USING MOTIVATIONAL SYSTEMS THEORY TO EXPLORE FACTORS

THAT INFLUENCE THE TEACHING STRATEGIES OF UNDERGRADUATE

SOCIAL WORK FACULTY

by

ROSLYN C. RICHARDSON

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Dissertation Adviser: David B. Miller, Ph.D.

Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences

CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

May, 2009
 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables .................................................................................................................... iii
List of Figures................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements and Dedication................................................................................. v
Abstract.............................................................................................................................. 1
Chapter 1. Introduction................................................................................................... 2
Background of the Study ................................................................................................ 2
Statement of the Problem................................................................................................ 3
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................... 5
Significance of the Study ................................................................................................ 8
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 9
Chapter 2. Review of the Literature ............................................................................ 10
Context of the study: BSW Education ......................................................................... 10
Teacher-Centered Instruction........................................................................................ 14
Learner-Centered Instruction ........................................................................................ 15
Research on the Effectiveness of Teaching Methods ................................................... 17
Conceptual Models of Influences on Teaching Methods ............................................. 24
Conceptual Framework - Motivational Systems Theory .............................................. 29
Research Questions....................................................................................................... 35
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 36
Chapter 3. Methodology................................................................................................ 38
Research Design............................................................................................................ 38
Population and Sampling Method................................................................................. 39
Data Collection ............................................................................................................. 41
Instrumentation ............................................................................................................. 42
Data Analysis Procedures ............................................................................................. 48
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 53
Chapter 4. Results......................................................................................................... 55
Descriptive Statistics for the Sample ............................................................................ 55
Data Analysis of Research Questions ........................................................................... 58
Results of Hypothesis Testing ...................................................................................... 80
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 81
Chapter 5. Discussion .................................................................................................... 83
Discussion of Findings.................................................................................................. 83
Limitations of the Study................................................................................................ 89
Implications................................................................................................................... 90
Future Research ............................................................................................................ 91
 ii

Appendices....................................................................................................................... 94
Appendix A ...................................................................................................................... 94
Appendix B ...................................................................................................................... 95
References...................................................................................................................... 101
 iii

List of Tables

Table 1. Characteristics of Learner-Centered and Teacher-Centered Instruction ............ 14

Table 2. The Motivational Systems Theory Taxonomy of Personal Belief Patterns........ 34

Table 3. Descriptive Data for Demographic Variables..................................................... 57

Table 4. Teaching Goals Inventory (TGI) - Means and Standard Deviations .................. 59

Table 5. Teaching Goals Rated "Essential" by More than 50% of Faculty ...................... 60

Table 6. TGI Clusters by Course Taught (M and SD)...................................................... 62

Table 7. Percentage and Rank Order of Faculty Primary Teaching Role......................... 63

Table 8. TGI Clusters by Primary Teaching Role (M and SD) ........................................ 64

Table 9. Primary Teaching Role, in percent, by Course Taught....................................... 65

Table 10. SETI-A - Means and Standard Deviations ....................................................... 67

Table 11. SETI-A Items Faculty Rated "Completely Competent " to Perform................ 68

Table 12. Faculty Perceptions of the Adequacy of Teaching Resources - Percent .......... 70

Table 13. Faculty Perceptions of the Adequacy of Teaching Resources - M and SD..... 71

Table 14. Teaching Methods Used by Percent ................................................................. 72

Table 15 - Teaching Methods Used - Usually/Almost Always - Combined Percent ....... 73

Table 16. Use of Extensive Lecturing by Course Taught - Percent.................................. 73

Table 17. Use of Seminars/Class Discussions by Course Taught - Percent ..................... 74

Table 18. Use of Role Plays/Simulation Exercises by Course Taught - Percent.............. 74

Table 19. Use of Group Projects by Course Taught- Percent........................................... 74

Table 20. Learner-Centered Teaching Methods by Course Taught (M and SD).............. 75

Table 21. Correlation Matrix of the Control, Predictor and Outcome Variables .............. 0

Table 22. Hierarchical Regression for Predicting Use of Learner-Centered Methods .... 82
 iv

List of Figures

List of Figures
Figure 1. Conceptual Model of the Study........................................................................... 7

Figure 2. Variables and Measurement ............................................................................. 43

 v

Acknowledgements and Dedication

There are no journeys that we travel alone and it is only through the support,

encouragement, and guidance of others that we eventually find our way to our long

awaited destinations. With that sentiment in mind, I gladly take this opportunity to

acknowledge and thank all of those who played a role in helping me to achieve this goal.

