaction. Given the influence of faculty professional satisfaction on their emotional well-being (discussed next), participants’ engagement in ITMs can be explained by mutuality of the relationship between faculty emotional well-being and their engagement in a particular teaching method. Faculty Well-Being SDT, a theory that informs the FTMM, posits satisfaction of basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness facilitates natural growth and influences personal well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000). The findings of this study confirm the importance of the above-mentioned factors in promoting faculty’s well-being and their engagement in ITMs. The findings also indicate a mutual relationship exists between faculty well-being and their engagement in ITMs. One way this relationship works is through a positive influence of the engagement in ITMs on faculty emotional well-being. As evidenced by participants’ responses, engagement in an intrinsically valued form of teaching (in this case, 182 ITMs) was associated with higher levels of professional satisfaction (i.e., competence), which positively influenced their well-being. Second, faculty are more likely to succeed to engage in ITMs when the environment within which they work, live, and learn is rich with supporting factors that promote faculty well-being. For example, the participants were able to focus on the quality of the classroom teaching when their emotional and physical state allowed them to do so. Another example that suggests this relationship is participants’ description of cases of low motivation and/or amotivation. As discussed in Chapter 6, low levels of motivation and cases of amotivation were due to poor emotional and physical well-being. The data analysis showed two aspects of faculty well-being, emotional and physical well- being, are central to faculty engagement in ITMs and explain why participants chose to develop their teaching practice. A wide range of factors in the environment within which participants lived, worked, and learned influenced their well-being, thus directly or indirectly influenced their engagement in one or another form of teaching. The above sections presented a discussion of these influential factors within the faculty environment. In the remainder of this chapter, I continue the discussion of factors that influence faculty well-being and their teaching motivation (i.e., individual and institutional-level factors). Faculty emotional well-being. Emotional well-being is central to faculty engagement in ITMs. Two aspects of faculty life influence their emotional well-being: faculty personal life satisfaction and faculty professional satisfaction. Faculty satisfaction with their personal life has a positive influence on their teaching motivation. Faculty who have little/no personal concerns are able to direct their focus to the quality of teaching. Literature views family responsibilities and problems as possible barriers to faculty teaching (Tariq & Ali, 2014; Austin, 1992b). While the findings in this study confirm 183 problems related to family can disrupt faculty teaching motivation, the data also indicate family were an important support system participants relied on when they experienced teaching-related challenges. In addition, the data show the influence of the personal life is not limited to family- related problems: factors such as maintaining healthy life-work balance and better life standards are also important. Moreover, the data show the challenges in personal life are sourced from institutional-level factors. In fact, the data suggest lower levels of satisfaction with personal life, which negatively influence faculty emotional well-being, are related to institutional-level factors such as workloads (Dirkx et al., 2004; Fairweather, 2002; Hunt et al., 2014; Jaschik & Lederman, 2013, 2016; Scott & Scott, 2016), financial rewards (Fairweather, 2005; Gorbunova et al., 2012; Melguizo & Strober, 2007; Vyzhigin, 2016), and lack of cultural diversity at workplace. Another aspect of faculty life, professional satisfaction, has a more profound influence on faculty teaching motivation and engagement in one or another form of teaching. When faculty are professionally satisfied, they are less likely to experience amotivation (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000) and are more likely to manage to engage in an intended form of teaching. From the data, I was able to identify the following indicators of professional satisfaction for the study participants: interest in the subject matter and teaching profession, higher self-esteem in their own teaching expertise (i.e., competence), autonomy over their teaching decisions, the availability of opportunities for personal and professional growth in the workplace (i.e., competence), recognition of faculty teaching by their students, colleagues, administrators, family members, and society (i.e., having good reputation satisfied their needs for relatedness), availability of rewards and promotion for teaching quality (i.e., competence and relatedness), 184 manageable workloads, and well-developed relationships with colleagues (i.e., relatedness). The existence of the above-listed factors were important to participants’ professional satisfaction and their engagement in ITMs. Although literature on faculty teaching motivation directs attention to a number of institutional-level factors such as the lack of institutional support for teaching and focus being on research in promotion and tenure decisions (Bouwma-Gearhart, 2012; Chen, Nixon, Gupta, & Howshower, 2010; Eastman, 2006; Edwards et al., 2014; Fairweather, 2005; Gonzales, 2014; Marginson, 2009; Matusovich et al., 2014; Melguizo & Strober, 2007), lower salaries (Fairweather, 2005; Gorbunova et al., 2012; Melguizo & Strober, 2007; Vyzhigin, 2016), high workloads (Dirkx et al., 2004; Fairweather, 2002; Hunt et al., 2014; Jaschik & Lederman, 2013, 2016; Scott & Scott, 2016), the relationship between these factors and faculty emotional and physical well-being has not been explicitly stated. Given faculty emotional well-being is central to their teaching motivation, making this connection clear is of great importance to support higher education practitioners to create better work environments that promote the well- being of academic staff. The degree of participants’ personal and professional satisfaction depended on the existing supports systems within and outside academe discussed throughout this chapter. At the individual level, faculty emotional well-being was influenced by the factors such as their career choice and interest in the subject matter (Bavrina, 2014), faculty fears (McCrickerd, 2012; Palmer, 2007) (e.g., fear to lose their job, fear to lose their reputation, fear to lag behind), self- esteem (Andrews & Lemons, 2015; Doronina, 2009; Gorbunova et al., 2012; Isaev & Makarova, 2002; McCrickerd, 2012; Orgill et al., 2015; Roehrig & Kruse, 2005; Schmid & Bouwma- Gearhart, 2013), feelings associated with various teaching methods (Gorbunova et al., 2012), and faculty’s personal non-academic goals. 185 Faculty physical well-being. Scholars view faculty teaching behavior and motivation as the result of a wide range of factors (Herrington et al., 2016; Umbach, 2007). Findings in this study do not only support this statement but also suggest faculty teaching motivation depends on the process of a complex network of interactions among these factors that influence various aspects of faculty life, including their physical well-being/ill-being. The data indicate faculty are more likely to engage in quality teaching when they are physically in a good state. For example, participants shared physical challenges, such as tiredness and health issues, interfered with lesson planning and teaching processes. When participants felt tired, they were more likely to compromise on the quality of teaching. The most influential in this respect were the institutional- level barriers such as workloads (Dirkx et al., 2004; Fairweather, 2002; Hunt et al., 2014; Jaschik & Lederman, 2013, 2016; Scott & Scott, 2016) and intensity of the course content. While the former is widely cited in the literature, intensity of the course content, which is possibly specific to education settings with prescribed curriculum (given faculty are unable to make any changes to the course content/amount of the learning materials to be covered), was a factor experienced by the participants who had little/no autonomy over course-related decisions. Participants who could not make changes to their courses reported lack of flexibility interfered with their teaching because too much work negatively influenced their physical health. In addition, combined with the amount of the workload, lack of flexibility created physical challenges in attaining the targeted goals of teaching. Both factors also negatively influenced faculty emotional well-being, thus lowering their teaching motivation. Faculty Personality Traits The findings suggest faculty personality traits influence their teaching behavior. Among the features characterizing participants’ personalities were higher self-esteem, proneness to 186 fame/reputation, proneness to continuous self-development, proneness to self-analysis, sense of responsibility, and higher self-control strength. These personal peculiarities helped participants to engage in ITMs by encouraging their self-development and controlling participants’ reactions to encountered barriers/inhibitors. I provide a more in-depth discussion of these factors below. Self-esteem. Self-esteem is central to faculty engagement in ITMs in the following ways. First, consistent with the literature on faculty teaching motivation, the data suggest self-esteem is important to faculty engagement in TPD (Gorbunova et al., 2012; Schmid & Bouwma-Gearhart, 2013). The participants attended various TPD sessions to improve their teaching knowledge and skills, which positively influenced their self-esteem. Second, consistent with the FTMM, faculty engagement in ITMs is also directly tied to their needs of competence (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000): engagement in ITMs helped increase participants’ self-esteem. Third, because of already high self-esteem in their teaching skills (Andrews & Lemons, 2015; Gorbunova, et al., 2012; Isaev & Makarova, 2002; Orgill et al., 2015; Roehrig & Kruse, 2005), participants were able to integrate a wide range of methods into their teaching practice. This finding also suggests faculty resistance to a particular teaching method can be the result of lower self-esteem in their teaching skills (Andrews & Lemons, 2015; Gorbunova, et al., 2012; Isaev & Makarova, 2002; Orgill et al., 2015; Roehrig & Kruse, 2005). One example that supports this relationship comes from Ms. Khaligli who stated lower self-esteem in her skills to use technology for class purposes interfered with her teaching. Unlike her colleagues who resist the use of new methods and approaches because of low-self-esteem, however, Ms. Khaligli took a different approach and worked on her technology skills after which she was able to skillfully integrate modern education technologies into her classes. In addition to showing the role of competence (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000) that facilitates faculty learning, this 187 example also illustrates faculty mindset (McCrickerd, 2012) can influence their teaching behavior. Ms. Khaligli’s decision to work on her technology skills was due to the need to feel competent as a teacher and was possible because of the growth mindset that facilitated learning. The data did not reveal a relationship between the years of teaching experience and faculty self- esteem, a relationship reported by Doronina (2009). Proneness to self-development, self-analysis, and reputation. Another group of personality traits peculiar to many participants were proneness to self-development, self-analysis, and reputation, all the factors facilitating participants’ learning and engagement in ITMs. Proneness to self-development motivated participants to engage in TPD (Schmid & Bouwma- Gearhart, 2013) and facilitated self-analysis of their teaching. The participants engaged in the analysis of their own classes, conducted an assessment of short-term and long-term learning outcomes, and were prone to identifying the weaknesses and strengths of their own teaching. Scholars viewed this type of conscious self-analysis/self-reflection, a concept called mindfulness in SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000), as a facilitator of transformative learning (Dirkx, 2012). However, participants’ analysis of their own teaching and reflection on their own feelings and teaching practice were not always deliberate, meaning many participants’ self- development was not rooted in conscious attempts of self-reflection. Consciousness of self- reflection was more common to faculty with more years of teaching experience. In addition, many participants were prone to fame/reputation (i.e., concept of relatedness in the FTMM), which played an important role in their engagement in ITMs. Participants who were interested in gaining and maintaining the reputation of a good teacher engaged in self- development, took a more rational approach to teaching-related decisions (i.e., controlling their emotions and behavior in cases of negative experiences), and were motivated to engage in a 188 recognized form of teaching (in this case, ITMs). While the reputation that came with a particular form of teaching was intrinsically valued at the individual level, this type of motivation is extrinsically controlled (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000) in its nature. In this case, the type of teaching behavior participants engaged in was dictated by those in their environments, which means participants tended to engage in teaching methods that were most appreciated and recognized. Consistent with the FTMM, intrinsically, the reputation for their teaching satisfied participants’ needs for relatedness and competence (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000) because of the possible relationship between recognition and higher self-esteem as teachers. One implication of this relationship is if HEIs want to motivate faculty to engage in ITMs, their institutional rewards and promotion policies should facilitate the recognition of good quality teaching (Boitsova, 2008) and clearly specify the teaching methods valued at the institutional level. Research that directs attention to the relationship between institutional focus on research in rewards and promotion decisions as a barrier to faculty teaching motivation (Bouwma- Gearhart, 2012; Chen, Nixon, Gupta, & Howshower, 2010; Eastman, 2006; Edwards et al., 2014; Fairweather, 2005; Gonzales, 2014; Marginson, 2009; Matusovich et al., 2014; Melguizo & Strober, 2007) also supports the above-stated relationship between faculty proneness to reputation, their self-esteem, and their teaching motivation. When the existing institutional policies do not put enough emphasis on the quality of teaching in rewards and promotion decisions, they create a threat to faculty well-being by influencing their perception of their own competence. To overcome this threat to one’s own self, faculty may direct their attention from the quality of teaching, to more valued forms of faculty performance, such as research, thus losing interest in teaching quality when the latter does not influence faculty reputation. 