In the July 19, 2020 issue of InsideHigherEd (see http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/07/16/online) the debate between whether online or face-to-face education contributes equally to learning or not continues. The study that gives online educators the upper hand is now claimed to be flawed. For those who wish to compare online education and on-the-ground education, an
attempt to understand the differences in the mechanisms of teaching is warranted.
Recently in Faculty Consulting Category
In a recent InsideHigherEd article (see: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/07/12/coache), entitled " Job Satisfaction and Gender" published July 12, 2010, male professors have been found to be happier with working conditions than female professors, especially in the social sciences. Says Cathy Trower, research director of COACHE, which is based at
Harvard University: "...any university that thinks it has
solved problems related to gender just by recruiting a critical mass of
women may find otherwise."
Kiernan Mathews, director of COACHE, says that a "critical mass isn't going to be the silver bullet in female job satisfaction." "The job of our institutions doesn't stop with recruitment", says Matthews. Trower said she hoped that research universities would use the data as a starting point for discussions, discipline by discipline, to see where there are gender differences in job satisfaction (or lower satisfaction overall than is desirable). "This study is set up to start conversations with the faculty," she said.
For women who are starting their careers, and want mentors, that means it can be more difficult to chart a path.
Statistically Significant Gaps in Job Satisfaction, With Men Happier
| Category | Disciplines |
| Clarity of tenure process | Social sciences; medical schools and health professions |
| Clarity of tenure criteria | Social sciences |
| Clarity of tenure standards | Social sciences; education |
| Clarity of tenure body of evidence | Social sciences |
| Clarity of sense of achieving tenure | Humanities; social sciences; agriculture, natural resources and environmental sciences; business; education |
| Consistent messages about tenure from tenured colleagues | Social sciences |
| Tenure decisions based on performance | Social sciences |
| Upper limit on committee assignments | Education |
| Clarify of tenure expectations as a scholar | Social sciences |
| Clarity of tenure expectations as a teacher | Social sciences |
| Clarity of expectations as a colleague in department | Engineering, computer science and mathematics |
| Reasonableness of expectations as a scholar | Social sciences; biological sciences; health and human ecology; agriculture, natural resources and environmental sciences; business; education; medical schools and health professions |
| Reasonableness of expectations as a teacher | Social sciences; education |
| Reasonableness of expectations as an adviser | Education; medical schools and health professions |
| Way you spend your time as a faculty member | Social sciences; engineering, computer science and mathematics; health and human ecology; business; education; medical schools and health professions |
| Number of hours you work as a faculty member | Humanities; social sciences; engineering, computer science and mathematics; health and human ecology; business; education; medical schools and health professions |
| Quality of facilities | Social sciences |
| Access to teaching assistants, research assistants | Social sciences; visual and performing arts; medical schools and health professions |
| Clerical/administrative services | Social sciences; physical sciences; education; medical schools and health professions |
| Number of courses you teach | Biological sciences |
| Degree of influence over which courses you teach | Social sciences; education |
| Discretion over course content | Social sciences; education |
| Number of students you teach | Medical schools and health professions |
| Upper limit on teaching obligations | Education |
| Amount of time conducting research | Humanities; social sciences; physical sciences; biological sciences; engineering, computer science and mathematics; health and human ecology; agriculture, natural resources and environmental sciences; business; education; medical schools and health professions |
| Expectations for finding external funding | Social sciences; health and human ecology; education; medical schools and health professions |
| Influence over the focus of research | Social sciences; health and human ecology |
| Research services | Education |
| Institution makes having children and tenure track compatible | Social sciences; physical sciences; visual and performing arts; education; medical schools and health professions |
| Institution makes raising children and tenure track compatible | Social sciences; physical sciences; biological sciences; visual and performing arts; education; medical schools and health professions |
| Colleagues make having children and tenure track compatible | Social sciences; medical schools and health professions |
| Colleagues make raising children and tenure track compatible | Social sciences; biological sciences; business; medical schools and health professions |
| Colleagues are respectful of efforts to balance work and home | Social sciences; agriculture,natural resources and environmental sciences; education |
| Ability to balance between professional and personal time | Humanities; social sciences; biological sciences; visual and performing arts; engineering, computer science and mathematics; health and human ecology; agriculture, natural resources and environmental sciences; business; education; medical schools and health professions |
| Fairness of immediate supervisors' evaluations | Social sciences |
| Opportunities to collaborate with tenured faculty | Social sciences; physical sciences; health and human ecology; medical schools and health professions |
| Value faculty in your department place on your work | Social sciences |
| Amount of professional interaction with tenured colleagues | Social sciences; physical sciences; medical schools and health professions |
| Amount of personal interaction with tenured colleagues | Physical sciences |
| Amount of professional interaction with pre-tenure faculty | Agriculture, natural resources and environmental sciences |
| How well you fit | Social sciences; business |
| Institutional collegiality | Social sciences |
| Department as a place to work | Social sciences |
| Would again work at this institution | Social sciences |
| Overall rating of institution | Social sciences |
Statistically Significant Gaps in Job Satisfaction, With Women Happier
| Category | Disciplines |
| Travel funds | Engineering, computer science and mathematics |
| Paid/unpaid research leave | Engineering, computer science and mathematics |
| "Stop the clock" tenure policies | Humanities; social sciences; engineering, computer science and mathematics; agriculture, natural resources and environmental sciences |
| Paid/unpaid personal leave | Engineering, computer science and mathematics |
| Tuition waivers | Visual and performing arts |
Kiernan Mathews, director of COACHE, says that a "critical mass isn't going to be the silver bullet in female job satisfaction." "The job of our institutions doesn't stop with recruitment", says Matthews. Trower said she hoped that research universities would use the data as a starting point for discussions, discipline by discipline, to see where there are gender differences in job satisfaction (or lower satisfaction overall than is desirable). "This study is set up to start conversations with the faculty," she said.
