Higher education faculty, motivation, and improving

instruction

Keith Williams
May 10, 2016
EDLP 310: Critical Issues Paper
Part 1.1: The Case
From multiple perspectives, a critical category of adult learners is the faculty at

institutions of higher education. Those faculty, adult learners themselves, lead the

learning of their adult students within settings found in colleges and universities, either

at the undergraduate or graduate levels. Over the past several decades, much has

been written about the development around and improvement of instruction in higher

education (Centra, 1978, p. 151). Higher education in the US has proven itself,

notoriously slow to change (Lindholm, 2003, p. 126), and so the topic remains a

pertinent one. Whole departments and units have sprung up in colleges and universities

to support this endeavor (Centra, 1978, p. 159). As Blackburn and Lawrence write,

Reports prepared by national panels and higher education advisory groups have

criticized college educators for not preparing the next generation as thinkers,

researchers, or literate citizens (1995, p. 4).

No conversation around the competency of faculty can be complete without the

obligatory qualifications. Perhaps most importantly is the simple fact that faculty

members, especially newer entrants to academia, often struggle with managing multiple

and often conflicting priorities, including, but certainly not limited to, teaching, research,

service, and their own personal lives (Austin, 2002, p. 99; Verrei-Berenback, W.

personal communication, April 29, 2016). Further, there are consistently documented

mixed messages sent by administration and departmental leadership with a lack of real

consequences to poor instruction or the perceived higher value in research ( Austin,

2002, p. 108). Further, one of the few motivators for faculty to improve instruction is in
the effort to achieve tenure (Verrei-Berenback, W. personal communication, April 29,

2016), but the simple fact is that, nationally, across all disciplines, there is a decline in

positions leading to tenure (Austin, 2002, p. 100). Perhaps fewer tenured positions will

lead to more aggressive accountability, and therefore increase motivation to improve

classroom instruction, but that is yet to be seen.

Further, there is a dearth, though not a complete absence ( Audrey, 2008), in active and

vocal role models to encourage young educators to focus on their teaching. Further,

while targeted programs seem to do real good in improving instruction, they are often

small and participants usually self-select, thereby compromising any rigorous

experimental assessment (Barlett & Rappaport, 2009). Beginning at the graduate level,

and continuing into any early faculty career, the socialization that occurs has a

significant influence on an individuals professional life (Austin, 2002); it shapes their

perspective of the organizations of which they eventually become a part (Lindholm,

2003, p. 143). Despite all of these factors - limited positive role models, mixed signals

from leadership and administration, busy schedules, pressure to conduct research and

publish - and all of the potential impacts on instruction, most faculty, assessed their fit

within institutional and departmental contexts as relatively good overall (Lindholm,

2003, p. 143). Whether or not an individual is capable of delivering quality instruction

seems a subordinate concern to other priorities.

Part 1.2: An interview1

1 This entire passage is from a personal interview. (Verrei-Berenback,W. April 29, 2016)
As part of my research, I sought out someone doing this work. I spoke briefly with

Wendy Verrei-Berenback, the assistant director of the Center for Teaching & Learning at

the University of Vermont, a unit that, explores, promotes, and supports excellence in

teaching, with diverse technologies, at UVM (http://www.uvm.edu/ctl/). My time with

Wendy offered plenty of complications related to the topic at hand, but also some

promising new dynamics.

First, Wendy challenged my initial questions framed around percentages of participating

faculty. Any number of total faculty at the institution may or may not include medical

faculty, clinical faculty, part-time or full-time faculty, and any and all degree of familiarity

with the profession of teaching or with UVM as an institution. If one wanted to target just

new faculty, would one limit it to new faculty to UVM, or new to the profession, or both?

How would one define a new faculty member; an individual who has been at UVM for

one year, three years, ten years? Clearly, even the task of narrowing down the nearly

1,000 faculty members is a challenge, let alone improving their instruction.

We talked about motivation. The simplest motivation, according to Wendy, is the desire

to improve course evaluations from semester to semester, especially for newer faculty

with eyes on securing tenure. She also offered the anecdote that faculty with college-

aged children often seek out ways to improve their own instruction, even after years of

teaching. Further, some motivation might come, at least at the departmental level, from

the newly arrived incentive-based budgeting (IBB), in which academic departments may

see funding changes based on student enrollment, which may, in turn, be driven at least
in part by faculty reputation; if students avoid a bad instructor, it may hurt the

departments bottom line.