189 Sense of responsibility. Sense of responsibility, a concept post-Soviet scholars often referred to as a sense of professional responsibility as they described faculty professional motivation (Belova et al., 2014; Bodrov, 2001; Nesterchuk & Nikitenkova, 2014; Rimskaya, 2006) and a commonly pronounced factor by the participants, helps faculty engage in ITMs in the following ways. First, this factor promotes faculty learning, which shapes faculty teaching beliefs, skills, and knowledge. Faculty who feel responsibility to their students and to their community engage in professional development to fulfill the goals of higher education. Second, sense of responsibility fueled participants’ self-control, a central concept in the FTMM discussed below. Taking responsibility for their teaching, participants often controlled their responses to various teaching situations to maintain the quality of teaching. Self-control and self-control strength. In the conceptual framework I developed for this study, I integrated the concepts of self-control and self-control strength posited in the self-control strength model (Muraven et al., 1998) to show the role of faculty self-control strength in their teaching motivation. Consistent with this framework, the findings indicate participants’ self- control played an important role in their engagement in ITMs. Participants stated by controlling their emotions and responses to various processes and circumstances, they were able to overcome the barriers and inhibitors of teaching motivation. Participants who engaged in self-control were able to take a more rational approach to their teaching decisions by analyzing the reasons of failure. This approach helped them overcome negative feelings associated with failure to engage in a particular method (Gorbunova et al., 2012) (e.g., when participants did not see the expected results from the applied methods). When faculty controlled their emotions, they were able to identify the reasons behind unsuccessful attempts of teaching and made necessary changes to advance their teaching 190 outcomes. Self-control facilitated faculty learning that transformed their teaching beliefs (Dirkx, 2012) and helped them persist in an intended method of teaching. An interesting aspect of the relationship between self-control and faculty teaching motivation was the importance of self-control in the pre-teaching/class stage. The majority of the participants shared barriers/inhibitors of teaching motivation had a stronger influence on their behavior in pre-teaching/class stage, which made self-control more necessary at this stage. During the process of teaching, however, participants did not feel the need to engage in self- control because of the intrinsic benefits of the teaching profession and engagement in ITMs presented at the individual level. As stated earlier, the participants intrinsically enjoyed teaching and viewed ITMs as effective methods promoting student learning, which suggests they were less likely to use their self-regulatory strength as often as those who do not favour ITMs. These data suggest when faculty do not intrinsically value teaching and/or do not believe in the effectiveness of ITMs, engagement in these methods would require the use of self-regulatory strength, a process which would deplete a person’s self-control resources and result in inability to control their behavior in the following attempts requiring self-control (Muraven et al., 1998). As posited in the FTMM, this relationship suggests individual’s self-control strength can help predict their teaching behavior under circumstances requiring engagement in self-control. Because I was also interested in exploring the role of self-control strength, I asked the participants to rate their self-control strength on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest. Given the qualitative nature of the interviews, these data were used to construct a qualitative account of participants’ self-control strength. The responses suggest the majority of the participants had higher self-control strength which helped them direct their 191 behavior. However, the data also suggest the degree to which faculty could control their behavior depended on the nature of the inhibitors/barriers faculty encountered. While self-control and self-control strength have received attention in psychology, this factor has been understudied by higher education scholars. Given the findings suggest self- control and self-control strength played an important role in participants’ behavior, further analysis of this relationship is necessary. As an implication for practice, I suggest human professional development specialists help faculty develop their teaching by providing workshops that target faculty’s rational responses to various factors impeding their teaching motivation. Faculty Experience Faculty’s prior experiences (Hora, 2014) are essential to their learning and formation of their teaching beliefs, skills, and knowledge. Two categories of learning experiences influenced participants’ teaching beliefs: their student experience and teaching experience. Consistent with the literature, the findings show faculty teaching beliefs are influenced by their own learning styles and needs, by their peers’ attitudes to various teaching methods, and their university professors’ teaching behaviors (Bess, 1978; Halpern & Hakel 2003; Mazur 2009; Oleson & Hora, 2014). For example, the majority of the teaching methods and approaches favored by the participants were the methods they thought worked best for student learning based on their own student experience. Participants’ imitated the teaching behavior of their university professors, particularly in the early years of their teaching career. The changes in participants’ teaching happened as they got more experienced in teaching, the second phase within which faculty teaching beliefs are shaped. Faculty beliefs formed in the first phase (i.e., student years) act as pre-existing knowledge (Ferrare & Hora, 2014) influenced by the culture within academe and participants’ individual learning styles and needs. The second phase (i.e., teaching years), on the 192 other hand, introduces sources of learning that helps faculty to transform (Dirkx, 2012) the nature of their teaching. The sources of learning that shaped faculty teaching beliefs in this phase constitute factors such as national and global education standards, collaboration and feedback, TPD, and students. Years of experience and faculty demographics. Some literature reports a relationship exists between variables such as years of experience (Belova et al., 2014; Boitsova, 2008; Doronina, 2009; Shagrir, 2011), faculty demographics (Austin, 1990; de Lourdes Machado- Taylor et al., 2016; Fairweather, 2002), and faculty teaching motivation. While the data supported connection between years of teaching experience and motivation for teaching, the relationship between faculty demographics and their teaching did not emerge from the data. The relationship between faculty teaching motivation and the years of teaching experience showed itself in two regards: the type of motivation (Boitsova, 2008; Shagrir, 2011) and the level of motivation (Belova et al., 2014; Boitsova, 2008; Doronina, 2009; Shagrir, 2011). Based on the years of experience, participants were motivated either intrinsically or extrinsically. In her study, Boitsova (2008) reported faculty with less than 10 years of teaching experience were extrinsically motivated, compared to more experienced faculty who were intrinsically motivated. In this study, however, faculty with less than five years of teaching experience reported intrinsic factors dominated in their teaching motivation. Factors such as satisfaction with career choice and interest in the subject matter dominated in these participants’ motivational profiles. While participants with more years of teaching experience also reported intrinsic motivators were still important, they also reported as they gained more experience the role of extrinsic motivators increased. Alongside intrinsic factors shared by their colleagues with fewer 193 years of teaching experience, more experienced faculty were influenced by the external factors as well. In addition, the level of motivation changed depending on the years of teaching experience (Belova et al., 2014; Boitsova, 2008; Doronina, 2009; Shagrir, 2011). The majority of the participants had higher levels of motivation in the early years of their teaching career. While still motivated, the influence of external factors were more evident in experienced participants’ motivational profile, possibly interfering with their teaching motivation. For example, when describing external challenges to their teaching, faculty with less than five years of teaching experience stated they encountered fewer inhibitors/barriers and expressed higher motivation for teaching. Faculty with more years of teaching experience, on the other hand, stated external factors disrupting their teaching motivation were more influential than intrinsic inhibitors. The above-stated individual-level inhibitors and motivators are very important to faculty teaching motivation and engagement in ITMs. Consistent with the FTMM, the data showed embedded in the larger environment, these factors can help faculty overcome barriers to teaching and persist in an intended form of teaching. Alongside these individual-level inhibitors and motivators, the data also showed institutional-level facilitators and barriers discussed below influence faculty teaching behavior. Institutional-Level Facilitators and Barriers Consistent with literature and the FTMM, the findings indicate institutional-level factors influence faculty teaching motivation. The environment within which faculty work can be facilitative or disruptive to their engagement in ITMs. In this section, I provide the discussion of the following groups of factors: institutional rewards and promotion system; monetary 194 incentives; faculty autonomy; workloads; institutional environment; student body at a particular university; professional development opportunities; and facilities. Institutional Rewards and Promotion Systems Central to many participants’ discussions was the role of institutional rewards and the promotion systems. The findings support institutional emphasis on one or another form of faculty performance (e.g., research) can dictate the aspect of work faculty will focus on (Arum & Roksa, 2011; Blickenstaff et al., 2015; Bouwma-Gearhart, 2012; Eastman, 2006; Marginson, 2009; Matusovich et al., 2014; Scott & Scott, 2016). These findings are consistent with literature that reported rewards and promotion policies focusing on research productivity of the academic staff interfere with faculty teaching (Bouwma-Gearhart, 2012; Chen, Nixon, Gupta, & Howshower, 2010; Eastman, 2006; Edwards et al., 2014; Fairweather, 2005; Gonzales, 2014; Gurov & Rezanova, 2010; Marginson, 2009; Matusovich et al., 2014; Melguizo & Strober, 2007). Under the above-mentioned circumstances, participants’ perceived little/no institutional support for their work as teachers, which is another factor reported to inhibit faculty teaching motivation (Davidson-Shivers et al., 2005; Eisen & Barlett, 2006). The lack of institutional support, in its turn, resulted in low levels of motivation/amotivation. As evidenced by the participants’ responses in Chapter 6, when evaluation of classroom teaching does not influence these rewards and promotion decisions (i.e., thwarting the needs for competence and relatedness), faculty may lose their interest in sustaining high quality teaching. Under such circumstances, Mr. Rahimov, for example, explained he managed to engage in ITMs only because of his intrinsic interest in teaching. This example suggests faculty who are not intrinsically motivated to teach would not be able to persist in a desired form of teaching when they are not rewarded for quality of teaching. 195 The data indicate the majority of Azerbaijani HEIs that evaluate classroom teaching fail to promote faculty teaching motivation because of several reasons. First, these policies do not target the quality of teaching in undergraduate classes, but rather reward faculty based on the number of teaching years, which does not necessarily point to the quality of teaching nor does this factor motivate faculty to teach well. Second, ambiguous in nature (Dendeberya, 2011), these evaluation strategies confuse faculty and lower their professional satisfaction. Third, strategies applied by these institutions do not support faculty professional development due to the lack of formative feedback. Fourth, the shortcomings in student evaluation of faculty teaching, a relatively new approach to faculty evaluation in many post-Soviet countries (Andrushchak, 2008; Vasileva, 2005), interfere with faculty teaching motivation and negatively influence their professional satisfaction. Monetary Incentives The role of monetary incentives is widely discussed in the literature on faculty motivation (Fairweather, 2005; Gorbunova et al., 2012; Melguizo & Strober, 2007; Vyzhigin, 2016). Monetary incentives, such as salaries, may influence faculty motivation in two ways. First, consistent with post-Soviet literature, the data indicate faculty salaries are low in Azerbaijani HEIs as compared to other professions (Belova et al., 2014; Gorbunova et al., 2012; Vyzhigin, 2016), which lowers faculty personal life satisfaction and negatively influences their emotional well-being. Second, low faculty salaries and lack of other forms of monetary incentives for the quality of teaching inhibit faculty professional satisfaction because faculty perceive their teaching productivity receives little attention (i.e., thwarting the need for relatedness and competence) (Deci & Ryan,1985; 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000). As the data suggest, low monetary incentives are among the main reasons for why some participants worked several jobs and/or did 196 not consider teaching as a full-time career. The availability of higher salaries and monetary incentives, however, supported participants’ teaching even when they had higher workloads, which indicates the importance of financial rewards in faculty teaching motivation. Faculty Autonomy As stated in previous chapters, participants in this study worked in institutions with varying degree of faculty autonomy, one of the basic psychological needs that promote an individual’s motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000). The results show participants with a greater degree of autonomy were more satisfied with their professional life than those with little/no autonomy (Stupnisky et al., 2018). The participants who had autonomy over course-related decisions had more flexibility, which supported their teaching creativity and facilitated their professional growth. These faculty had more opportunities for learning and self- realization (Bodrov, 2001; Gorbunova et al., 2012) embedded in their autonomy as teachers, which targeted faculty needs for competence as well (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000) and supported participants’ emotional well-being. Another interesting aspect of faculty autonomy appeared in the responses of faculty who had a greater degree of autonomy: for several participants, autonomy over course decisions was a sign of institutional trust in their professional expertise (i.e., increased feelings of competence) (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Participants with little/no autonomy over the course related decisions, on the other hand, shared this situation interfered with their teaching in several ways. First, because these faculty were required to follow the prescribed curriculum, little room was left for participants’ self- realization (Bodrov, 2001; Gorbunova et al., 2012) and learning (i.e., thwarting the need for competence). Lack of such autonomy limited faculty opportunity and desire to engage in 197 professional development. Second, these participants faced challenges in meeting a particular groups of students’ academic needs; given the intensity of the course materials and the requirement to cover prescribed course materials, the participants had little time to integrate teaching materials that interested their students. When combined with the time limitations and physical challenges that came along with higher teaching loads (discussed next) that prevented faculty from addressing their students’ needs, the lack of autonomy negatively influenced faculty self-esteem as teachers (i.e., by thwarting the need for competence), which lowered their professional satisfaction. The data also suggest the availability of feedback alongside autonomy is very crucial to faculty professional satisfaction. In particular, participants with fewer years of teaching experience who had autonomy over course-related decisions expressed they would benefit from feedback. They stated availability of evaluation of teaching and feedback on the courses they developed would inform their teaching-related knowledge and their self-esteem as teachers (i.e., higher sense of competence) (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Workloads As research shows workloads (Dirkx et al., 2004; Fairweather, 2002; Hunt et al., 2014; Jaschik & Lederman, 2013, 2016; Scott & Scott, 2016) can interfere with faculty teaching. The data suggest higher workloads decrease faculty opportunities to engage in TPD, an important source of faculty learning. When participants encountered challenges related to time constraints and physical challenges as a result of higher workloads, they were unable to engage in professional development. In addition, higher workloads were reported to interfere with faculty teaching because of limited time for preparation (Scott & Scott, 2016) and lack of faculty ability to engage in learner-centered teaching (Dirkx et al., 2004; Fairweather, 2002), which in turn 198 negatively influences faculty emotional well-being. When participants realized they could not engage in the desired form of teaching because of the workloads, they felt less satisfied with their teaching performance, which decreased their self-esteem as teachers (Doronina, 2009; Gorbunova et al., 2012; McCrickerd, 2012; Schmid & Bouwma-Gearhart, 2013). Very crucial in this regard was the increasing number of students in classes and intensity of the course content. Higher workloads also interfered with faculty personal life satisfaction. Participants stated workloads created barriers to better life-work balance. When faculty had to spend too much time planning and teaching, they felt the need to cut time from their personal lives, which negatively influenced faculty emotional-well being. Professional Development Opportunities The role of professional development opportunities in promoting faculty teaching motivation is understated in the literature. Few studies looked at faculty motivation for attending TPD (Bouwma-Gearhart, 2012; Schmid & Bouwma-Gearhart, 2013), yet did not make the connection between TPD and faculty teaching motivation clear. As stated earlier, TPD opportunities offered at the institutional level are very important to promoting faculty