Educational Orientations of Faculty: Assessing a Personality Model of the Academic Professions

Morstain, Barry R.; Smart, John C.

doi:10.2466/pr0.1976.39.3f.1199

Cited by 26 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These studies have examined such wide ranging topics related to the socialization mechanisms of academic environments as the overall departmental and specific classroom teaching goals of faculty (Smart & McLaughlin, 1974;Smart, 1982), the broad educational orientations of faculty and how they interact with their students in in-class and out-of-class settings (Morstain & Smart, 1976), the relative emphasis that faculty place on the development of alternative student competencies in their classes (Smart & Thompson, 2001), and the pedagogical approaches they use in their courses to achieve different student learning outcomes (Peters, 1974;Smart & Umbach, 2007;Smart et al 2009). For example, Morstain and Smart (1976) and Smart and Thompson (2001) found that faculty in Investigative environments placed a greater emphasis on student development of competencies involving mathematical, analytical, and scientific skills and abilities than their colleagues in other academic environments, and tended to have a greater preference for more rational and systematic methods of inquiry.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Faculty Emphases on Alternative Course-Specific Learning Outcomes in Holland’s Model Environments: The Role of Environmental Consistency

et al. 2009

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines variability in the extent to which faculty members in the disciplinary-based academic environments of Holland's theory emphasize different student learning outcomes in their classes and whether such differences are comparable for those in ''consistent'' versus ''inconsistent'' environments. The findings show wide variation in the extent to which faculty members in four of the academic environments of Holland's theory emphasize the alternative student learning outcomes and that such differences vary based on the level of consistency or inconsistency in the environmental profiles of the environments. The implications of these findings for future research using Holland's theory to understand longitudinal patterns of change and stability in the attitudes, interests, and abilities of college students as well as variability in the patterns of professional attitudes and behaviors of college faculty are discussed. Attention is also devoted to the policy development and practical implications of these findings for academic advisors, career counselors, and other college and university leaders.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Faculty Emphases on Alternative Course-Specific Learning Outcomes in Holland’s Model Environments: The Role of Environmental Consistency

et al. 2009

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That is, faculty members are important socializing agents for college students, and through the interactions with departmental faculty, students experience a unique academic sub-environment that may distinctively influence their learning and development. Indeed, the findings of a series of higher education studies (which also employed Holland's work) suggest that the professional attitudes and behaviors of faculty are essential to differential effects of academic disciplines on student development (Morstain and Smart 1976;Smart 1982;Smart and Thompson 2001;Smart and Umbach 2007). For example, Smart and Thompson (2001) found that faculty in Investigative environments encourage students to develop their analytical, mathematical, and scientific abilities more so than their colleagues in other academic environments, while faculty in Artistic environments more strongly encourage students to develop their innovation, creativity, and literary abilities.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Are the Effects of Student–Faculty Interaction Dependent on Academic Major? An Examination Using Multilevel Modeling

Kim

Sax

2011

Res High Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using multilevel models, this study examined whether and why the strength of association between student-faculty interaction and student cognitive skills development varies across academic majors. The study utilized data from the 2008 University of California Undergraduate Experience Survey (UCUES) and a sample of 43,014 students from 119 academic majors across nine campuses. The results indicate that the impact of interaction with faculty on students' cognitive skills development significantly varies by academic major. Findings also suggest that some aspects of departmental climate can potentially magnify the effects produced by student-faculty interaction.

show abstract

“…The other attitude -utilitarian -and generally held by natural scientists -focused on the importance of subject matter. Morstain and Smart (1976) have found similar attitudes and also a link with teaching methods: humanities and social science staff tended to have more desire to share in educational decision-making with students and to favour more individually tailored teaching and learning arrangements. Science and engineering staff tended to be more formal and were characterized by their use of more structured lecture-type teaching.…”

Section: Academic Staff: Some Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 92%

The professional development of Australian university teachers: An act of faith?

Cannon

1983

High Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Teaching is the major professional activity of academic staff in Australian universities. Much disquiet about the quality of this teaching has been expressed by governments, committees of enquiry, students and by academics. There have been several attempts to improve the quality of university teaching, all of which have been considerable acts of faith. The persistence of disquiet, however, suggests that past efforts to improve the quality of university teaching have not been completely successful.An analysis of universities as organizations, of the characteristics of academic staff', and of the change process in universities leads to a number of conclusions about why past attempts to improve teaching may not have been as successful as hoped.First, the problem of improving teaching is extraordinarily complex. Complexity is inherent in the organizational character of universities and in the characteristics of academic staff and their work. Second, the attempts made to deal with the teaching problem are novel: the major responses to improving teaching did not come until the early-mid 1970s. Third, there was -and still is -a weak theoretical and knowledge base for action and, finally, the focus on developing individuals may not have been the best focus for teaching improvement strategies.

show abstract

Educational Orientations of Faculty: Assessing a Personality Model of the Academic Professions

Cited by 26 publications

References 14 publications

Faculty Emphases on Alternative Course-Specific Learning Outcomes in Holland’s Model Environments: The Role of Environmental Consistency

Faculty Emphases on Alternative Course-Specific Learning Outcomes in Holland’s Model Environments: The Role of Environmental Consistency

Are the Effects of Student–Faculty Interaction Dependent on Academic Major? An Examination Using Multilevel Modeling

The professional development of Australian university teachers: An act of faith?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About