To the members of my committee-, Dr. Terry Hokenstad, Dr. Wallace Gingerich,

and Dr. James Zull - thank you for your willingness to serve on my dissertation

committee and for the questions, suggestions and ideas that helped to make this a better

work.

To my dissertation adviser and committee chair, Dr. David Miller, I am so very

grateful for your words of encouragement and support, your unending patience, and the

gentle nudges that helped me to continue to "press on". You have served as a great

mentor and a role model and I hope that my interactions with my students reflect the

same understanding and support that you have shown to me.

To all of the undergraduate social work educators that participated in this study-

thank you for your gracious willingness to share your valuable time in an effort to further

our understanding of undergraduate social work education.

To my Baton Rouge family in the Department of Social Work at Southern

University- each of you has stood with and by me every step of the way. I am so very

proud to be a product of this program and a member of such a wonderful team. Thank

you all for your support, positive thoughts, prayers, great meals, good times and laughter

in abundance. I hope you each know how much I value and appreciate you.
 vi

To all of my friends and family - the true measure of our success is not reflected

in what we have, but with whom we share our lives. I am so blessed to be surrounded by

such a wonderful, caring, considerate group of people. Thank you all for being a part of

my life.

To Mom (Minnie Richardson), Dad (Roy Richardson), and Jacquelyn Richardson

- I dedicate this work to each of you and I admire and love you beyond words.

To Mom-thank you for showing me the awesomeness of a love that can only

come from a mother. Your sacrifices have not been in vain. All of my accomplishments

can be traced back to your loving words and great example. My greatest gift is that my

life is a reflection of all of your hard work and love.

To Dad - thank you for instilling in me a joy that surpasses all understanding.

Despite trials and challenges, I have been able to maintain a spirit of optimism and faith

because of you.

To Jackie-my little sister and closest and dearest friend. Thank you so much for

not only accepting my quirks and flaws but embracing them. You are the person in this

world who knows me best, and despite that, you still like and love me. My life is the

richer because I get to share it with you.

 1

Using Motivational Systems Theory to Explore Factors that Influence the

Teaching Strategies of Undergraduate Social Work Faculty

Abstract
by

ROSLYN C. RICHARDSON

The purpose of the study was to use Motivational Systems Theory (MST) to

examine how use of learner-centered instructional methods varied based on faculty

members’ teaching goals, beliefs about their teaching abilities, and beliefs about the

perceived adequacy of teaching resources, after controlling for experience and

demographic factors. The population for this study was undergraduate social work

educators with a minimum of one-year undergraduate social work education teaching

experience. Findings indicate that undergraduate social work faculty rank higher-order

thinking skills as the most essential teaching goal and consider "helping students develop

higher order thinking skills" as their primary teaching role. Faculty were highly confident

about their ability to effectively perform teaching activities. The majority of faculty

perceived the adequacy of teaching resources as either satisfactory or good. Faculty used

multiple teaching methods, including extensive lecture and reported a high level of use of

learner-centered methods. Findings suggest that Motivational Systems Theory factors

influence the use of learner-centered teaching methods. Specifically, teaching goals were

significant predictors of the use of learner -centered methods.

 2

Chapter 1. Introduction

Chapter one provides an introduction to the research topic. Included in this chapter

are the statement of and background information on the research problem. In addition,

the purpose and significance of the study are discussed.