Wendy described for me two strategic thrusts in the CTL. The first is a practical one,

seizing an opportunity that has seemed to arise for them. As more instructors face the

prospect of teaching online, they seek out the CTL in order to learn the basics, largely

focused on the technology - learning where to click, as Wendy describes it. In joining

the CTL workshops, however, these instructors are exposed to general discussion about

how teaching and learning does and should happen. While it doesnt significantly impact

each individual, many instructors do claim to learn much from these portions, and often

take these ideas back to their conventional classrooms.

The second is a broader, more nebulous framework. Its about prioritizing CTL

workshops and presentations to focus on depth over breadth, and instead of

programmatically tracking individual contacts, the emphasis is on creating change

agents from within the already participating coalition of the willing. This group of

believers can go back to their departments, colleges, and colleagues, and offer

authentic and meaningful testimonials about the CTLs work, and about the process of

improving instruction generally.

Part 2: The Theory

Victor Vroom, as an associate professor at the Carnegie Institute of Technology,

developed a theory of motivation. He presents a cognitive model, in the form of an

equation, where the motivational force to perform some action is a product of three

different variables: the individuals expectancy, the individuals instrumentality, and the

individuals perceived valence in the outcome of this particular action (Vroom, 1964, p.

18). Expectancy relates to the perceived probability that a certain outcome will follow an

individuals action or actions; Instrumentality relates to the perceived probability that a

certain outcome will follow a certain other prior outcome, whether in a positive or

negative correlation; Valence is the, anticipated satisfaction from an outcome, and can

be positive or negative (Vroom, 1964, p. 15-18).

In applying to particular work circumstances, Vrooms Expectancy theory of motivation

outlines that an individuals motivation can be increased, or decreased, through

changing an individuals perceived Valence, and or the probability that some good will

come from invested effort. Some task or procedure can offer intrinsic rewards for an

individual, such as self-esteem and self-actualization (Vroom, Deci, 1970, p. 162).

Actions can also offer extrinsic rewards, typically relating to the particular job situation

and given directly by others, such as compensation or non-monetary benefits (Vroom,

Deci, 1970, p. 162).

Further, there are social components to Vrooms ideas about motivation. Notably, Vroom

outlines five different motivational factors for an individuals motivation to take on work.

He lists wages, the expenditure of energy, the contribution to the creation of goods or
services, social interactions with other persons, and the social status of the occupied

role (Vroom, 1964, p. 30). This social status element factors into ones motivation.

The individuals decision to participate in the system is determined by the relative

magnitude of inducements and contributions when both are measured in terms of
the participants values or motives specifically the rewards and punishments,
or satisfactions and deprivations incurred as a result of organizational
membership. (Vroom, Deci, 1970, p. 91)

Motivation is an important aspect of this larger conversation around higher education

faculty and professional development around instruction, as it is present in both the

current issues and any potential resolutions or reforms that might attempt to improve

conditions (Stein & DAmico, 2002, p. 1340; Blackburn & Lawrence, 1995, p. 4; Austin,

2002, p. 106).

Part 3: The Application

With most faculty at four-year institutions holding PhDs or other terminal degrees, I have

to believe it reasonable to assume that, when considering improving ones ability to

teach, Expectancy is high among this group. Individuals who achieve becoming an

instructor have seen their own demonstrated competence as well as the consistent

rewarding of certain behaviors and skills. These individuals are competent students,

researchers, and authors; this must lead to, at least, a reasonably high perceived

chance of completing at a task at hand.

Instrumentality may not be as clear. As many faculty members receive messages,

whether explicit or implicit, about the relative values of research and instruction, a

faculty member may not see positive Instrumentality in investing energy into developing

ones teaching skills (Austin, 2002, p. 108). Faculty may simply not see any extrinsic

benefit to improving instruction. There are typically not raises or promotions involved

with modest improvements in classroom instruction. However, it still seems reasonable

that intrinsic motivations, the desire for achieving tenure, and other factors contribute to

an increased Instrumentality. I feel its reasonable that faculty must possess at least

moderate Instrumentality.

The truly unknown variable is in Valence. What is the value faculty members hold for

improving direct instruction? Ultimately, this will vary across individuals, but also

institutions, departments, and disciplines. Notably, if the perceived value of improving

ones ability to teach is low, then one simply wont seek out resources, nor will one

spend the energy, necessary to improving the instruction and the learning that happens

in his or her classroom. If it truly is the case that low perceived values in developing

ones instructional ability is a common obstacle, it may be that any long-serving faculty

are already potentially lost causes. There are opportunities that may change that

dynamic, and there are strategies for future generations of higher education instructors.