For women who are starting their careers, and want mentors, that means it can be more difficult to chart a path.
In a May 13, 2010 Chronicle article, Confessions of a Teacher, Gabriela Montell responds to a blog posting by a college instructor who admits to NOT loving teaching and who claims that one need not love teaching to be good or successful at it. I think many faculty members I have consulted with would probably agree. They care about teaching and strive to do it well, but they did not go into academia and take a job at a doctoral granting institution because their very favorite thing to do is teach. What's interesting to me is the fact that so many people feel ashamed to admit this, even at a place like University Park. I think people who consult with faculty need to reassure them that teaching is a profession, that they don't have to have a "calling" or to feel they were born to teach in order to be successful, and that they can become good teachers over time with practice and regular assessments. Isn't that consistent with the best motivation theories of learning?
teachvsgrants.doc
Someone sent me this Chronicle article from March 3, 2009 arguing that teaching is more important to the bottom line than is research, even at doctoral institutions, because research dollars can't compare to tuition dollars in terms of covering overall costs of operation. This gives all of us who work to enhance student learning--whether we work directly with students or with faculty who are teaching them--a new way of looking at our contribution to the fiscal health of the institution.
I was recently asked to give a short presentation on class management.
One thing our client mentioned:
I hear people refer to the current generation of undergraduates as the Net generation, millennials, or digital natives. Many claims have been made of this generation, including their high proficiency with technology (Leung 2004), craving of interactivity (Prensky 2000) and ability to multi-task (Junco and Mastrodicasa 2007). As someone who has taught large general education courses aimed at freshman with a focus on technology, I can safely say that proficiency with technology is a very questionable assumption. Comfort with technology might be a better way to put it, as students certainly aren't afraid of technology. But that doesn't mean they necessarily know more about how to use technology than folks in other generations (outside of IM'ing and social sites like Facebook).
That leaves the concepts of interactivity and multi-tasking. Some researchers suggest multi-tasking is a human impossibility, that our mind truly can't focus on two distinct tasks at once. Rather, we simply toggle between tasks very quickly. The interactivity piece might be part of the answer for our client that thinks faculty need to entertain the students. I'm not so sure 'entertain' is the right word...I would suggest engage. With the proliferation of connectedness we all experience, in part to technology, we rarely find ourselves in monotonous, boring situations that we can't find something to help occupy the time. Long car ride or commute? All you need is a cell phone to start texting or emailing friends and co-workers. Stuck in a dry, dull presentation by a faculty member? Connecting to your peers to discuss other topics is only a thumb-press away.
I'm curious to see how some of our ideas will be received by the faculty asking about class management. I don't believe we have to entertain our students, but we certainly can try to do better engaging them.
"There also seems to be the situation in which students expect to be entertained and are more demanding of faculty."This got me thinking about another topic that we discuss a lot here in the Institute: generational differences. We talk both about generational differences among senior and junior faculty, as well as generational differences between students and faculty. Relating to the quote above, I wonder how much of this might come from generational differences?
I hear people refer to the current generation of undergraduates as the Net generation, millennials, or digital natives. Many claims have been made of this generation, including their high proficiency with technology (Leung 2004), craving of interactivity (Prensky 2000) and ability to multi-task (Junco and Mastrodicasa 2007). As someone who has taught large general education courses aimed at freshman with a focus on technology, I can safely say that proficiency with technology is a very questionable assumption. Comfort with technology might be a better way to put it, as students certainly aren't afraid of technology. But that doesn't mean they necessarily know more about how to use technology than folks in other generations (outside of IM'ing and social sites like Facebook).
That leaves the concepts of interactivity and multi-tasking. Some researchers suggest multi-tasking is a human impossibility, that our mind truly can't focus on two distinct tasks at once. Rather, we simply toggle between tasks very quickly. The interactivity piece might be part of the answer for our client that thinks faculty need to entertain the students. I'm not so sure 'entertain' is the right word...I would suggest engage. With the proliferation of connectedness we all experience, in part to technology, we rarely find ourselves in monotonous, boring situations that we can't find something to help occupy the time. Long car ride or commute? All you need is a cell phone to start texting or emailing friends and co-workers. Stuck in a dry, dull presentation by a faculty member? Connecting to your peers to discuss other topics is only a thumb-press away.
I'm curious to see how some of our ideas will be received by the faculty asking about class management. I don't believe we have to entertain our students, but we certainly can try to do better engaging them.