Background of the Study

Since the 1980's much attention has focused on cost, access and quality of higher

education. It was during the 80's that the need for substantive reform in postsecondary

education was heralded. This came about in the form of reports completed by the

Association of American Colleges, the National Institute of Education’s Study Group on

the Conditions of Excellence in American Higher Education, and the National

Endowment of the Humanities (Nettles, Cole & Sharp, 1997). The reports focused on

declining quality and the lack of accountability in postsecondary education. In addition,

a report completed for the Education Commission of States advocated for greater state

involvement in higher education assessment due to the substantial financial investment

and link between postsecondary education and state policy objectives. Now more than

ever, students, parents, businesses and communities expect universities to demonstrate

what they do and how it has an impact on student learning.

Colleges and universities engage in an accreditation process which assesses

various factors from faculty productivity, to resource availability, curriculum integration

and student productivity. One criticism of accreditation is the focus on inputs and

resources while omitting outcomes and results (Nettles, Cole & Sharp, 1997). Within the

last 20 years, the vision of accreditation has expanded to acknowledge that success of a

university extends beyond just the resources at its disposable or the credentials of faculty
 3

to the actual outcomes produced by the teaching process. This expansion has included

the incorporation of outcomes assessment, specifically related to student learning, as a

means by which institutions of higher education must demonstrate educational efficacy.

In fact, assessment of the teaching and learning process has become one of the

fundamental aspects of accreditation and determining institutional success (Nettles, Cole

& Sharp, 1997). As a result, there has been a greater focus on the linking of student

learning and student outcomes to teaching.

Spurred by the call for greater accountably in demonstrating the effectiveness of

teaching, in higher education, a paradigmatic shift is occurring in which the focus is

moving toward the process of learning and learning outcomes. Creating environments

that are learner-centered and helping faculty to see their primary role as promoting

student learning rather than solely disseminating information is one major result of this

shift (Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005). The use of learner-centered instruction has

specifically been promoted in undergraduate education and undergraduate faculties are

encouraged to employ learner-centered teaching methods (Einarson, 2001). Learner-

centered instruction is compatible with Chickering and Gamson's (1987) seven principles

which state that good practice in undergraduate education: 1) encourages contact between

students and faculty; 2) develops reciprocity and cooperation among students; 3)

encourages active learning; 4) gives prompt feedback; 5) emphasizes time on task; 6)

communicates high expectations; and 7) respects diverse talents and ways of learning.

Statement of the Problem

Teacher-centered instructional methods, such as extensive lecture, are often

insufficient for achieving the goals of teaching professional values, or promoting critical
 4

thinking or other positive student outcomes (Bligh, 2000; Einarson, 2001; Haynes, 1999).

However, it remains the method of instruction most often used by undergraduate faculty

(Braxton, 2008; Einarson, 2001). In fact, a study by Lindholm, Szelényi, Hurtado, &

Korn (2005), found that more than half of a national sample of college educators utilized

extensive lecturing in most or all of their courses. In contrast, learner-centered

instruction requires students to be actively involved in the learning process and engage in

higher order thinking skills such as the ability to evaluate, synthesize and analyze

information (Dupin-Bryant, 2004).

The promotion of learner-centered instruction is particularly relevant to social

work education. As the demand to show accountability in the delivery of social services

continues to grow, social work education must also become more accountable by

demonstrating the effectiveness of teaching and showing the link between teaching and

the preparation of social work practitioners (Wodarski, 1986). In addition, learner-

centered instruction often parallels many core social work values such as empowerment,

and the individual’s right to participate in the helping process. As a result, learner-

centered methods are more likely to facilitate students’ ability to internalize the values of

the social work profession and the use of these methods should be promoted (Brandler,

1999; Haynes, 1999; Steiner, Stromwall, Brzuzy & Gerdes, 1999).

Although research has been conducted relative to the teaching methods of

undergraduate faculty in general, there has been limited focus on the factors that facilitate

or impede the use of learner-centered instruction by undergraduate social work faculty.

 5

Purpose of the Study

Some studies have utilized a comprehensive theory of motivation to better

understand the dynamics involved in the selection of teaching methods by undergraduate

faculty (Blackburn & Lawrence, 1995; Colbeck, Cabrera & Marine, 2002; Einarson,

2001). However, no study has examined this issue in the area of undergraduate social

work education. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to use Motivational Systems

Theory (MST) (Ford, 1992) to examine how the use of learner-centered instructional

methods of faculty in undergraduate social work programs varied based on their teaching

goals, beliefs about their teaching abilities, and beliefs about the perceived adequacy of

teaching resources.