learning and professional development. The data suggest institutional support for professional growth such as availability of teaching-related trainings, financial support to attend TPD, and the availability of exchange opportunities are important to faculty professional satisfaction and their engagement in ITMs. Participants’ responses suggest the lack of these forms of institutional support interfered with their learning and professional development and decreased the level of professional satisfaction. When faculty do not receive the necessary support for professional development, they may either seek it in other institutions with more support for PD (e.g., participants changed their workplaces based on the degree of institutional support for 199 professional growth), or they may choose to neglect their professional growth. The latter negatively influences faculty adoption of new teaching and learning strategies. This connection implies institutions should support faculty professional development to advance undergraduate college teaching. Facilities A well-equipped teaching infrastructure (Orr, Williams, & Pennington, 2009) supports faculty teaching by increasing their professional satisfaction. Participants who were satisfied with the facilities they were provided with were more satisfied with their jobs, whereas faculty who worked in poorly equipped institutional environments reported challenges related to underequipped workspaces (e.g., lack of internet on campus). These challenges decreased faculty satisfaction with their own productivity (i.e., competence). In particular, the availability of local research and materials in the local language, rich libraries, and well-equipped laboratories are important to supporting their teaching productivity. For example, when describing the challenges, Ms. Sadigova shared the lack of well-equipped laboratories was a barrier to the development of practical skills for students, which negatively influenced her and her students’ motivation. This finding implies institutions should invest in teaching infrastructure to support undergraduate college teaching. Institutional Environment The environment within which faculty work influences their teaching motivation. As evidenced by participants, faculty who work within competitive institutional environments are more motivated to engage ITMs and strive for professional growth. In addition, the data showed the importance of institutional practices increasing sense of belonging (e.g., social events, trainings, availability of common shared spaces) and institutional enforcement of 200 intradepartmental and interdepartmental collaborations in supporting faculty teaching motivation. Given the role of relationships with colleagues constituted a central part of discussions with the participants, I discuss this factor more in-depth below. Relationships with colleagues. The findings suggest a connection exists between relationships with colleagues (Austin, 2014; Gorbunova et al., 2012; Schmid & Bouwma- Gearhart, 2013) and faculty teaching motivation. Similar to the role of family, the relationships with colleagues can influence faculty members’ teaching beliefs and their well-being in several ways. First, colleagues are central to faculty learning that happens within academe. Participants’ interactions with their colleagues from similar or different disciplines helped them broaden their perspectives on teaching and learning, which directs attention to the learning opportunities embedded in the relationships with fellow academics. Learning opportunities that were naturally embedded in these relationships (e.g., collaboration on course and syllabus design, classroom observations, and mentoring) and interactions with colleagues facilitated participants’ personal and professional growth, thus possibly transforming their teaching (Dirkx, 2012). In addition, faculty relationships with colleagues were crucial to increasing faculty members’ overall well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000) through the influence on satisfaction with their personal life and professional career. The above-mentioned learning opportunities of interactions with colleagues introduce means of professional satisfaction that can help boost participants’ well-being. First, collaboration with fellow academics can increase professional and personal life satisfaction possibly by reducing workloads, thus also positively influencing faculty physical well-being. Despite the time commitment required for collaborative efforts, collaboration among colleagues increases faculty’s chances to make more informed 201 teaching decisions (i.e., competence) (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000), while also reducing required efforts. When faculty share content-related or teaching-related knowledge with each other, they are more likely to reduce the search time as compared to when faculty professional growth and learning are limited to their personal efforts. This type of relationship among colleagues also increases their chances to infuse institutional missions and aspirations into their teaching. For example, when Ms. Muradova was describing the challenges upon joining her new institution, having a mentor helped her to find answers to teaching-related questions (e.g., questions related to institutional mission, institutional requirements and encouraged ways of teaching) she had, which, she said, would otherwise have been more challenging and time-consuming. Faculty who want to embrace institutional mission into their teaching may find themselves absorbed in the search for appropriate ways of attaining this objective: collaboration among colleagues has the potential for reducing the time and efforts while also introducing more benefits to the individual and the community. One such benefit is better life-work balance that can be achieved through collaboration with fellow academics. Collaboration with others can help reduce the stress level related to higher workloads and the intensity of the course-content. For example, when faculty share course-related materials with each other, they may help reduce the time spent for lesson planning and work-related stress. Another benefit of well-developed relationships with colleagues is the increase in self- esteem (Ryan & Deci, 2000), a factor largely cited by the works of scholars on motivation (Doronina, 2009; Gorbunova et al., 2012; McCrickerd, 2012; Schmid & Bouwma-Gearhart, 2013). Inherent in the concept of higher self-esteem is the satisfaction of the faculty’s needs for competence, an intrinsic/autonomous motivator (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Next, well-developed relationships with colleagues address the psychological needs for relatedness 202 (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000) through the increase in the sense of belonging, a facilitator of faculty engagement in quality teaching. Participants shared having good relationships with their colleagues helped them feel connected and be a part of a community, which increased their professional satisfaction. Increased collaboration among colleagues also satisfies faculty needs for professional growth (i.e., competence) (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000) and positively influences faculty emotional well-being. In general, the data in this study suggest relationships with colleagues has the potential to increase participants’ teaching motivation to engage in ITMs through the promotion of their emotional and physical well-being and professional growth. Unsatisfactory relationships with colleagues, however, disrupt faculty teaching motivation. First, the lack of well-developed relationships and collaboration with colleagues interferes with faculty learning and professional development, a factor that is one of the most effective factors shaping faculty teaching beliefs. Participants expressed concerns related to little collaboration among faculty and little/no helpful feedback received from the existing collaborations, an indicator of a hostile institutional environment. For example, speaking about the nature of collaboration with her colleagues, Ms Abbasova shared the existing cultural expectations among colleagues (e.g., pointing out weaknesses is taken personal and faculty restrain from providing such feedback) limited her chances to learn and develop her teaching. These data are consistent with culture models (Quinn & Holland, 1987) that suggest faculty behave in generally accepted ways within their cultures (Gibbons et al., 2018; Gibbons et al., 2017; Veal et al., 2016; Woodbury & Gess-Newsome, 2002). Relying on the above-mentioned cultural expectation, faculty may expect favorable comments from colleagues upon evaluation, 203 regardless of the quality of their teaching. Finally, existing collaboration and feedback policies leave the adjunct faculty out of these networks, thus eliminating their learning opportunities. Students The literature on faculty teaching motivation reports student resistance (Blickenstaff et al., 2015; Haas & Keeley, 1998; Weimer, 2013) is one of the factors disrupting faculty engagement in ITMs. The participants did not report such resistance and stated their students enjoyed learning with these methods, which implies a possible connection between these variables. The lack of student resistance and the existing student interest in ITMs facilitated participants’ engagement in ITMs. On the other hand, the participants shared student grade- orientedness did have a negative influence on their teaching productivity. Students who were interested in getting higher grades did not show interest in anything they were not going to be tested on (given the centralized nature of exams). This factor decreased participants’ professional satisfaction, negatively influencing their emotional well-being. While literature on faculty motivation discusses negative influence of students on faculty teaching motivation (Blickenstaff et al., 2015; Haas & Keeley, 1998), particularly their engagement in ITMs, the findings of this study suggest students are one of the most influential microsystems (Bronfenbrenner, 1993) that promote faculty engagement in ITMs. One way this relationship functions is through the formation of faculty teaching beliefs about student learning and their academic needs and interests. The findings are consistent with research that directs attention to the role of faculty beliefs about students’ needs and interests (Dirkx et al., 2004; Emenike & Holme, 2012; Fairweather, 1999; Gorbunova et al., 2012; Gibbons et al., 2017; Gibbons et al., 2018; Hora, 2014; Prosser, Trigwell, & Taylor, 1996; Samuelowicz & Bain, 2001; Veal, Riley Lloyd, Howell, & Peters, 2016; Zayarnaya, 2016) in their engagement in one 204 or another method of teaching. Students influence this learning and decisions-making process by providing formal and informal feedback (e.g., active engagement in classes, student interest in course materials/subjects) to faculty teaching. In addition, student success (e.g., positive student learning outcomes, ability to find jobs) informs faculty understanding of their own teaching competence (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000) and the rightfulness of their teaching decisions. All the participants stated they engaged in ITMs because of the believed effectiveness of these methods in facilitating student learning and success. In addition, students are the key constituents of the higher education environment that have direct relationships with and influence on faculty. Participants intrinsically enjoyed working with students and having influence on their personal and professional development. Seeing their students succeed, receiving positive performance feedback from students (i.e., increased sense of competence), feeling their students’ support (i.e., increased sense of relatedness) (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000), and student personality positively influence faculty professional satisfaction and emotional-well being (discussed earlier in this chapter). As faculty reported in this study, understanding specific challenges their students were going through helped them become better teachers who supported and were inspired by their students’ success. Unfortunately, the context-specific factors contributing to student success in Azerbaijan are understudied. Faculty who make conclusions about their students’ academic needs and challenges from their daily classes and/or from their parenting experiences are poorly equipped with effective teaching knowledge. A more systematic and in-depth exploration of diverse student populations’ learning needs and interests would support faculty teaching in Azerbaijani higher education context. 205 Institutional Type While the relationship between faculty teaching behavior and the institutional type (de Lourdes Machado-Taylor et al., 2016; Fairweather, 2002; Lowenthal, Wray, Bates, Switzer, & Stevens, 2012; Stupnisky et al., 2018; Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005) did not emerge from the data, the findings showed certain differences existed based on institutional profile (i.e., based on the institutional history). As stated in Chapter 4, historical differences among institutions influenced Azerbaijani HEIs’ policies related to teaching. For example, participants working at the institutions with relatively longer history (i.e., established during the Soviet and pre-Soviet period) had little/no autonomy over course decisions, whereas those working in relatively younger institutions had a greater degree of autonomy over course-related decisions. As discussed above, this difference dictated faculty opportunities for self-realization (Bodrov, 2001; Gorbunova et al., 2012) and learning, an intrinsic motivator of faculty teaching. Consequently, faculty working in younger institutions and/or programs with greater faculty autonomy reported higher sense of professionals satisfaction. Employment Type Based on the data in this study, I did not identify any differences between motivational profiles of the study participants based on the employment type (Baldwin & Wawrzynski, 2011; Banachowski, 1996; Hagedorn, Perrakis, & Maxwell, 2007; O’Meara & Rice, 2005; Ward, 2003; Young et al., 2007). On the other hand, this variable did influence the faculty access to teaching professional development and faculty engagement in institutional life, including their collaboration with colleagues. For example, adjunct faculty had limited involvement in institutional life and limited collaboration with colleagues, which limited their opportunities for professional development, a possible barrier to faculty teaching motivation. In addition, adjunct 206 faculty were least likely to receive financial support for professional growth from their institutions. As compared to the core faculty, participants who worked as adjuncts did not receive any feedback on their teaching from administration and/or colleagues, which limited their learning opportunities. Given the increasing reliance on adjunct faculty in undergraduate classes, involvement of adjunct faculty in learning opportunities within academe is of great importance. The above-sections provided a discussion of the study findings. I refer to these findings to provide a revision of the conceptual framework of the study, the Faculty Teaching Motivation Model (the FTMM). In the next section, I present a revised version of this model (see Figure 5). Revised Faculty Teaching Motivation Model The FTMM posits faculty members and the factors affecting their teaching motivation are embedded in the larger environment. According to the model, faculty’s micro-environments (e.g., their families and colleagues) have a direct influence on their motivation and/or amotivation for teaching innovatively. In addition, environment in a larger sense indirectly influences faculty engagement in ITMs through the cultural norms and expectations that shape faculty behavior. The model posits faculty teaching motivation and their engagement in ITMs is influenced by a number of institutional and individual-level factors, including faculty self-control strength. Environment Consistent with the proposed model, the data in this study suggest faculty teaching motivation is embedded in a larger environment. Within this model, faculty’s microenvironment (e.g., family, colleagues, and students) and macro-environment (e.g., society) can affect their teaching behavior. For example, students can directly influence faculty teaching beliefs and their well-being by showing support to one or another form of teaching. Student support/lack of 207 student support shapes faculty teaching beliefs and informs their self-esteem as teachers. As posited in the FTMM, the environment in a larger sense also has an indirect influence on faculty teaching motivation. For example, societal expectations for a teaching job can influence faculty perceptions’ of their own teacher identity and define the types of teaching embraced by them. The findings also support within this environment, a number of individual-level motivators and inhibitors and institutional-level facilitators and barriers that interact and affect one-another have an important influence on faculty teaching behavior. Figure 5. Revised Faculty Teaching Motivation Model. In this model, inhibitors/motivators are individual-level factors and facilitators/barriers are institutional-level factors. 