Examining Student Reported Interaction and Satisfaction in Higher Education Administration Graduate Seminar-Style Blended Courses

The purpose of this case study was to examine how a professional graduate program in higher education administration developed seminar-style courses in a blended format. Blended courses involved two extended in-person weekend sessions with synchronous online sessions, and other asynchronous coursework in between. This study explored the importance of interaction, student satisfaction, and motivation to student success. Data were collected through student surveys and faculty interviews from 11 courses within the same graduate degree program at a private, highly-selective research university from spring 2016 through spring 2018. Class size was the biggest factor relating to student interaction. This study also found synchronous online discussions had a greater impact than other learning activities and that satisfaction and interaction had a slight increase over time as students and instructors became more comfortable with the format

Faculty at work: Focus on teaching

Within the framework of cognitive motivation theory, selected personal and environmental motivational variables for faculty in English, chemistry, and psychology from community colleges, comprehensive colleges and universities, and research universities were regressed against faculty allocation of work effort given to teaching. The data came from a 1988 national survey. Gender ( sociodemographic ); quality of graduate school attended, career age, and rank ( career ); self-competence, self-efficacy, institutional commitment, personal interest in teaching, and percent time preferred to give to teaching ( self-valuations ); and institutional preference, consensus and support, and colleague commitment to teaching ( perception of the environment ) were entered into regressions. R 2 were generally strong (.86 for community college chemists) and significant. For all institutional types, self-valuation and perception of the environment motivators significantly accounted for the explained variance whereas sociodemographic and career variables did not.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/43606/1/11162_2004_Article_BF00992182.pd

Faculty at work: Focus on research, scholarship, and service

Within the framework of cognitive motivation theory, selected personal and environmental motivational variables for faculty in eight liberal arts and science departments from community colleges, liberal arts colleges, comprehensive colleges and universities, and research universities were regressed against faculty allocation of work effort given to research, scholarship, and service. The data came from a 1988 national survey of faculty. Gender, (sociodemographic), quality of graduate school attended, career age , and rank (career); self-competence and self-efficacy regarding research, scholarship, and service and percent time prefer to give to research, scholarship, and service ( self-valuations ); and institutional preference, consensus and support , and colleague commitment to research, scholarship, and service ( perception of the environment ) were entered into regressions. R 2 s were generally strong (.64 for liberal arts-I institutions) and significant. For all institutional types, self-valuation ( self-competence and -efficacy ) motivators significantly accounted for the explained variance. Sociodemographic and career variables did not explain appreciable amounts of variance.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/43607/1/11162_2004_Article_BF00992183.pd

Gender differences in predicting faculty publication output in the natural sciences.

Research has shown that the academic sector offers a "chilly climate" for women faculty, especially for the relatively few women scholars in the natural sciences. Since faculty members serve as role models and creators/disseminators of scientific knowledge, the status of faculty women scientists is an important issue. The theoretical framework for this study offers an interdisciplinary approach to motivation incorporating sociological (including socio-demographic and career), psychological, and environmental variables that can be used to explore gender differences in faculty productivity. The purpose of this study is to investigate similarities and differences with regard to sociological, psychological, environmental, and behavioral variables that predict research productivity among female and male full-time faculty in the natural sciences at three different time periods (1988, 1975, and 1969). The data originate from three national data surveys. Several questions are repeated across survey years, thereby enabling some comparisons over time. The data analyses proceeded through two stages: (1) descriptive techniques (frequencies, plots, ANOVAS with post hoc Scheffe tests, and chi-squares), and (2) separate multiple regressions by gender for predicting publication rate. It appears women natural scientists have made some progress in their academic status. Furthermore, the proposed framework for understanding faculty publication differences for each gender is a useful one. Although the gender groups differed in the sociological, psychological, and environmental variables that predict publication performance, the variables explained a high percent of the within group variance (ranging from 41-62) in two-year publication rates (more for females). In all three time points, the variables predicting performance for the female scientists were fewer in number than for the male scientists. These results show that over the past two decades, women at these surveyed institutions have less within group variance in research effort, background and career characteristics, determinedness to do research, support from funding sources and colleagues, research interest, and perceived success. The strongest gender difference predicting publication rate, using the most current data (1988), was perceived research self-competence. If women believe they are competent, they publish; if they do not have this valuation of themselves, they do not.Ph.D.EducationUniversity of Michigan, Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studieshttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/105619/1/9135711.pdfDescription of 9135711.pdf : Restricted to UM users only