Motivational Systems Theory is a composite theory that identifies the major

elements of motivation while simultaneously linking these elements to other motivational

theories. MST incorporates the three main elements of motivation which focus on the

direction, energization and regulation of behavior patterns. According to Ford, these

terms refer to “where people are heading and what they are trying to do”, how people get

“turned on or off” ”, and “how people decide to try something, stick with it or give up”

(Ford, 1992, p. 3). Ford refers to these as personal goals, emotions and personal agency

beliefs (which include capability beliefs and context beliefs) and stresses that these

elements work in conjunction with each other to produce behavior. Ford represents this

relationship with the following heuristic (i.e. nonmathematical) equation:

Motivation = Goals x Emotions x Personal Agency Beliefs

The conceptual model for the study was developed based on previous research

and is presented in Figure 1. Consistent with the research conducted by Colbeck, Cabrera
 6

and Marine (2002), this study only included personal goals for teaching, capability beliefs

and context beliefs since the focus was on undergraduate social work faculty members

sustained use of learner-centered teaching methods.

The goals of this study were to: 1) identify the teaching goals of undergraduate

social work faculty; 2) examine undergraduate social work faculty members' confidence

in their ability to perform specific teaching behaviors; 3) determine how undergraduate

social work faculty perceive the adequacy of teaching resources within their colleges and

universities; 4) identify the teaching methods utilized by undergraduate social work

faculty; and 5) examine the relationship between Motivational Systems Theory factors

(teaching goals, capability beliefs about teaching, and perceived adequacy of teaching

resources) and learner-centered instruction after controlling for experience and personal

background factors.
 7

Figure 1. Conceptual Model of the Study

Learner-Centered
¾ Gender Teaching Methods
MOTIVATION
¾ Race ¾ Seminars/Class
Discussions
¾ Teaching GOALS FOR TEACHING
Experience ¾ Experiential
¾ Higher-Order Thinking
Learning/Role
¾ Rank Skills
Play
¾ Basic Academic Success
Skills
¾ Cooperative
¾ Discipline Specific Skills
Learning
¾ Liberal Arts and Academic
Groups
Values
¾ Work and Career
Preparation
¾ Personal Development

TEACHING CAPABILITIES

¾ Course Planning
¾ Teaching Methods
¾ Evaluation
¾ Environment

CONTEXT BELIEFS

Adequacy of Teaching Resources

¾ Clerical Support
¾ Release Time
¾ Computer Hardware
¾ Computer Software
¾ Library Resources
¾ Audio/Visual Equipment
¾ Faculty Development
¾ Professional Support
 8

Significance of the Study

“Social work teaching, like teaching in other fields, is behavior, and as such, is

subject to analysis, change, and improvement”(Ramasar, 1997, p.37) .

The significance of this study lies in the use of Motivational Systems Theory as a

unifying framework to identify factors that predict the use of learner-centered teaching

methods by faculty in undergraduate social work programs. This study is the first of its

kind to explore undergraduate social work faculty motivation in a comprehensive way. It

can serve as a foundation upon which additional inquiry into the relationship between

motivational factors and selection of teaching methods in undergraduate social work

education can be based.

This study could encourage faculty members in undergraduate social work

programs to identify their goals, beliefs and expectations related to teaching and their

teaching environment. It may help faculty to identify the potential conflicts between their

teaching goals and what they actually do. The study can also provide insight that may

help faculty to increase their awareness of how internal and external factors work

together to influence or impede their use of learner-centered teaching methods. The long-

term results would be improved teaching ability and enhanced student outcomes.

This study may help programs to expand the focus solely from content (what is

taught), to include process (the how of teaching). It also has the potential to increase

awareness of how perceptions about the availability of departmental and institutional

resources, rewards and supports could affect decisions about teaching. The long-term

goal would be the development of methods to modify and improve teaching through

changes at departmental and institutional levels. This could in turn have a positive
 9

impact on student and faculty recruitment and retention efforts, student outcomes and

accreditation issues.