208 Individual-Level Motivators and Inhibitors According to the FTMM, motivators and inhibitors are individual-level factors that influence faculty teaching motivation. These motivators and inhibitors are based on the basic psychological needs of competence, autonomy, and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2008). The model posits the type of motivational orientation faculty develop depends on the satisfaction or thwarting of these needs. Consistent with this model, the findings indicate the satisfaction of these basic psychological needs are central to faculty teaching motivation. Many individual-level factors play an important role in this process. For example, faculty personality traits, one of the overarching categories in this study, (e.g., proneness to self-development, self-analysis, and reputation) promoted participants’ engagement in recognized forms of teaching (i.e., ITMs) and facilitated their learning, which helped satisfy their needs for competence and relatedness. In addition, the data suggest satisfaction or thwarting of these basic psychological needs oftentimes depended on participants’ environments, where factors such as faculty autonomy and recognition of faculty teaching by their families, students, colleagues, and administrators influenced participants’ motivational profiles. Thwarting of these needs resulted in amotivation for many participants, whilst satisfaction of these needs (e.g., having autonomy) increased the level of teaching motivation for many participants. In addition, individual-level motivators and inhibitors can be intrinsic and extrinsic (Ryan & Deci, 2008) in nature and are not mutually exclusive. For example, the same intrinsic factor such as faculty teaching beliefs can either promote or inhibit faculty engagement in ITMs, depending on the nature of these beliefs. When faculty believe in the effectiveness of ITMs (i.e., intrinsic/autonomous orientation), their teaching beliefs intrinsically motivate them to engage in these methods. However, when faculty are skeptical of ITMs, faculty teaching beliefs inhibit 209 their engagement in these methods, which supports the division between these groups is not mutually exclusive. In addition, when participants’ teaching beliefs were influenced by their environments (e.g., engagement in ITMs positively influenced faculty reputation) extrinsic factors controlled their teaching behavior (i.e., extrinsic/controlled orientation). The findings support these individual-level motivators and inhibitors interact and influence one another. Consistent with the FTMM, the data suggest the results of these interactions among motivators and inhibitors define the type of teaching behavior faculty intend to engage in: faculty may either choose to engage in a particular teaching method or they may lose motivation to engage in that method. The data also indicate these individual-level motivators and inhibitors do not exist in isolation: environmental and institutional-level factors influence and shape these individual-level motivators and inhibitors. Further, individual-level motivators and inhibitors are also very important to faculty persistence in an intended method of teaching when faculty face challenges in their environments. In particular, faculty personality traits influence their responses to various inhibitors and barriers of faculty teaching. Faculty with a higher sense of responsibility, for example, are more likely to engage in self-development, which facilitates learning and transformation of faculty teaching. Amotivation and Intention To Act The proposed FTMM posited inhibitors and motivators (i.e., individual-level factors) interact and influence each other, which can lead to two states: faculty may either intend to act (i.e., faculty are motivated to engage in a particular teaching method) or they may have no intention to act (i.e., amotivation; Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000). The findings support a relationship exists between individual-level motivators and inhibitors and faculty intention or 210 amotivation to engage in one or another method of teaching. Alongside these individual-level factors, the data suggest environmental and institutional-level facilitators and barriers also influence faculty intention to act or their amotivation. Environment in a larger sense and institutional-level facilitators and inhibitors influence faculty teaching beliefs, skills, and knowledge, which defines the type of teaching behavior faculty will intend to engage in. Institutional-Level Facilitators and Barriers The FTMM posits when faculty are intrinsically motivated to engage in a particular teaching method (e.g., ITMs), they can encounter a number of institutional factors that influence their teaching motivation. In this model, facilitators and barriers, which are extrinsic/controlled in nature, are institutional-level factors that can promote or disrupt faculty engagement in one or another method of teaching. The model also suggests the division between these two groups is not mutually exclusive: the same factor can be a facilitator or a barrier to faculty teaching motivation, depending on its nature. The findings support the above-stated relationship between institutional-level facilitators and barriers and faculty teaching motivation. For example, institutional facilitators (e.g., faculty autonomy, institutional support for TPD) supported participants’ engagement in an intended method of teaching. Barriers (e.g., the lack of institutional focus on the quality of teaching in institutional rewards and promotion decisions), on the other hand, interfered with their teaching motivation. In addition, consistent with the FTMM, the data support the division between these institutional-level factors is not mutually exclusive. The same factor can either facilitate or obstruct faculty engagement in an intended method of teaching, depending on its nature. For instance, participants who were satisfied with their workloads had more chances to engage in PD 211 than the faculty with higher workloads, which shows the same factor (i.e., workloads) can either be a facilitator or a barrier to faculty teaching motivation and their engagement in ITMs. As stated earlier, institutional-level facilitators and barriers also influence a number of individual-level factors (e.g., faculty teaching beliefs and well-being). This relationship between individual and institutional-level factors can define the type of teaching behavior faculty intend to engage in. For example, institutional support for TPD can support faculty learning, a factor shaping faculty teaching beliefs, skills, and knowledge (an intrinsic motivator). Self-Control Strength Consistent with the FTMM, the data suggest self-control plays an important role in faculty teaching behavior. All the participants’ responses indicate self-regulation helped them overcome barriers and inhibitors of their teaching motivation. Self-control helped participants persist in an intended method of teaching (i.e., ITMs) even when these participants encountered challenges. The FTMM posits when combined with other factors influencing faculty motivation, the level of self-control strength (Muraven et al., 1998) can help predict the type of teaching behavior faculty will engage in. The model posits faculty with higher self-control strength are more likely to engage in an intended method of teaching within a facilitative institutional environment as compared to the faculty with lower self-control strength. In addition, faculty with lower self-control strength are very unlikely to engage in an intended method of teaching when they face inhibitors and barriers. Faculty with higher self-control strength, on the other hand, have a higher likelihood to engage in an intended method of teaching even when they encounter barriers. 212 Consistent with the FTMM, the data indicate higher self-control strength helped participants persist in ITMs. Participants who rated their self-control strength as 4 or 5 within a 5-point scale stated they were able to control their teaching behavior despite the challenges. Participants who rated their self-control strength 3 or lower, on the other hand, reported overcoming barriers was more challenging and not always possible. These data suggest a relationship exists between faculty self-control strength and their teaching behavior. Moreover, consistent with the self-control strength model (Muraven et al., 1998), the FTMM posits engagement in self-control may deplete self-regulatory resources of faculty in the short run. This concept suggests faculty with lower self-control strength are very unlikely to persist in a behavior involving self-regulation in the next attempts requiring self-control. In addition, the model posits self-control strength resembles a muscle that can be developed in the long-run, which suggests faculty who tend to engage in ITMs are more likely to have controlled their teaching behavior regularly for a longer period of time. Given the intrinsic nature of the participants’ teaching motivation and the fact that some participants reported rare cases of amotivation, the findings support the FTMM in the following sense. Because the engagement in ITMs presented intrinsic benefits to the participants, engagement in these methods may have required less self-regulatory efforts (Muraven et al., 1998) as compared to those who resist these methods. This relationship can explain why the participants with relatively lower self-control strength succeeded to engage in ITMs within less supportive institutional environments. However, because the study did not explore the motivation of the resisting faculty whose engagement in ITMs would require self-control of their teaching behavior on a more regular basis, which would deplete their self-regulatory strength, I suggest further analysis of this relationship is needed. While the data show several faculty 213 engaged in self-control in the long run when they experienced amotivation (e.g., Ms. Khaligli), because of the limited sample size, this study is unable to define a strong relationship between these variables. To further explore this relationship between self-control strength and faculty engagement in self-regulation in the long run, exploring the motivational profiles of those faculty who resist these methods is needed. Implications In the subsections below, I present recommendations based on the findings of this study. Although this relatively small scale study explored the motivation of those faculty who tend to engage in ITMs regularly in their undergraduate classes, the findings have implications for practice that can help facilitate resisting faculty’s engagement in ITMs and for further research. The study directs attention to the presence of administrative issues that disrupt faculty teaching motivation such as governmental and institutional policies limiting faculty autonomy, lack of focus on teaching quality in rewards and promotion decisions, lack of necessary monetary incentives for the quality of teaching, shortcomings in the faculty evaluation procedures, higher workloads interfering with faculty teaching productivity, lack of competitive institutional environment, lack of professional development opportunities at workplace, little/no institutional enforcement of interdepartmental and intradepartmental collaboration, lack of institutional practices promoting faculty sense of belonging, and poor teaching infrastructure. At the individual level, the issues interfering with faculty teaching motivation and engagement in ITMs constitute factors such as lack of skills to use a particular method, issues related to emotional and physical well-being, problems in personal life, and inability to manage better work-life balance. Within the larger environment, problems in the country’s economic life, education laws limiting faculty autonomy, problems related to students such as grade-orientedness, and family-related 214 issues were among the main inhibitors of faculty teaching motivation. Based on the findings, I provide a number of implications for researchers and practitioners. First, I introduce the implications for practice and then continue with the implications for research. Implications for Practice The implications for practice include the suggestions for institutions and faculty. I start this subsection with the implications for institutions. Next, I present suggestions for faculty. Towards a more supportive institutional environment. The implications for institutions do not only target barriers faculty face within the institutional environment, but given the scope of institutions’ impact on faculty emotional well-being, I also present ideas targeting barriers/inhibitors outside the institutional environment that can be overcome through institutional support. Institutions can support faculty teaching and engagement in ITMs in several ways. First, institutions should support faculty self-realization and professional development. Second, institutions should create competitive institutional environment. Third, to facilitate faculty engagement in ITMs, institutions should consider changes in the assessment criteria for student learning outcomes. Fourth, institutions should focus on practices increasing faculty sense of belonging in the workplace. Fifth, institutions should provide optimal conditions for work and research. A more detailed discussion of these implications is provided below. The first implication involves the findings that emerged on faculty’s intrinsic proneness for self-realization and professional growth and the role of faculty teaching beliefs, skills, and knowledge in defining their teaching behavior. To support faculty learning, which helps shape faculty teaching skills, beliefs, and knowledge, and to help support faculty self-realization, the institutions and departmental units should take the following steps. First, institutions must provide faculty with autonomy over their teaching, which creates opportunities for faculty self- 215 realization and learning. Alongside this autonomy, however, departments should provide constructive feedback on the course design and other teaching-related decisions. This kind of feedback should be provided to faculty with all kinds of employment terms, including adjunct faculty. To facilitate faculty learning about teaching and learning and to develop teaching-related skills, institutions should support faculty professional development by (a) providing financial support to attend TPD, (b) offering more teaching-related trainings and workshops, (c) arranging post-training follow-ups, (d) creating exchange opportunities with foreign institutions, (d) enforcing interdisciplinary and interdepartmental collaboration among academic staff, and (e) lowering faculty teaching loads. The low payment of a teaching job in Azerbaijan and higher workloads limit faculty participation in TPD and negatively influence faculty motivation to engage in PD. Therefore, the availability of teaching-related PD opportunities and financial support for TPD by the institutions are important to promote faculty engagement in TPD. Further, the findings also suggest the availability of post-training follow-ups can help encourage faculty to engage in newly exposed ways of teaching. These follow-ups can be implemented through the discussions of the faculty’s own reflections on their progress individually, peer observation of classes, and departmental workshops/discussions where faculty reflect on the progress and the challenges they might encounter in the application process. The individual-level follow-ups can be done through the encouragement of periodic (a more frequent reflection would add to faculty workload) reflection/analysis of faculty’s own teaching. In addition, not to add to faculty workload, allotting time (included in the workload) and a shared space where faculty would gather and work on their monthly reflections would help form the habit of self-reflection. 216 Another strategy that would facilitate faculty learning is participation in exchange programs. Given the findings indicate exchange programs benefit not only the individuals going on exchange programs but also faculty in host institutions, creating this opportunity for faculty would contribute to faculty learning both at home and host institutions. One way to achieve an exchange of knowledge through these programs is to require participants of the exchange programs to provide workshops at the host and home institutions. In addition to these systematic workshops, exchange of lesson plans and peer observations of the lessons can help advance faculty learning. Given the role of collaboration among faculty in their learning and motivation, institutions must enforce interdepartmental and interdisciplinary collaboration among the academic staff. The data suggest Azerbaijani HEIs do not put enough emphasis on collaboration among faculty, which limits faculty learning opportunities and results in epistemic isolation. To overcome this barrier, institutions and departmental units must encourage the academic staff to engage in collaboration. Suggested ways of achieving more collaboration at work includes initiating co-instruction of courses, observation of fellow academics’ classes, mentoring newly employed faculty by more experienced faculty, establishment of online teaching feedback and support portals, and interdisciplinary workshops where faculty exchange ideas with one another. In particular, strategies such as offering co-instructed classes and collaboration in online portals (within and between institutions) that are rare in Azerbaijani HEIs’ practice can be very facilitative in terms of learning. For example, online portals where faculty (to facilitate active participation, the users’ anonymity can be provided) share their ideas for teaching and challenges they face can be really informative to the whole academic staff. 