Faculty Motivation: A Gateway to Transforming Engineering Education

• Published in: Journal of engineering education (Washington, D.C.) Vol. 103; no. 2; pp. 302 - 330
• Main Authors: Matusovich, Holly M., Paretti, Marie C., McNair, Lisa D., Hixson, Cory
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Washington Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.04.2014; Wiley Periodicals, Inc
• Subjects: College Faculty; Cooperative learning; Data Analysis; Education; Educational Change; Educational Practices; Educational Research; Engineering Education; expectancy value; faculty; Innovations; Learning Strategies; Motivation; Pedagogy; Studies; Success; Teacher Attitudes; Teacher Motivation; Teaching Methods; Theory Practice Relationship; Value Judgment
• ISSN: 1069-4730; 2168-9830
• DOI: 10.1002/jee.20044

Background Transformative change in higher education requires a continuous interplay between educational research and educational practice. In considering how to engage researchers and practitioners in “cycles of educational practice and research” (Jamieson & Lohmann, 2009), we focus on individuals and what motivates them to create and sustain innovations within the engineering education system. Purpose Through this study, we seek to better understand why faculty do or do not engage in the research–practice cycle. Specifically, we employ expectancy value theory and examine the success and value beliefs motivating individuals' choices. Design/Method We used mixed methods assessment data from two engineering education conferences that focused on promoting transformational change. Data included observational notes, open‐ended written responses submitted after conference sessions, open‐ended survey questions, and quantitative survey questions. For data analysis. we used descriptive statistics and open coding techniques. Results We identified expectancy of success and cost value and utility value as important to participants. Notably, the same motivation constructs generally matter for research, practice, and research‐informed practice, although practice‐informed research was nearly absent from the data. Participants cited strategies that are currently working to improve only some of the success and value categories. Conclusions Expectancy value theory provides a useful framework for understanding faculty choices in the research–practice cycles required for change and innovation in engineering education. Our findings indicate that in addition to improving individuals' competence with critical research and teaching practices, our field should also support collective efficacy and value beliefs.