Summary

In undergraduate education, the use of learner-centered teaching methods is

encouraged. Learner-centered instruction, which incorporates active teaching methods, is

effective in promoting various student outcomes such as critical thinking and knowledge

retention. In addition, learner-centered teaching methods often parallel core social work

values and thus should also be promoted in undergraduate social work education. To

date, no study has utilized a comprehensive theory of motivation to examine the selection

of teaching methods by undergraduate social work faculty. Therefore, the aim of this

study was to use Motivational Systems Theory (MST) to identify how teaching goals,

capability beliefs and context beliefs contribute to the use of learner-centered teaching

methods by faculty members in undergraduate social work programs.

 10

Chapter 2. Review of the Literature

Chapter two provides a summary and review of the literature related to factors

that influence the teaching strategies of undergraduate faculty. The discussion on the

context of the study includes a brief synopsis on the origins of undergraduate social work

education as well as the growth in undergraduate social work programs. The chapter

continues with a comparison of learner-centered and teacher-centered instruction.

Finally, Motivational Systems Theory (MST) is discussed as a theoretical framework

useful for understanding factors that influence or impede undergraduate social work

faculty members' use of learner-centered instruction.

Context of the study: BSW Education

According to Austin (1997), three primary factors led to the establishment of

social work education in the U.S. at the turn of the 20th Century. These factors included:

1) the recognition of the social sciences academic disciplines; 2) the emergence of

coeducational public universities and women’s colleges that were privately supported;

and 3) a focus on the need to organize and manage charity organizations, and state and

local run custodial institutions. The increase in organizations devoted to child welfare

and other charities provided new and expanded employment opportunities for women

which also shaped social work education programs.

The earliest social work education programs were established in the late 1800’s

and consisted of two groups. The first group of programs known as “training schools”

were designed as graduate programs and served the purpose of preparing students for

casework or direct service in nonprofit social service settings. The second group, applied

social science programs, was established in public universities in undergraduate

 11

departments of social science. It is the latter group of programs which established the

concept of undergraduate social work education. The impetus for the development of the

early applied social science programs was typically one course taught in undergraduate

departments of sociology. The course in each department was then expanded to become

a social science major and finally culminated in the development of either a separate

department or school distinct from the sociology department (Austin, 1997).

The primary purpose of the undergraduate programs was to prepare graduates for

employment in state and county social welfare programs. The major employers of

graduates of these programs were public social service agencies. Graduates filled

positions as child welfare workers, probation officers for juveniles and public welfare

office managers. Undergraduate programs focused on a generalist perspective that

included task-oriented practice skills rather than individualized psychosocial assessments

and skills which was the focus of graduate programs (Austin, 1997).

The shift to the position that Baccalaureate Social Work education’s primary

function should be the preparation of students for graduate work was promoted by two

studies conducted in the 1950’s that sought to define undergraduate social work

education. Both the Hollis and Taylor report in 1951 and the Boehm study in 1959

addressed issues about the role and curriculum of undergraduate social work education.

The Hollis and Taylor report advocated for accrediting social work programs only at the

graduate level. This viewpoint was supported by graduate programs and social workers in

general due to the view that BSW education was pre-professional and would threaten the

legitimization of social work as a profession. The idea that Baccalaureate Social Work
 12

education was to be solely a foundation for graduate work was promoted for two decades

(Austin, 1997; Gibbs, 1995; Wolk & Wertheimer, 1999).

Largely in response to the Hollis and Taylor report, The Council on Social Work

Education was established in 1952. However, the Council did not begin formal

accreditation of Baccalaureate Social Work programs until 1974. It was at this point that

the Bachelor of Social Work was established as the “entry-level” professional degree

(Austin, 1986). Currently, the purpose of social work education is to enable students to

integrate the knowledge, values, and skills of the social work profession into competent

practice. At the baccalaureate level of social work education, programs are primarily

designed to prepare graduates for generalist professional practice.