217 The second implication is supported by the findings on the role of faculty needs for competence and relatedness and the influence of the monetary incentives on faculty teaching motivation. As the data showed, participants’ engagement in ITMs was informed by the factors supporting their emotional well-being. When institutions create competition among colleagues, those who value reputation and the monetary incentives tied to the strategies facilitating competitiveness tend to be more motivated to engage in an encouraged form of work. In order to influence faculty teaching, the institutions must focus on the quality of teaching in rewards and promotion decisions. When faculty receive certain benefits for the quality of teaching, they are more likely to focus on the quality of teaching, which will also facilitate faculty engagement in TPD. In addition, to effectively target the teaching quality, institutions must work on the shortcomings in the faculty evaluation procedures that interfere with faculty teaching motivation and decrease their professional satisfaction. First, the policies focusing on the quantity of teaching years vs. the quality of teaching should be reconsidered by HEIs. To facilitate faculty engagement in quality teaching practices, faculty should be rewarded based on the quality of their classroom teaching rather than the quantity of commitment to a teaching career/a particular institution. Second, institutions must provide a clear communication of the institutional requirements for teaching and base the faculty evaluation criteria on these clearly stated requirements. Third, institutions must develop the culture of constructive feedback among their employees. To enforce this process, faculty must be required to approach the teaching of a fellow faculty critically, which means formal evaluations of faculty must include the discussion of the points for improvement. This process can also be supported by competition at workplace (i.e., rewards and promotion policies focusing on quality teaching). Finally, the evaluation of 218 classroom teaching should benefit and address the teaching of faculty with all employment types, including adjunct faculty. The third implication addresses the problems sourced from students’ grade-orientedness, standardized tests, and the role of students’ grades on faculty evaluation results, which often lead to teaching to the test. As the participants mentioned, one of the biggest barriers to faculty engagement in ITMs is the grade-orientedness of their students. Students who want to get higher grades in exams direct their attention to the knowledge tested in these exams, which may have a direct influence on faculty’s daily classroom teaching. In addition, when students’ grades influence faculty salaries (e.g., several participants mentioned their students’ grades influence faculty salaries), faculty may choose to teach to the test to ensure their students score as high as possible. To eliminate the effects of these factors on faculty teaching behavior, institutions should base the student learning assessment strategies and criteria on student-centered and competence-based approaches (e.g., testing students critical thinking and analysis and their problem solving abilities). The fourth implication is based on the theme that shows the relationship between faculty sense of belonging, their emotional well-being, and their teaching motivation. Faculty emotional well-being and their engagement in ITMs can be influenced by their sense of belonging or feelings of isolation. First of all, faculty who feel isolated are less likely to be motivated to embrace institutional aspirations and missions into their teaching. Second, when faculty feel less connected to those in the work environment, they are less likely to feel comfortable to collaborate with each other, seek support, and express their concerns. All of these issues decrease faculty opportunities for learning, professional growth, and satisfaction with their jobs. By supporting faculty sense of belonging, institutions may achieve a greater collaboration among 219 faculty, more research and teaching productivity, and higher levels of faculty professional satisfaction. To promote faculty sense of belonging, institutions could use the following strategies: providing a shared space for socialization at the workplace (e.g., kitchens and shared offices), organizing departmental and institutional social gatherings (e.g., retreats, monthly gathering/picnics/potlucks, trips to various places), trainings where faculty meet and develop relationships with colleagues from other departments, creating recreational/interest clubs where faculty with similar interests meet and socialize (e.g., yoga classes), and involvement of faculty’s immediate family in the above-stated activities. All these strategies do not only increase the sense of belonging in the workplace but also support faculty emotional well-being by offering ways to incorporate faculty’s personal interests and their families involvement in the institutional life. The latter can also help increase the level of support received from faculty’s family. In addition, coaching sessions where faculty learn how to maintain better life-work balance and the availability of free counseling sessions can help faculty feel supported by and connected to their institutions. The fifth implication is based on the data that show poor teaching infrastructure (which is a common problem in many Azerbaijani HEIs) impedes faculty teaching by restricting their teaching opportunities. For example, issues related to the lack of internet access on college campuses, lack of office spaces where faculty work and interact with colleagues, lack of well- equipped libraries and laboratories, lack of necessary teaching materials in the local language, and lack of local research created challenges to the participants’ teaching and students’ learning. When faculty realize they cannot facilitate student learning because of the facility-related issues, they are more likely to lose motivation to focus on the quality of teaching. Therefore, institutions 220 should update their teaching infrastructure and provide facilities that support the form of teaching they encourage. Implications for faculty. Based on the findings of this study, I suggest faculty who find engagement in ITMs challenging should consider (a) engaging in TPD, (b) taking a rational approach to teaching-related problems, (c) initiating/engaging in collaboration with their colleagues, and (d) journaling their teaching progress. First, by engaging in TPD, faculty will be more informed about how various ITMs work. Faculty will also gain more expertise in skillful use of these methods and will be more confident in their teaching skills, which can positively influence their teaching. Second, by taking a rational approach to teaching-related problems (e.g., when students resist the methods used in class), they will have more chances to identify the reasons behind the problems. For example, as participants suggested, the same methods may not work in all classes and/or with all students; therefore, reconsidering the approaches used in classes can help faculty be more successful in terms of engagement in ITMs. Third, given collaboration with colleagues promotes learning, faculty should initiate and actively engage in collaboration among colleagues to advance their classroom teaching. For example, faculty could ask a peer faculty member to observe their classes and give feedback, which can help them identify their own teaching strengths and weaknesses. Finally, keeping a journal of teaching where faculty periodically record their progress and challenges can help identify new strategies/approaches for the development of one’s own teaching skills and knowledge. This strategy can also help track the changes that happen throughout a particular period, which can otherwise go unnoticed, thus helping to increase faculty self-esteem in their teaching expertise. 221 Implications for Research In this subsection, I present implications for research based on the findings. The first implication for research is based on the findings on a relationship between faculty self- control/strength and their teaching behavior. I suggest further research needs to be done to explore the relationship between self-control/strength and faculty teaching, using a different research design/approach. Second, this study took a qualitative approach to exploring faculty teaching motivation guided by the Faculty Teaching Motivation Model. Given the usefulness of this model in understanding faculty teaching motivation in this qualitative study, I suggest further research is needed to test the model using different research designs. In addition, given one of the most influential factors that emerged from the data was students’ academic needs and interests, exploring Azerbaijani students’ academic interests and needs is important. Yet, little is known about the context-specific aspects of students’ academic needs, an important factor that influences the goals of higher education teaching. For example, studying the relationship between the requirements of the Azerbaijani job market, students’ career goals, and their academic interests and needs can help the higher education community to make more informed teaching decisions. Further, research focusing on the relationship between students’ learning outcomes and ITMs in the Azerbaijani context is scarce; therefore, a more systematic analysis of this relationship can be very important to understanding whether and how these methods influence Azerbaijani students’ learning. Finally, exploring the perspectives of the faculty who resist ITMs can be of great importance to higher education practitioners. Conclusion In conclusion, the above-discussed findings indicate faculty motivation to engage in ITMs is influenced by a number of factors that coexist and interact. Consistent with the 222 conceptual framework, the FTMM, the findings suggest faculty teaching motivation, which is embedded in the larger environment is complex in its nature. Within this environment, certain individual and institutional-level factors can influence faculty's teaching behavior. The influence of these factors on faculty engagement in ITMs happens through their impact on faculty at the individual level; by shaping their teaching beliefs, skills, and knowledge; and influencing their well-being. By facilitating faculty learning and shaping their teaching beliefs, skills, and knowledge, these factors can help determine the type of teaching faculty intrinsically value and intend to engage in. When faculty believe in the effectiveness of ITMs, as is the case with the study participants, they are intrinsically motivated to engage in ITMs. Environmental and institutional level-factors shape what faculty tend to believe in terms of teaching. Second, various groups of factors in the environment influence faculty well-being, and consequently either promote or disrupt their engagement in ITMs. Two aspects of faculty well- being, faculty emotional well-being and faculty physical well-being, are central to faculty teaching motivation. Faculty tend to engage in ITMs when engagement in these methods positively influences their emotional and physical well-being. In addition, when faculty are emotionally and physically in a good state, they are more likely to manage to engage in an intended form of teaching. The findings also show upon encountering obstacles, faculty personality traits influence the type of teaching behavior they demonstrate. These personality traits (e.g., sense of responsibility and self-control strength) are determining variables that influence faculty responses to various circumstances that can interfere with faculty teaching. This chapter provided the discussion of the study findings. In addition, the chapter presented a revision of the FTMM informed by the study findings. In the final section, I presented the implications for researchers and practitioners. 223 APPENDICES 224 APPENDIX A Interview Protocol Introduction: The researcher will start the conversation by greeting the participant. The researcher will share personal background information to start the conversation (doctoral student at MSU, former faculty member in Azerbaijan, etc.). Purpose: The researcher will explain the purpose the of the study, which is to explore what motivates Azerbaijani faculty members to engage in innovative teaching methods. Procedures: The researcher will explain that open-ended questions will be asked from the interviewee and that interview may choose to answer or not to answer any questions. Interviews will last approximately one hour and will be audio-recorded and then transcribed. After data are collected, participant identity will be masked by replacing participants’ names with pseudonyms. The analyzed data will be included in the researcher’s dissertation. Information will be shared back with participants. Consent: The researcher will explain to the participant that their participation is voluntary and will ask them to sign consent form and also confirm their voluntary participation verbally. The researcher will encourage the participants to share only the information they are comfortable sharing with and will remind the participants that the their privacy will be protected through the use of pseudonyms and that they can choose to withdraw at any point. The participants will be asked to choose their pseudonyms and if not, the researcher will choose pseudonym for them. Dialogue: Preliminary interview questions are given below: ● Could you talk about your professional/ academic background? ● Could you talk about your teaching philosophy? What brought you into teaching? What brought you into innovative teaching? ● Could you talk about your own college experience as a student? ● I am exploring faculty motivation for engaging in innovative teaching methods. How do you understand this term? What are some forms of innovative teaching that you know/prefer? ● What is the role of environment in shaping your teaching? ● Could you talk about your personal reasons for engaging in innovative teaching methods? What are some individual level challenges for innovative teaching? ● How do you cope with the lack of motivation? ● Could you describe the institutional environment you are working in? 225 ● How would you describe the role of students in your teaching decisions? How do your students react to innovative teaching? How do you work with resisting students? ● What are some ways institutions could support faculty in their teaching? ● Is there anything you would like to add that I have not asked? Conclusion: The researcher will ask participant if they have any questions and thank them for the participation. 226 APPENDIX B Recruitment Survey I. Please, choose the option (only one) that best describes your teaching. ☐There is a balance of power in my classes, which means student have some control over learning processes (e.g., my students are involved in decisions regarding the course content, course policies, the activities and assignments of the course, and the evaluation of student learning). ☐My students are not involved in course-related decisions: I make my own teaching decisions and/or I follow the course design prescribed/suggested by the department (e.g., students do not influence decisions related to the course content, course policies, the activities and assignments of the course, and the evaluation of student learning). ☐The course content helps me facilitate the development of students’ learning and analytical thinking skills. ☐I try to cover as much content as possible because covering content knowledge is the most important aspect of college teaching. ☐I spend a lot of time planning lessons and choose the methods that will contribute to students’ learning (e.g., I create detailed plans for my classes and during the lessons, I try to follow every step of these lesson plans). ☐To advance student learning, I encourage my students to think about their own learning styles and try to improve students’ metacognitive skills (e.g., I try various teaching methods and assignments to address individual students’ learning styles and needs, I share my own learning style and strategies with students, and I encourage students to learn from one another). ☐My classes provide the necessary environment for the students to make their own learning decisions and to take responsibility for their learning. ☐I help students understand I am responsible for their learning. ☐My students are involved in the formative and summative evaluation of learning in my courses: students’ feedback influences my teaching decisions (e.g., I use strategies such as student self- evaluation and peer-evaluation, and students’ feedback helps me make adjustments to course content and/or strategies I use in classes). 