First, as outlined by Wendy regarding the work of the CTL, institutions should seize

opportunities to support any willing faculty member in improving his or her instruction. In

particular, the topic of online teaching is an important one. As this grows rapidly, and
more and more instructors must modify their skills and strategies, this is an excellent

opportunity to provide what many faculty members have never had: explicit instruction,

discussion, and practice around what good teaching should look like. This supports the

individuals who participate, but also slowly but steadily changes the very idea of what a

university faculty member is. These change agents can shift the variables in Vrooms

equation. If more and more faculty are learning about teaching, this may change how

departments provide incentives, thereby changing the Instrumentality, or it may simply

add more intrinsic values in being able to interact with and connect with ones

colleagues. It doesnt need to be exclusively attached to online learning. These kinds of

changes to how an institution supports its faculty could include an intensive faculty

orientation process that would include training and skills development, as a way to

introduce individuals to a community and the its values.

Secondly, making significant changes to the graduate student experience could offer a

different process of socialization, leading to different circumstances in the field of higher

education. More structured opportunities to teach, observe teaching, and both give and

receive feedback should be put into place, as well as more room for regular and guided

reflection (Austin, 2002, p. 111-112). Early in ones career, the variables in Vrooms

equation will carry different weights compared to mid- or late-career professionals.

Before really taking on the full-time commitment to teaching, and before faculty develop

their own individualized ideas about what teaching is and should be, graduate students

may see more Valence in undergoing this kind of training. They may also see an

increased Instrumentality related to their ability to secure a job with some additional
teaching experience. A feedback cycle might cement the idea for graduate students that

instruction can be improved through deliberate practice and preparation; if nothing else,

this may improve ones Expectancy later in a career. As graduate students are often

both current instructors and future faculty, this kind of reform could be very effective.

Starting in those graduate programs, and going all the way up to senior faculty, both

formal and informal peer mentorships need to be established among faculty members

(Audrey, 2008). Instructors must learn from each other. Mentors can be chosen

carefully, to serve as positive role models in how they perceive of teaching and how

they manage their time, thereby creating future change agents by maximizing the

impact among those who already value instruction highly. This can change the culture of

academia to place more value on good teaching. It can also reaffirm that learning is a

lifelong process, and faculty can continue to develop skills and hone their craft at any

point.

These cultural changes in the field can be important. In relation to motivation and ones

job, Lawler writes, ...when jobs are structured in a way that makes intrinsic rewards

appear to result from good performance then the jobs themselves can be very effective

motivators the job must allow for meaningful feedback, test the individuals valued

abilities and allows great amount of self-control by the job holder (Vroom, Deci, 1970,

p. 168). The role of faculty member could be structured in this way around teaching.

With support from colleagues, various different units across campus, and leadership,

faculty can focus on improving their teaching skills just as they research, write, and
publish. Further, its the social dynamics seen in positive reforms that need to be

considered, as well. Universities and colleges need to be more deliberate in creating,

...learning environments that incorporate features such as engagement with complex

tasks, interactions with more capable others, and the motivation for persistence and

hard work that comes from a desire to become a member of a community whose goals

and values one identifies with (Stein & DAmico, 2002, p. 1340). Creating a community

that values both learning and teaching, and sees the value in each, will lead to better

outcomes for all stakeholders. Motivation needs to be considered in contemplating

these topics, but the levers for change can be found in the social systems in the field

itself.

Works Cited

Audrey, W. J. (2008). A helping hand for young faculty members. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 55(3), A10-A12.

Austin, A. E. (2002). Preparing the Next Generation of Faculty: Graduate School as

Socialization to the Academic Career. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1),
94-122. doi:10.1353/jhe.2002.0001

Barlett, P. F., & Rappaport, A. (2009). Long-Term Impacts of Faculty Development

Programs: The Experience of Teli and Piedmont. College Teaching, 57(2), 73-82.
doi:10.3200/ctch.57.2.73-82

Blackburn, R. T., & Lawrence, J. H. (1995). Faculty at work: Motivation, expectation,

satisfaction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Centra, J.A. (1978). Types of Faculty Development Programs. The Journal of Higher
Education, 49(2), 151. doi:10.2307/1979280

Lindholm, J. A. (2003). Perceived Organizational Fit: Nurturing the Minds, Hearts, and
Personal Ambitions of University Faculty. The Review of Higher Education, 27(1),
125-149. doi:10.1353/rhe.2003.0040

Stein, M. K., & D'amico, L. (2002). Inquiry at the Crossroads of Policy and Learning: A
Study of a District-Wide Literacy Initiative. Teachers College Record Teachers
College Rec, 104(7), 1313-1344. doi:10.1111/1467-9620.00205

University of Vermont. (2016, April 27). Retrieved May 08, 2016, from
http://www.uvm.edu/ctl/

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.

Vroom, V. H., & Deci, E. L. (Eds.). (1970). Management and motivation. Penguin.