The number of accredited Baccalaureate Social Work programs has steadily

increased. In 1999, there were 392 Baccalaureate Social Work programs that employed

5,020 faculty. In that same year, there was a total of 37,557 full-time Baccalaureate

Social Work students and 12, 798 BSW degrees awarded (Karger & Stoesz, 2003). In

2000, there were 421 accredited BSW programs, with 32 programs in candidacy. In

2002, 433 BSW programs were accredited with 19 programs in candidacy. By 2005,

that number had risen to 448 accredited BSW programs, with 18 programs in candidacy

(CSWE, 2005). Although the number of BSW programs has increased steadily, there

have been fluctuations in the number of baccalaureate social work degrees awarded. For

example, 11,773 degrees were awarded in 2000. This number dropped to 9,363 in 2002

but increased to 12, 845 in 2006 (CSWE, 2006).

The growth in BSW programs appears to be driven by employment projections

and need. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor (2006),
 13

employment of social workers is projected to increase 18% to 26% between 2004 and

2014, a rate that is much greater than the average job increase. The growth will occur in

both the public and private sectors and is attributed to numerous factors. These factors

include: the expanding elderly population; the shift in substance abuse cases to treatment

instead of incarceration; high turn-over rates, particularly in fields such as child welfare;

and the need to replace social workers who retire or leave the profession.

Methods of Instruction

Study on college teaching has spanned from an initial focus on single variable

studies, to evaluation of instruction, to the relationship between student outcomes and

multiple variables (McKeachie, 1990). Student learning outcomes are influenced by

numerous factors including students’ learning styles and motivation, (Holly & Steiner,

2005); number of hours worked and perceived interference with studies (Hawkins, Smith,

Hawkins, & Grant, 2005); involvement in clubs and organizations (Pascarella, 1995);

class size (Toth & Montagna, 2002); organizational culture and climate (Gayle, Tewarie,

& White, 2003); and instructors’ skill and clarity in presenting information (Pascarella,

1994).

Research on student outcomes in higher education has also focused on the

effectiveness of teaching strategies which can be categorized into two broad categories:

teacher-centered instruction and learner-centered instruction. A comparison of learner-

centered and teacher-centered instruction adapted from Weimer (2002) and University of

the Sciences in Philadelphia (www.usip.edu/lct/principles.shtml) is provided in Table 1,

followed by a discussion of the two methods of instruction.

 14

Table 1. Characteristics of Learner-Centered and Teacher-Centered Instruction

Learner–Centered Instruction Teacher-Centered Instruction

Instructors coach and facilitate. Instructors convey material and evaluate.

Assessment promotes learning and Assessment monitors learning and is used
improvement. for purposes of grading.

Instruction is flexible and adapted to fit the Instruction is a one size fits all approach.
needs of students.

Evidence-based research guides teaching Teaching methods are based on how

methods. instructors were taught.

Students are active participants in the Students are passive participants in the
learning process. learning process.

Culture is cooperative, collaborative and Culture is competitive and individualistic.

supportive.

Focus is on analysis, reflection and Focus is on memorization and repetition.

evaluation.

Teacher-Centered Instruction

Teacher-centered instruction incorporates multiple strategies that have a primary

emphasis on the transmission of knowledge and the acquisition of information or subject

matter. The instructor is viewed as holding the position of expert and controls the

delivery of content (Schuh, 2004). Teacher-centered instruction requires students to

adapt to the instructor’s teaching methods. Selected teaching methods reflect instructors’

preferences without consideration for students’ unique learning styles and needs

(Weimer, 2002; www.usip.edu/lct/characteristics.shtml).

 15

"Typical characteristics of teacher-centered instruction include more teacher talk

and questions than student talk and questions, more whole group instruction,
reliance on textbooks with other sources such as media used as support, recall of
factual information, and a classroom in which desks are in rows facing a board
with the teacher desk nearby" (Schuh, 2004, p. 835).

Teacher-centered instruction, such as the traditional lecture, is often based upon

pedagogical principles. The instructor holds the position of expert and learning is viewed

as being based on the acquisition of information or subject matter (Knowles, 1980).