227 ☐Summative or formative evaluation results do not influence my teaching decisions and serve to improve students’ grades (e.g., I am the only person doing evaluations for my classes). ☐My lectures involve active participation of my students. ☐My students actively listen to my lectures. II. After choosing one of the above-given options, briefly explain why the chosen category best describes your teaching and how you manage to do it in your classes. 228 APPENDIX C Invitation to Participate Hello, My name is Jeyran Aghayeva, and I am a doctoral student in the Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education (HALE) program at Michigan State University. You are invited to participate in my interview-based dissertation research study, which intends to understand what motivates faculty in Azerbaijani higher education institutions to engage in innovative teaching methods, conducted under the guidance of Dr. Matthew Wawrzynski. Your participation in this study is voluntary. You have the right to say no and may withdraw from the project at any point. Your participation in this study would be limited to two interviews, each lasting approximately 60 minutes. If you agree to participate, the interviews will be audio- recorded and then transcribed. During the interviews, I will ask you several open-ended questions about the factors that either influence or inhibit your teaching productivity. In the second segment of the interviews, I will check with you the themes that I developed from the interview data and ensure my interpretations reflect participants’/your realities. You will also be asked to share some documents that can help better explore your teaching methods and how these methods evolved and changed over time. Among these documents can be your memos and reflections on your own classes, syllabi, lesson plans, materials from the workshops/trainings (if any), written feedback you received from your colleagues and administrators, emails from the administration and students, formal observation documents, peer evaluation documents, documents reflecting the results of student evaluation of faculty, documents related to the administrative evaluation of the faculty, and self-evaluation documents by faculty members. In addition, you are encouraged to share any document not listed above that you think can contribute to the knowledge creation on this topic. After the data collection through interviews and document analysis, for the confidentiality purposes, I will remove names and personal identification information to protect participants’/your identities. You will be assigned a pseudonym of your choice, and all the measures will be taken to protect your identity. Only the reviewers who are objective and agree to the confidentiality terms will be able to see your responses during the encoding process. These reviewers will not have the direct information that will help them connect the responses to you and will not see your name. Although every possible attempt will be made to keep identification information private, some distinguishing characteristics of your answers may reflect your identity. 229 If you are a faculty member who works at one of the public higher education institutions in Azerbaijan, who tends to teach innovatively, and is interested in participating in two segments of interviews that will last approximately one hour, please email me by [date] at aghayeva@msu.edu. If you have questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Jeyran Aghayeva aghayeva@msu.edu 230 APPENDIX D Consent Form Changing the Way We Teach in College: Faculty Motivation in Azerbaijan Consent Letter Dear Participant: This is an invitation to participate in a two-segment interview that is a part of a dissertation study on faculty motivation for engaging in innovative teaching methods in the Azerbaijani higher education settings. Your much valued participation will contribute to the knowledge creation about the nature of faculty motivation for teaching innovatively in Azerbaijani higher education institutions and will help higher education institutions to support faculty in their teaching endeavour. This study, which is entitled Changing the Way We Teach In College: Faculty Motivation in Azerbaijan is conducted by Jeyran Aghayeva, under the supervision of Dr. Matthew Wawrzynski. Each interview will last approximately one hour, depending on how long your responses are. In addition to the interviews, you will be asked to share documents with the researcher. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. You may say no or you may choose to answer only the questions you feel comfortable answering. Any direct identification information, such as your name and workplace, will be removed from the data when the responses are analyzed. Only the reviewers who agree to the terms of confidentiality will have access to the data as they review the data analysis and codes and will have no direct identification information and will not see your name. After your responses are analyzed and built into themes, they will be compiled into a paper for as part of a dissertation research study. Because the all the possible measures will be taken to keep participant identity private, this study poses no risk to the individuals. Participants may feel unnecessary pressure to partake in this study because of the administrative or political pressure. However, this type of involuntary participation is completely discouraged as it violates the participant rights. Therefore, you should know the participation is completely voluntary and your decision to not participate will not be disclosed to anyone. However, you voluntary participation will benefit you through the self- reflection and sharing your voice and concerns you are facing in the teaching process. Upon the completion of the interviews, you will receive a gift card as a gratitude for your time and contribution to this study. 231 A final copy of the study will not include your identification information and your name. Although every attempt will be made to protect participant confidentiality, some distinguishing answers may reveal participant identity. Your responses or decision whether or not to answer some questions will not affect your status as a faculty member. At any point, you may withdraw as a participant from the study. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowed by law. If you have any questions about this study, please contact Dr. Matthew Wawrzynski, Associate Professor and Coordinator Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education Program, 427 Erickson Hall, Michigan State University, by phone at (517)355-6617, or email at mwawrzyn@msu.edu. If you have any additional questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact-anonymously, Harry McGee, M.P.H., Chair of the MSU SIRB at mcgeeh@msu.edu, Olds Hall,408 W Circle Dr Room 207,East Lansing, MI, 48824, US. Thank you for participating! I agree to participate in this study. In addition, by signing below I agree to allow my responses to be audio-recorded for research purposes of this study. Signature_______________________________ Date_____________________________ Name (Printed)__________________________________ 232 REFERENCES 233 REFERENCES Allen, D. E., Donham, R. S., & Bernhardt, S. A. (2011). Problem-based learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2011(128), 21–29. doi:10.1002/tl.465 American Councils. (2015). Education USA Advising Center. Retrieved from http://www.americancouncils.az/education-usa/ Andrews, T. C., & Lemons, P. P. (2015). It’s personal: Biology instructors prioritize personal evidence over empirical evidence in teaching decisions. CBE- Life Sciences Education, 14(1), ar7. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-05-0084 Andrushchak, G. (2008). Student evaluations of faculty: Management innovations in Russian higher education institutions. Problems of Economic Transition, 50(10), 83-96. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/PET1061-1991501005 Arum, R., & Roska, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Austin, A. E. (1994). Understanding and assessing faculty cultures and climates. New Directions for Institutional Research, (84), 47–63. doi:10.1002/ir.37019948406 Austin, A. E. (1992a). Faculty Cultures. In A. I. Morey (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Higher Education, 4. Elmsford, N.Y.: Pergamon Press. Austin, A. E. (1992b). Supporting the professor as teacher: The lilly teaching fellows program. The Review of Higher Education, 16(1), 85-106. doi:10.1353/rhe.1992.0004 Austin, A. E. (1990). Faculty cultures, faculty values. New Directions for Institutional Research, 17(4), 61. Austin, A. E., Chapman, D. W., Farah, S., Wilson, E., & Ridge, N. (2014). Expatriate academic staff in the united arab emirates: The nature of their work experiences in higher education institutions. Higher Education, 68(4), 541-557. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/10.1007/s10734-014-9727-z Azerbaijan Respublikasy Tehsil Nazirliyi (2018a). Formal tahsilyn tashkily gaydalary [The regulations of formal education]. Retrieved from http://edu.gov.az/az/page/72/302 Azerbaijan Respublikasy Tehsil Nazirliyi (2018b). “Tehsil haqqinda” Azerbaijan Respublikasinin Ganunu [“Law on Education” of the Republic of Azerbaijan, 2009]. Retrieved from http://edu.gov.az/az/page/72/302 Azerbaijan University of Languages (2017). The Department of Innovation in Education. Retrieved from http://adu.edu.az/Az/2017/12/təlimdə-innovasiyalar-kafedrasi/ 234 Azimbayeva, G. (2017). Comparing post-Soviet changes in higher education governance in Kazakhstan, Russia, and Uzbekistan. Cogent Education, 4. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1399968 Bak, H., & Kim, D. H. (2015). Too much emphasis on research? An empirical examination of the relationship between research and teaching in multitasking environments. Research in Higher Education, 56(8), 843–860. 10.1007/s11162-015-9372-0 Baldwin, R. G., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2011). Contingent faculty as teachers: What we know; what we need to know. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(11), 1485–1509. doi:10.1177/0002764211409194 Banachowski, G. (1996). Perspectives and perceptions: The use of part-time faculty in community colleges. ERIC review. Community College Review, 24(2), 49. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human Behavior 4 (71–81). New York: Academic Press. Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175–1184. 122–147. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanisms in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, 27(6), 12–25. Bauer, C., Libby, R. D., Scharberg, M., & Reider, D. (2013). Transformative research-based pedagogy workshops for chemistry graduate students and postdocs. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43(2), 36–43. Bavrina, A. P. (2014). Professionalnaya motivatsiya prepodavateley [Professional motivation of faculty at HEIs]. Belova, A. O., Kadirov, R. V., Kornilova, D. S., & Skorobach, T.V. (2014). Professionalnaya motivatsiya i uroven emotsionalnoqo viqoraniya u prepodovateley vuza: Na primere prepodovateley meditsinskoqo vuza [Professional motivation and the level of emotional burnout of the faculty at HEIs: a case from medical higher education insitution]. Mejdunarodniy jurnal prikladnikh i fundamentalnikh issledovaniy, 12(1), 66–71. Retrieved from https://www.applied-research.ru/ru/article/view?id=6264 Bess, J. 1977. The motivation to teach. The Journal of Higher Education, 48(3), 243–258. 235 Biggs, J. (1988). Approaches to learning and to essay writing. In R. R. Schmeck (Ed.). Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 185–228). New York, US: Springer. Biggs, J. B. & Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy. New York: Academic Press. Birks, M., Chapman, Y., & Francis, K. (2008). Memoing in qualitative research:Probing data and processes. Journal of Research in Nursing,13(1), 68–75. DOI: 10.1177/1744987107081254 Blickenstaff, S. M., Wolf, K. J., Falk, J. M., & Foltz, J. C. (2015). College of agriculture faculty perceptions of student skills, faculty competence in teaching areas and barriers to improving teaching. NACTA Journal, 59(3), 219. Blouin, R., Riffee, W., Robinson, E., Beck, D., Green, C., Joyner, P. P., Persky, A. M. and Pollack, G. M. 2009. Roles of innovation in education delivery. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 73(8), 1–12. Bodrov, V. A. (2001). Psixologiya professionalnoy prigodnosti [Psychology of professional fit/suitability]. ICHP, Magistr. Boitsova, N. V. (2008). K voprosu o vnutrenney i vneshney motivatsii professionalniy deyatelnosti prepodavatelya visshey shkoli [On the question of faculty intrinsic and extrinsic motiovation for professional activity at HEIs]. Vestnik: Psikhologiya i pedagogika, 42–51. Bonwell, C.C., & Eison, J.A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report 1). Washington, DC: George Washington University. Bouwma-Gearhart, J. (2012). Research university STEM faculty members' motivation to engage in teaching professional development: Building the choir through an appeal to extrinsic motivation and ego. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(5), 558–570. 10.1007/s10956-011-9346-8 BrckaLorenz, A., Ribera, T., Kinzie, J., & Cole, E. (2012). Examining effective faculty practice: Teaching clarity and student engagement. To Improve the Academy, 31, 149–160. British Council (n.d.) The Secondary English Language Teacher Training Project, Azerbaijan. Retrieved from https://englishagenda.britishcouncil.org/global-projects/track- record/secondary-english-language-teacher-training-project-azerbaijan British Council Azerbaijan. (2018). Our work in education and society. Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.az/en/programmes/education-society 236 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1993). The ecology of cognitive development: Research models and fugitive findings. In R. H. Wozniak & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Development in context: Acting and thinking in specific environments(pp. 3-44). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 822–848. Burns, C., & Myhill, D. (2004). Interactive or inactive? a consideration of the nature of interaction in whole class teaching. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34(1), 35-49. doi:10.1080/0305764042000183115 Cabrera, A. F., Crissman, J. L., Bernal, E. M., Nora, A., Terenzini, P. T., & Pascarella, E. T. (2002). Collaborative learning: Its impact on college students' development and diversity. Journal of College Student Development, 43(1), 20–34. Chen, Y, Nixon, M. R., Gupta, A., & Hoshower, L. (2010). Research productivity of accounting faculty: An exploratory study. American Journal of Business Education, 3(2), 101–113. Chernaya, T. M. & Kolesnik, M. V. (2015, November). Motivatsiya kak odna iz funktsiy pedagogicheskoqo menedjmenta [Motivation as one of the functions of management]. Povishenie Motivatsii Obucheniya Vsekh Uchatsnikov Obrazovatellnogo Prochessa. Paper presented at a seminar Ribnitsa. Chickering, A. & Gamson, Z. (1991). Applying the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Cook, R. G., Ley, K., Crawford, C., & Warner, A. (2009). Motivators and inhibitors for university faculty in distance and e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 149–163. Davidson-Shivers, G. V., Salazar, J., & Hamilton, K. M. (2005). Design of faculty development workshops: attempting to practice what we preach. College Student Journal, 39(3), 528+. Retrieved from http://link.galegroup.com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu.proxy2.cl.msu.edu.proxy1.cl.msu.edu.proxy 2.cl.msu.edu/apps/doc/A135842839/AONE?u=msu_main&sid=AONE&xid=5962f180 Davidson-Shivers, G.V. (2002). Instructional technology in higher education. In R.A. Reiser, & J.V. Dempsey (Eds.) Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology, 256– 268. Columbus, OH: Prentice-Hall, Inc. de Lourdes Machado-Taylor, M., Meira Soares, V., Brites, R., Brites Ferreira, J., Farhangmehr, M., Gouveia, O. M. R., & Peterson, M. (2016). Academic job satisfaction and motivation: Findings from a nationwide study in portuguese higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 41(3), 541–559. Retrieved from 10.1080/03075079.2014.942265 237 Penguin. Deci, E. L. (1995). Why we do what we do: Understanding self-motivation. New York, NY : Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49(3), 182–185. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/10.1037/a0012801 Deci, E., and R. Ryan. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum. Dendeberya, N. G. (2011). Sistema ochenki kachestva professorko-prepodavatelskoqo sostava: Opit gosudarstvennoqo pedagogicheskogo universiteta [The system of evaluating faculty: The experience of State Pedagogical University]. Armavir State Pedagogocal University. Dent, J. T. (2012). Higher education reform in post-Soviet Russia. Retrieved from https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/indexablecontent/uuid:33a6cb24-e642-4837-863a-f130f1bff096 Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2018). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1-26). