Faculty teaching goals: A test of Holland's theory.

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

“…The value of our findings is that they contribute to an evolving collection of research findings over the past three decades (see, for example, Peters, 1974;Smart, 1982;Smart & Thompson, 2001;Umbach, 2006) that collectively aid in understanding the importance of disciplinary-based academic environments in contributing to what students do and do not learn as a result of their college experiences and the socialization mechanisms of those environments by which faculty members reinforce and reward students for their display of different repertoires of attitudes, interests, and abilities in their interactions with students, both in classroom and more informal out-of-class settings. For example, Reardon and Bullock (2004) recently described a three-tiered ''service-delivery model'' where they use Holland's theory to assist academic advisors and career counselors in their efforts to help students make more informed choices among alternative academic majors and career options.…”

“…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.…”

STEM students’ social agency and views on working for social change: Are STEM disciplines developing socially and civically responsible students?

“…Such findings may suggest that socialization within engineering undergraduate education may be occurring as a student's academic major is an important normative reference point given that she or he takes more courses in the major than in any other field and becomes exposed to the culture and values of the discipline through her or his interactions with both faculty and peers (Weidman, ). As organizational elements that are characterized by goals and missions (Smart, ), academic majors can influence a wide range of student outcomes, including students’ values and attitudes (Bradshaw, ; Huang & Healy, 1997; Vreeland & Bidwell, 1966; Weidman, , ). While some disciplines focus exclusively on increasing students’ competence in the technical aspects of the discipline, or technical goals, others also emphasize moral goals as they attempt to positively influence students’ values and attitudes (Vreeland & Bidwell, 1966).…”

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

“…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.…”