Students are directed by and obedient to teachers’ instructions. Pedagogy is based on the

assumption that learners need to know only what teachers teach them. The result is a

teaching and learning situation that actively promotes dependency on the instructor

(Pearson, 1992).

The reliance on the traditional, teacher-centered lecture is consistent with the

Instruction Paradigm, a term coined by Barr and Tagg (1995), which focuses not only on

teaching but the entire construct of higher education. This includes how content is

designed and presented, evaluation methods and the purpose of evaluation, the roles of

students and instructors as well as the roles and purpose of colleges and universities

Undergraduate education that adheres to the Instruction Paradigm views the delivery of

instruction and the transfer of knowledge from faculty to students as the primary mission.

Students’ acquisition of knowledge is viewed as the fundamental goal of instruction.

Learner-Centered Instruction

Learner-centered instruction is a term that incorporates various instructional

methods including cooperative learning, case studies, journal writing, collaborative

learning, visual-based instruction, in-class writing, problem-solving, drama, debates, role

playing and simulation (Bonwell & Eison, 1991; Sivan, Wong Leung, Woon & Kember,
 16

2000; Yoder & Hochevar, 2005). In learner-centered instruction, educational objectives

determine instructional formats, power is shared by students and instructors and teaching

methods are adapted to accommodate students’ diverse needs. Students are engaged

participants rather than passive participants in the learning process (Barr & Tagg, 1995;

Dupin-Bryant, 2004;' Schuch, 2004; Weimer, 2002;

www.usip.edu/lct/characteristics.shtml). Students help to determine how learning tasks

are organized and engage in a sharing of ideas in a less structured classroom setting

(Hancock, Bray & Nason, 2002).

Learner-centered instruction indicates a promotion of active teaching which

makes students responsible for learning and often employs team-based learning

approaches (Felder & Brent, 1996). Through the use of these methods, the professor is

viewed primarily as a coach, facilitator and guide rather than an imparter of information

or evaluator. The created culture is cooperative, reflective and supportive instead of

competitive and individualistic (Huba & Freed, 2000; Weimer, 2002).

Learner-centered instruction is based upon andragogical principles. Andragogy

views instructors as facilitators with students who are performance-centered, independent

learners who acquire information best through application (Knowles, 1980). Instructional

practice based upon andragogical principles establishes a physical and psychological

climate conducive to learning; assists learners in the identification of resources and

effective strategies to accomplish stated objectives; and engages learners in evaluating

their own learning. Learner-centered instruction is also consistent with the Learning

Paradigm, which is characterized by a mission focused on producing learning rather than

providing instruction (Barr & Tagg, 1995).

 17

Instead of focusing on the transfer of knowledge, the Learning Paradigm stresses

the creation and ongoing development of learning environments that promote students’

active engagement in the learning process. In addition, faculties assume the roles of

guides and coaches and work collaboratively with students in an effort to empower them

in the learning process. Under this paradigm, faculties do more than simply impart

knowledge; they help to empower students by providing the means by which teamwork

and shared governance are promoted (Barr & Tagg, 1995; Fear et al., 2003). The

principles of learner-centered instruction are also compatible with both social work

values and the principles for good practice in undergraduate education espoused by

Chickering and Gamson (1987).

Research on the Effectiveness of Teaching Methods

Effectiveness of Teacher-Centered Instruction

Research on lecture, the primary teacher-centered instructional method, often

focuses on two primary areas: 1) determining the effectiveness of lecture compared to

other alternative teaching methods; and 2) identifying characteristics of effective lectures

compared to ineffective lectures. Provided here are general findings highlighting the

results of comprehensive reviews of research on the effectiveness of lecture. Dunkin

(1983) warns that comparative methods experiments in this area have been limited due to

lack of operational definitions of lecture, lack of fairness in the criteria used to measure

effectiveness, and the confounding effects of extraneous variables. Much of the extant

literature on the topic indicates that the effectiveness of lecture is dependent upon

intended objectives, and "…the principal factor influencing the selection of the lecture is

the nature of the instructional task" (Verner & Dickinson, 1967, p. 94).
 18

Dunkin's (1983), review of the lecture research also indicated that the

appropriateness and effectiveness of the lecture method was primarily dependent upon

teaching goals. In instances where the goals were student satisfaction or factual learning,

lecture was as effective as discussion. However, in terms of higher-order thinking skills,

and changes in attitude, lecture was less effective than discussions. In addition, for

purposes of recall as measured on a course exam, lecture was often more effective than

discussion, but less effective for promoting long-term retention (McKeachie, 1990).