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Deshpande, P., Deshpande, S., & Kshirsagar, S. (2015). evaluation of impact of interactive lectures on learning in terms of cognitive outcomes and student satisfaction. Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences, 4(42), 7269-7274. doi:10.14260/jemds/2015/1056 Devlin, M. (2006). Challenging accepted wisdom about the place of conceptions of teaching in university teaching improvement. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 18(2), 112–119. Dirkx, J. M. (2012). Nurturing soul work: A Jungian approach to transformative learning. In E. W. Taylor & P. Cranton (Eds.), The handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research and practice (pp. 116-130). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Dirkx, J. M., Kielbaso, G., & Smith, R. O. (2004). Epistemic beliefs of teachers in technology- rich community college technical education programs. Community College Review, 31(4), 25-47. doi:10.1177/009155210403100402 Dixon, KC, & Scott, S. (2008) Faculty perceptions of learning and teaching at an Australian technology university: Challenges in maintaining quality. In S. Scott, & K. Dixon (Eds.), The Globalised University: Trends and Development in Teaching and Learning, 51–82. Perth, Western Australia: Black Swan Press. Dobko, T. (2013). Emancipating higher education in Ukraine from the post-soviet Legacy: A problem of trust and academic excellence. Retrieved from 238 http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:d- CSLafBtZQJ:scholar.google.com/+Taras+Dobko&hl=en&as_sdt=0,23 Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33(2–3), 109–128. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1998.9653294 Doronina, N. V. (2009). Otsenka vliyaniya motivatsii prepodavateley vuzov na kachestvo obrazovaniya [Evaluation of the impact of faculty motivation on the quality of education]. Problemi Sovremennoy Ekonomiky, 3(31). Retrieved from http://www.m- economy.ru/art.php?nArtId=2761 Doyle, T., 1951. (2008). Helping students learn in a learner-centered environment : A guide to facilitating learning in higher education. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Eagan, M.K., Stolzenberg, E.B., Berdan Lozano, J., Aragon, M. C., Suchard, M.R., & Hurtado, S. (2014). Undergraduate teaching faculty: The 2013–2014 HERI faculty survey. Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA, Los Angeles. Eastman, J.A. (2006). Revenue generation and organisational change in higher education: Insights from Canada. Higher Education Management & Policy, 18(3), 1–27. Eddy, P. L. (2007). Faculty development in rural community colleges. New Directions For Community Colleges, 137, 65–76. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency. (2017). Overview of the higher education system: Azerbaijan. Retrieved from https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/sites/eacea- site/files/countryfiches_azerbaijan_2017.pdf Edwards, R., Kirwin, J., Gonyeau, M., Matthews, S., Lancaster, J., & DiVall, M. (2014). A reflective teaching challenge to motivate educational innovation. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 78(5), 1. Egoshin, A. P. (2006). Motivatsiya trudovoy deyatelnosti [Motivation of professional activity]. INFRA-M. Eisen, A., & Barlett, P. (2006). The piedmont project: Fostering faculty development toward sustainability. The Journal of Environmental Education, 38(1), 25–36. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.msu.edu.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest- com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/docview/233055387?accountid=12598 Emenike, M., & Holme, T. (2012). Classroom response systems have not "crossed the chasm": Estimating numbers of chemistry faculty who use clickers. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(4), 465–469. doi:10.1021/ed200207p 239 Erickson, A. (2011, February 22). American chief of Khazar U., in Azerbaijan, faces system plagued with problems. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/American-Chief-of-Khazar-U/126476 European Commission. (2011). Social protection and social Inclusion in Azerbaijan. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=89&langId=en&newsId=1045&moreDocument s=yes&tableName=news Ezrokh, I. S. (2017). The bologna process for russian higher education: Myths and reality.Problems of Economic Transition, 59(7–9), 627. 10.1080/10611991.2017.1394757 Fairweather, J. S. (2005). Beyond the rhetoric: Trends in the relative value of teaching and research in faculty salaries. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(4), 401–422. 10.1353/jhe.2005.0027 Fairweather, J. S. (2002). The mythologies of faculty productivity: Implications for institutional policy and decision making. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 26–48. 10.1353/jhe.2002.0006 Fairweather, J. S. (1999). The highly productive faculty member: Confronting the mythologies of faculty work. In W. G. Tierney (Ed.), Faculty productivity: Facts, fictions, and issues (55–98). New York: Falmer Press. Fairweather, J. S., & Beach, A. L. (2002). Variations in faculty work at research universities: Implications for state and institutional policy. The Review of Higher Education, 26(1), 97–115. doi:10.1353/rhe.2002.0024 Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (1996). Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction. College Teaching, 44(2), 43–47. 10.1080/87567555.1996.9933425 Feldman, A. (2000). Decision making in the practical domain: A model of practical conceptual change. Science Education, 84(5), 606. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/1098- 237X(200009)84:5<606::AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-R Ferrare, J. J. & Hora, M. T. (2014). Cultural models of teaching and learning in math and science: Exploring the intersections of culture, cognition, and pedagogical situations. The Journal of Higher Education, 85(6), 792–825. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2014.0030 Flick, U. (2014). Mapping the field. IN U. Flick (Ed.), The Sage handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 3-18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, 240 engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(23), 8410–8415. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1319030111 Furco, A., & Moely, B. E. (2012). Using learning communities to build faculty support for pedagogical innovation: A multi-campus study. The Journal of Higher Education, 83(1), 128–153. Gallos, M. R., van den Berg, E., & Treagust, D. F. (2005). The effect of integrated course and faculty development: Experiences of a university chemistry department in the Philippines. International Journal of Science Education, 27(8), 985–1006. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500038447 Garibova, J. (2013). Human resources management in public universities of Azerbaijan: Challenges and perspectives [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/tempus/events/documents/moldavia-seminar/case-study- azerbaijan-en.pdf Gehrke, S. & Cole, D. (2017). A Multi level examination of the relationship between student- centered faculty teaching culture and spiritual development in college. Journal of College and Character, 18(4), 225–245. DOI: 10.1080/2194587X.2017.1371039 German Academic Exchange Service. (n. d.). DAAD Information Centre Baku. Retrieved from https://www.daad.az/en/about-us/daad-information-centre-baku/ Gibbons, R. E., Villafañe, S.M., Stains, M., Murphy, K. L., & Raker, J. R. (2018). Beliefs about learning and enacted instructional practices: An investigation in postsecondary chemistry education. J Res Sci Teach, 1(23). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21444 Gibbons, R. E., Laga, E. E., Leon, J., Villafane, S. M., Stains, M., Murphy, K., & Raker, J. R. (2017). Chasm crossed? Clicker use in postsecondary chemistry education. Journal of Chemical Education, 94(5), 549–557. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00799 Gibbs, G., & Coffey, M. (2004). The impact of training of university teachers on their teaching skills, their approach to teaching, and the approach to learning of their students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 5(1), 87–100. Gonzales, L. D. (2014). Framing faculty agency inside striving universities: An application of Bourdieu’s theory of practice. The Journal of Higher Education, 85(2), 193–218. doi:10.1353/jhe.2014.0011 Gorbunova, Greshnih, & Podrujkina, (2012) Motivation of professional work of teaching structure of educational institutions of Emercom of Russia. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburqskoqo Universiteta Qosudarstvennoy protivopojarniy Slujby MCHS Rossii. Retvieved from https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/motivatsiya-professionalnoy-deyatelnosti- prepodavatelskogo-sostava-uchebnyh-zavedeniy-mchs-rossii 241 Guay, F., Morin, A. J., Litalien, D., Valois, P., & Vallerand, R. J. (2015). Application of exploratory structural equation modeling to evaluate the academic motivation scale. The Journal of Experimental Education, 83(1), 51–82. Gurov, V. N. & Rezanova, I. Y. (2010). Ochenka deyatelnosti prepodavateley v kontekste kachestva raboti vuza [ The estimation of faculty work in context of higher education work quality]. Stavropol State University Press. Retrieved from: http://vestnik.stavsu.ru/66-2010/05.pdf Haas, P., & Keeley, S. (1998). Coping with Faculty Resistance to Teaching Critical Thinking. College Teaching, 46(2), 63–67. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27558883 Hagedorn, L. S., Perrakis, A. I., & Maxwell, W. (2007). The negative commandments: Ten ways urban community colleges hinder student success. Florida Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 1(1), 25. Harding, A., & Sweeney, G. (2013). How does an increase in undergraduate teaching load affect GP teacher motivation? A grounded theory study using data from a new medical school. Education for Primary Care, 24(4), 237–243. 10.1080/14739879.2013.11494181 Hardré, P. L. (2012). Community college faculty motivation for basic research, teaching research, and professional development. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 36(8), 539-561. doi:10.1080/10668920902973362 Hardré, P. L., Beesley, A., Miller, R., & Pace, T. (2011). Faculty motivation for research: Across disciplines in research-extensive universities. Journal of the Professoriate, 5(2), 35 – 69. Halpern, D. F., & Hakel, M. D. (2003). To the university and beyond: Teaching for long-term retention and transfer. Change, 35(4), 36–41. Herrington, D. G., Yezierski, E. J., & Bancroft, S. F. (2016). Tool trouble: Challenges with using self-report data to evaluate long-term chemistry teacher professional development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(7), 1055–1081. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21323 Ho, A., Watkins, D., & Kelly, M. (2001). The conceptual change approach to improving teaching and learning: An evaluation of a Hong Kong staff development programme. Higher Education, 42(2), 143–169. Hora, M. T. (2014). Exploring faculty beliefs about student learning and their role in instructional decision-making. The Review of Higher Education, 38(1), 37–70. doi:10.1353/rhe.2014.0047 Hunt, H. D., Davies, K., Richardson, D., Hammock, G., Akins, M., & Russ, L. (2014). It is (more) about the students: Faculty motivations and concerns regarding teaching online. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 17(2), 62–71. 242 Hurtado, S., Eagan, M. K., Pryor, J. H., Whang, H., & Tran, S. (2012). Undergraduate teaching faculty: The 2010–2011 HERI Faculty Survey. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA. Huston, T., and Weaver, C. L. (2007). Peer coaching: Professional development for experienced faculty. Innovations in Higher Education, 33, 5–20. Hutchings, P. & Huber, M. T. (2005, October) Building the teaching commons. Carnegie Foundation Perspectives, 21. Isaev, I. F. & Makarova, L. N. (2002). Professionalizm prepodovatelya: Kultura, stil, individualnost [Faculty professionalism: Culture, style, and individuality]. Belgorod, BelGU. Isaxanli, H. (2006). On education system in transition Economy: A view from Azerbaijan. Baku, Khazar University Press. Jaschik, S., & Lederman, D. (2016). The 2016 Inside Higher Ed survey of faculty attitudes on technology. Inside higher education. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/booklet/2016-survey-faculty-attitudes- technology Jaschik, S., & Lederman, D. (2013). The 2013 Inside Higher Ed survey of faculty attitudes on technology. Inside higher education. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/survey/survey-faculty-attitudes-technology Justice, C., Rice, J., Roy, D., Hudspith, B. & Jenkins, H. (2009). Inquiry-based learning in higher education: Adminstrators’ perspectives on integrating inquiry pedagogy into the curriculum. Higher Education, 58, 841–855. Kaynak, E., & Nasirova, Z. (2005). The transition period of C.I.S. economies: Oil-based economic development strategy of azerbaijan. Journal of East-West Business, 10(3), 31– 51. doi:10.1300/J097v10n03_03 Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics’ conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7, 255–275. Kerr, S. (1990). Will Glasnost Lead to Perestroika? Directions of Educational Reforms in USSR. Educational Researcher, 19(7), 26–31. King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to the guide on the side. College Teaching, 41(1), 30– 35. Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge Books. 243 Koslowski, F. (2006, April). Overcoming faculty resistance to assessment. Paper presented at the Undergraduate Assessment Symposium, North Carolina State University. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kutsyuruba, B. (2011). Education in the period of post-soviet transition in Ukraine. Demokratizatsiya, 19(3), 287. Lattuca, L. R., & Stark, J. S. (2009). Shaping the college curriculum: Academic plans in action (2nd ed.). Boston: Alyn and Bacon. Lazerson, M., Wagener, U., & Shumanis, N. (2000, May). What makes a revolution?Change, 32, 12–19. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.msu.edu.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest- com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/docview/208052663?accountid=12598 Lloyd, S. A., Byrne, M. M., & McCoy, T. S. (2012). Faculty-perceived barriers of online education. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 8(1), 1–12. Lowenthal, P. R., Wray, M. L., Bates, B., Switzer, T., & Stevens, E. (2012). examining faculty motivation to participate in faculty development. International Journal of University Teaching and Faculty Development, 3(3), 149. Lyness, J., Lurie, S., Ward, D., Mooney, C., & Lambert, D. (2013). Engaging students and faculty: Implications of self-determination theory for teachers and leaders in academic medicine. Bmc Medical Education, 13(1), 151. doi:10.1186/1472-6920-13-151 Marginson, S. (2009). The knowledge economy and Higher Education: A system for regulating the value of knowledge. Higher Education Management & Policy, 21(1), 1–15. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (1995). Designing qualitative research (Second Edn.). Newbury Park: Sage. Matusovich, H. M., Paretti, M. C., McNair, L. D., & Hixson, C. (2014). Faculty motivation: A gateway to transforming engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(2), 302–330. 10.1002/jee.20044 Mayer, R. (2008). Learning and Instruction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall. Mazur, E. (2009). Farwell, lecture? Science, 323, 50–51. McKenzie, L. (2018). Are you flipping the wrong way? Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/03/27/group-seeks-set-standards-flipping- classroom 244 McCrickerd, J. (2012). Understanding and reducing faculty reluctance to improve teaching.College Teaching, 60(2), 56-64. 10.1080/87567555.2011.633287 Melguizo, T., & Strober, M. H. (2007). Faculty salaries and the maximization of prestige. Research in Higher Education, 48(6), 633–668. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdel, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Millis, B. J. (2001). Faculty development in the 1990s: What it is and why we can‘t wait. Journal of Counseling and Development, 72, 454–464. Ministry of Education of Republic of Azerbaijan (n.d.). Educational development programs: Working on pilot projects and analysis. Retrieved from http://edu.gov.az/en/page/476 Ministry of Education of Republic of Azerbaijan (n.d.). State program on reforms in the higher education system of the Republic of Azerbaijan for the 2009-2013 years. Retrieved from http://edu.gov.az/en/pdf/299/2553 Ministry of Education of Republic of Azerbaijan (n.d.). Education Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Retrieved from https://edu.gov.az/en/page/451/5244 Ministry of Labor and Social Protection of Population of the Republic of Azerbaijan. (2011). Labor Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan Republic. Retrieved from http://www.mlspp.gov.az/en/pages/4/125 Moller, A. C., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2006). Choice and ego- depletion: The moderating role of autonomy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1024–1036. Morgan, R. L., Whorton, J. E., & Gunsalus, C. (2000). A comparison of short term and long term retention: Lecture combined with discussion versus cooperative learning. