Faculty Motivation for Teaching: Testing a Self-Determination Theory–Based Model Across Institution Types

• In Event: Examining Faculty Burnout, Well-Being, and Job Performance

Abstract

The effectiveness of high-quality faculty teaching on college student engagement and deep learning has been widely demonstrated (BrckaLorenz et al., 2012; Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005; McKeachie, 2007; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005); however, not all professors use best practices when teaching. At research-intensive institutions, teaching is often devalued by faculty under the pressure of high research expectations (Eagan et al., 2014; Wilkesmann & Schmid, 2013), while smaller Bachelor’s universities employ faculty who are focused almost exclusively on teaching and thus are perceived as more student-centered and effective (Marginson, 2006). Furthermore, faculty report that high stress and burnout regularly hinder their performance (O’Connor et al., 2011; Padilla & Thompson, 2015).

Motivation may be an important determinant of how faculty teach, as “a common assumption is that faculty could teach better if only they would try harder” (Blackburn et al., 1991, p. 363). Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Deci et al., 1997) posits satisfaction of three basic psychological needs may determine faculty motivation for teaching: the needs for competence (professors meaningfully impacting their students), autonomy (freedom to teach lessons their own way), and relatedness (opportunities to connect with colleagues and students). If supported, faculty will experience optimal, autonomous motivation (intrinsic, identified) and be more likely to utilize teaching best practices as their high engagement facilitates innovation and excellence. However, faculty are also paid to teach, evaluated, subjected to deadlines, curriculum guidelines, and sometimes difficult students and colleagues—all factors that if emphasized can make faculty feel controlled and hinder motivation (external, introjected), leading to faculty choosing less effective strategies as their goal is the shortest path to outcome completion.

This study tested a conceptual model based on self-determination theory to examine how university faculty motivation for teaching predicts their utilization of teaching best practices. We additionally explored if faculty at various higher education institution types are differentially motivated for teaching. Data from a national online survey of 1,671 faculty from 19 universities (3 Doctoral, 7 Masters, 9 Bachelor) was analyzed using structural equation modeling. The respondents reported on average 51 years of age, 49% women, 75% White, 39% tenured, and spending 21 hours per week on teaching activities.

Support for the overall model showed faculty autonomy, competence, and relatedness positively predicted autonomous motivation (intrinsic, identified), but not controlled motivation (introjected, external). Autonomous motivation, in turn, predicted great incorporation of effective teaching strategies, namely instructional clarity, higher-order learning, reflective and integrative learning, and collaborative learning. There were no differences found across faculty at Doctoral, Master’s, and Bachelor’s institutions in terms of autonomous motivation mean levels, nor for the predictive effects of autonomous motivation on teaching best practices.

The findings have implications for the faculty teaching literature as this identifies motivation as an important mechanism in predicting best practices, and suggests institutional initiatives aimed at improving teaching effectiveness can focus on SDTs basic needs. Finally, the results run counter to the perception that faculty at Bachelor universities have more or better motivation for teaching than faculty at Doctoral and Masters research universities.

Authors

• Robert H. Stupnisky, University of North Dakota

• Allison BrckaLorenz, Indiana University

• Bridget Yuhas, Indiana University - Bloomington

• Frederic Guay, Université Laval