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27(1), 53. Muraven, M., Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Self-control as a limited resource: Regulatory depletion patterns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 774– 789. http://dx.doi.org.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.774 Mutambuki, J., & Fynewever, H. (2012). Comparing chemistry faculty beliefs about grading with grading practices. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(3), 326–334. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1021/ed1000284 Myers, C., Myers, S., Stewart, T., & Nynas, S. (2015). Institutional policies on assessment of pedagogy and faculty classroom practices: Evidence from 4-year colleges and universities in the united states. Higher Education Policy, 28(3), 315–332. doi:10.1057/hep.2014.13 245 Nabiyeva, S. (2003). Towards innovations in higher education: Educational reforms in Azerbaijan. Master's Capstone Projects. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cie_capstones/162 Najafizadeh, M., & Mennerick, L. A. (2003). Gender and social entrepreneurship in societies in transition: The case of Azerbaijan. Journal of Third World Studies, 20(2), 31-48. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.msu.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/233189799?accou ntid=12598 Nelson Laird, T. F., Shoup, R., & Kuh, G. D. (2008, May). Measuring deep approaches to learning using the National Survey of Student Engagement. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Institutional Research. Chicago, IL. Retrieved from http://nsse.iub.edu/pdf/conference_presentations/2006/AIR2006DeepLearningFINAL.pdf Nesterchuk, G. V. & Nikitenkova, L.P. (2014, December). Interaktivnoe obuchenie kak forma cooperatsii i sotrudnichestva v uchebnom prochesse [Interactive teaching as a form of cooperation and collaboration in the teaching and learning process]. Paper presented at conference dedicated to 85th anniversary of National Education Institute of Belarus. Oleson, A., & Hora, M. T. (2014). Teaching the way they were taught?Revisiting the sources of teaching knowledge and the role of prior experience in shaping faculty teaching practices.Higher Education, 68(1), 29–45. 10.1007/s10734-013-9678-9 O'Meara, K. A. (2005). Encouraging multiple forms of scholarship in faculty reward systems: Does it make a difference? Research in Higher Education, 46(5), 479–510. 10.1007/s11162-005-3362-6 O'Meara, K., & Rice, R. E. (2005). Faculty priorities reconsidered: Rewarding multiple forms of scholarship. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Open Society Foundations. (2018). Higher education support program. Retrieved from https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/about/programs/higher-education-support- program Orr, R., Williams, M. R., & Pennington, K. (2009). Institutional efforts to support faculty in online teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 34, 257–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-009-9111-6 Orgill, M., Bussey, T. J., & Bodner, G. M. (2015). Biochemistry instructors’ perceptions of analogies and their classroom use. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(4), 731–746. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RP00256C 246 Pajares, M. (1992). Teachers' Beliefs and Educational Research: Cleaning up a Messy Construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1170741 Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1986). Interactive teaching to promote independent learning from text. The Reading Teacher, 39(8), 771–777. Palinscar, A. S. , & Brown , A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension - fostering and comprehension - monitoring activities. Cognition & Instruction, 1, 117–175. Palmer, P. J. (2007). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher's life (Tenth anniversary ed.). San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass. Pehmer, A. K., Gröschner, A., & Seidel, T. (2015). How teacher professional development regarding classroom dialogue affects students' higher-order learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 108–119. Peters-Burton, E. E., Merz, S. A., Ramirez, E. M., & Saroughi, M. (2015). The effect of cognitive apprenticeship-based professional development on teacher self-efficacy of science teaching, motivation, knowledge calibration, and perceptions of inquiry-based teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(6), 525–548. doi:10.1007/s10972- 015-9436-1 Petrovskiy, A. V., Yarosheeskiy, M. G., Brushlipskiy, A. V., & Petrovskiy, V. A. (1998), Obshaya psikhologiya [General psychology]. Moskva, Akademiya. Polonskiy, V. M. (2004). Slovar po obrazonaniyu i pedagogike [ Dictionary of education and pedagogy]. Moskva, Visshaya Shkola. Prinstein, M. J. (2007). Assessment of adolescents’ preference- and reputation-based peer status using sociometric experts. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 53, 243–261. doi:10.1080/0014013080239299910.1353/mpq.2007.0013 Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., & Taylor, P. (1996). A phenomenographic study of academics’ conceptions of science learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 4, 217–231. Quinn, N., & Holland, D. (1987). Culture and cognition. In D. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural Models in Language and Thought, 3–40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511607660.002 Radloff, A. (2008). Engaging staff in quality learning and teaching: What's a Pro Vice Chancellor to do?. Research and Development in Higher Education: The Place of Learning and Teaching Engaging Communities, 31. Retrieved from http://www.herdsa.org.au/publications/conference-proceedings/research-and- development-higher-education-student-experience-37 247 Reeve, J. M. (1995). Motivating others: Nurturing inner motivational resources. Boston, MA : Remler, D. K., & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2015). Research Methods in Practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Allyn & Bacon. Oaks, CA: Sage. Rimskaya, O. N. (2006). Motivatsiya prepodavateley vuzov v sisteme menejmenta kachestva obrazovaniya [Motivation of faculty at higher education insitutions in the system of total quality management of education]. Universitetskoe Upravlenie: Praktika i Analiz. Retrieved from http://umj.ru/index.php/pub/inside/1377 Roehrig, G., Kruse, R. A., & Kern, A. (2007). Teacher and school characteristics and their impact on curriculum and instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 883–907. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20180 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2008). A self-determination theory approach to psychotherapy: The motivational basis for effective change. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49(3), 186–193. 10.1037/a0012753 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68 Sackney, L., Walker, K., & Mitchell, C. (1999). Postmodern conceptions of power in educational leadership. Journal of Educational Administration and Foundations, 14(1), 33–58. Samadova, M. (January, 2016). Educational reforms and innovations in Azerbaijan. The Online Journal of New Horizons in Education, 6 (1). Retrieved from https://www.tojned.net/journals/tojned/articles/v06i01/v06i01-09.pdf Samadova, M. (2015, May 17-19). Educational reforms and innovations in Azerbaijan. A paper presented at International Conference on Contemporary Issues in Education, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Retrieved from http://iccie-conference.net/2015/pdf/945%20- %20Malahat%20Samadova.pdf Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (2001). Revisiting academics’ beliefs about teaching and learning. Higher Education, 41, 299–325. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1004130031247 Sansone, C. & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance. New York,NY: Academic. Schmid, S. E., & Bouwma-Gearhart, J. (2013). grounding a theory of motivation from research pertaining to teaching professional development: A methodological case study.International Journal of University Teaching and Faculty Development, 4(2), 69. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.msu.edu.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/login?url=https://search- proquest-com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/docview/1626183602?accountid=125982013 248 Scott, D. E., & Scott, S. (2016). Leadership for quality university teaching: How bottom-up academic insights can inform top-down leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(3), 511–531. 10.1177/1741143214549970 Scott, S., & Issa, T. (2006). Team work skills do not come naturally even for adult learners! Embedding structure and scaffolding into the university program are essential for optimal results. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association conference. Warwick University, UK. Semyonov D. (2014). Russian excellence initiative in the Post-Soviet context. Higher Education in Russia and Beyond, 1,15–16. Shagrir, L. (2011). professional development of the teacher educator: Orientations and motivations. International Journal of University Teaching and Faculty Development, 2(1),17. Sharan B. Merriam, Rosemary S. Caffarella, and Lisa M. Baumgartner (Eds.). Learning in Adulthood: A Comprehensive Guide (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2007. Silova, I., Johnson, M. S., & Heyneman, S. P. (2007). Education and the crisis of social cohesion in azerbaijan and central asia. Comparative Education Review, 51(2), 159;180. doi:10.1086/512022 Silova, I. & Kazimzade, E. (2006). Civic education developments in Azerbaijan: Teacher reflections and thoughts. Human Rights Education in Asian Schools, 9. Retrieved from https://www.hurights.or.jp/archives/human_rights_education_in_asian_schools/section2/ 2006/03/civic-education-developments-in-azerbaijan-teacher-reflections-and- thoughts.html Slastenin, V. A. & Podimova, L.S. (1997). Pedagogica: Innovatsinnaya deyatelnost [Pedagogy: Innovative activity]. Magistr. Smith, B.L. & MacGregor, J.T. (1992). What is collaborative learning? In A. Goodsell, M. Maher, V. Tinto, B. Leigh, B. L. Smith, & J.T. MacGregor, (Eds.), Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education, 10–29. University Park, PA: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED357705.pdf. Stains, M., Harshman, J., Barker, M. K., Chasteen, S. V., Cole, R., DeChenne-Peters, S. E., …Young, A. M. (2018). Anatomy of STEM teaching in North American universities. Science, 359(6383), 1468–1470. DOI: 10.1126/science.aap8892 Struyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2010). Teach as you preach: The effects of student- centred versus lecture-based teaching on student teachers' approaches to teaching. European Journal of Teacher Education, 33(1), 43–64. doi:10.1080/02619760903457818 249 Stupnisky, R. H., BrckaLorenz, A., Yuhas, B., & Guay, F. (2018). Faculty members’ motivation for teaching and best practices: Testing a model based on self-determination theory across institution types. Contemporary Education Psychology, 53, 15–26. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.01.004 Stupnisky, R. H., Hall, N. C., Daniels, L. M., & Mensah, E. (2017). Testing a model of pretenure faculty members’ teaching and research success: Motivation as a mediator of balance, expectations, and collegiality. The Journal of Higher Education, 88(3), 376–400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2016.1272317 Svinicki, M., McKeachie, W., & Others. (2014). McKeachie’s teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers (14th ed.) Houghton Mifflin Company. Suleymanov, E. & Aliyev, K. (2015). Macroeconomic analysis and graphical interpretation of Azerbaijan economy in 1991-2012. Expert Journal of Economics, 3(1), 40–49. Retrieved from https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/65306/1/MPRA_paper_65286.pdf Tagg, J. (2003). The learning paradigm college. San Francisco, CA: Anker Publishing. Tariq, M., & Ali, S. A. (2014). Motivation of clinical faculty towards teaching and learning. Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan, 24(11), 785. Retrieved from http://link.galegroup.com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/apps/doc/A388566172/A ONE?u=msu_main&sid=AONE&xid=d8262d66 TEMPUS. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (2010). Higher education in Azerbaijan. Retrieved from http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/tempus/participating_countries/overview/azerbaijan_tempus_co untry_fiche_final.pdf The State Statistical Committee of the Republic of Azerbaijan. (2018a). Population by ethnic groups, by native language, and freely command of language [Data file]. Retrieved from https://www.stat.gov.az/source/demoqraphy/?lang=en The State Statistical Committee of the Republic of Azerbaijan. (2018b). Labour Market: Employment: Distribution of unemployed aged 15-29 years old by educational attainment and age groups [Data file]. Retrieved from https://www.stat.gov.az/source/demoqraphy/ay/?lang=en The State Statistical Committee of the Republic of Azerbaijan. (2017). Education, science and culture: Higher education institutions: Number of students of state higher education institutions receiving grants and educated by contract [Data file]. Retrieved from https://www.stat.gov.az/source/education/?lang=en Trofimenko, A. S. (2014). Innovatsionnie metodi obucheniya v visshem obrazovanyy [Innovative teaching methods in higher education]. Sci-article, (14). Retrieved from http://sci-article.ru/stat.php?i=1408380616 250 Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass. Williams, B. C., Weber, V., M., Babbott, S. F., M., Kirk, L. M., Heflin, M. T., O'Toole, E., . . . Landefeld, S. M. (2007). Education and Training: Faculty development for the 21st century: Lessons from the society of general internal medicine-hartford collaborative centers for the care of older adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 55(6), 941. 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01197.x Wood, D. F. (2008). Problem based learning. Bmj, 336(7651), 971–971. doi:10.1136/bmj.39546.716053.80 Turner, J. L. & Boice, R. (1986). Coping with resistance to faculty development. In M. Svinicki, J. Kurfiss, & J. Stone (Eds.). To Improve the Academy, 26–36. Fort Collins, CO: The Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education. Umbach, P. D. (2007). Faculty cultures and college teaching. In R. P. Perry and J. C. Smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective ( 263–317). New York: Springer. Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 153–184. doi:10.1007/s11162-004-1598-1 Vasileva, E. Y. (2005). Ochenka deyatelnosti prepodavateley v rossiykikh I zarubejnikh vuzakh [Faculty evaluation in Russian and foreign universities]. Arkhangelsk, Western State Medical University, 2005. Veal, W. R., Riley Lloyd, M. E., Howell, M. R., & Peters, J. (2016). Normative beliefs, discursive claims, and implementation of reform-based science standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(9), 1419–1443. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21265 von Bergmann, H., Walker, J., Dalrymple, K., & Shuler, C. (2017). Dental faculty members' pedagogic beliefs and curriculum aims in problem-based learning: An exploratory study.Journal of Dental Education, 81(8), 937–947. 10.21815/JDE.017.046 Vyzhigin, A. (2016). University STAFF: Motivation of innovative activities. SHS Web of Conferences, 29, 2045. 10.1051/shsconf/20162902045 Wallin, D. L. (2003). Motivation and faculty development: A three–stage study of presidential perceptions of faculty professional development needs. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 27, 317–335. Ward, K. (2003). Faculty service roles and the scholarship of engagement. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google ScholarOpenURL Weimer, M. (2013). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice (2nd. ed.). San 251 Woodbury, S., & Gess-Newsome, J. (2002). Overcoming the paradox of change without difference: A model of change in the arena of fundamental school reform. Educational Policy, 16(5), 763–782. https://doi.org/10.1177/089590402237312 Wilkesmann, U., & Schmid, C. J. (2014). Intrinsic and internalized modes of teaching motivation. Evidence-based HRM: A Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship, 2(1), 6– 27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EBHRM-07-2013-0022. Wilson, P. M., Rodgers, W. M., Loitz, C. C., & Scime, G. (2006). “It's who I am Ellipsis really!’ The importance of integrated regulation in exercise contexts. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research, 11(2), 79–104. Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1),165–205. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312039001165 Young, C. A., Shinnar, R. S., Ackerman, R. L., Carruthers, C. P., & Young, D. A. (2007). Implementing and sustaining service-learning at the institutional level. Journal of Experiential Education, 29(3), 344–365. Zayaranaya, I.A. (2016). Teaching activity in higher education institutions: essence, factors, motivation. Modern Problems of Science and Education, 2, 316–319. 252