McKeachie, Pintrich, Lin, and Smith's (1987) review also concluded that lecture

was as effective as other methods when measures of knowledge were employed.

However, their review of the literature also indicated that lecture, in comparison to

discussion, was less likely to promote other learning outcomes such as critical thinking

skills, problem solving and knowledge transfer. Bligh (2000) further concluded that

lecture, although as effective as other methods in transmitting information, is relatively

ineffective in teaching values, changing attitudes or teaching behavioral skills. Based on

his review of the literature, he suggests that lecture should only be used when the goal is

the acquisition of information. However, if other objectives are desired, other teaching

methods should be used. Lecture would also be an appropriate instructional strategy

when: 1) only short term retention of information is required; 2) the information is

unavailable elsewhere; 3) it is used as a means to provide directions or instructions; and

4) it is used to establish learners' interest in the subject or content (Verner & Dickinson,

1967).

With lectures, students are often engaged in the process of transcribing rather than

processing the information presented. As a result, limited higher order thinking, such as
 19

analysis and evaluation of information occurs (Speck, 2002). However, all lectures are

not equal. There is some evidence that variations in the type of lecture or lecture styles

can lead to more positive student outcomes. For example, lectures with more clarity and

expressiveness, and that are more organized and interactive, lead to more favorable

student achievement (Dunkin, 1983; Saroyan & Snell, 1997).

Effectiveness of Learner-Centered Instruction

Research on the effectiveness of learner-centered instruction in higher education

spans many academic disciplines and encompasses methods such as cooperative learning,

case studies, journal writing, collaborative learning, visual-based instruction, in-class

writing, problem-solving, drama, debates, role playing and simulation (Bonwell & Eison,

1991; Sivan, Wong Leung, Woon & Kember, 2000; Yoder & Hochevar, 2005). Provided

here are general findings highlighting the results of research in this area.

A meta-analysis of 168 college studies, conducted between 1924 and 1997,

examined the efficacy of cooperative, collaborative and individualistic learning (Johnson,

Johnson & Smith 1998). In terms of academic success, results indicated that cooperative

learning was more likely to foster increases in knowledge acquisition and retention and

higher level reasoning. In addition, the authors’ analysis indicated that cooperative

learning promoted higher self-esteem and more positive attitudes toward learning.

A study by Umback and Wawrzynski (2005) utilized two national datasets,

including the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), to examine the

relationship between student engagement and faculty practices. A total of 14,336 faculty

members from 137 colleges and universities participating in NSSE were included in the

sample. The sample also included 22,033 first-year students and 20,226 senior students
 20

from the 137 NSSE participating schools. In the study, active and collaborative

techniques were measured by the percentage of class time allocated to the following: 1)

student presentations, 2) small group activities, 3) in-class writing, and 4) teacher-student

shared responsibility for discussions and seminars. The percentage of students who

asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions was also used to measure the

active and collaborative techniques. The amount of importance faculty members

assigned to statements such as, “students should work with classmates outside of class to

prepare class assignments” was also used to measure the variable. Results indicated that

student engagement increased on campuses where faculty utilized active teaching

methods. In addition, there was a positive relationship between students’ personal social

development and the use of active teaching methods.

Trigwell and Prosser (1999) examined the relationship between instructors’ self-

reports of their approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. The sample

consisted of first year university physics and chemistry classes. Forty-six faculty

participated along with 3,956 students. Faculty completed the Approaches to Learning

Inventory which was correlated with the Study Process Questionnaire completed by

students. Findings indicated that there was a strong association between the teacher-

centered approach of information transmission and the adoption of surface approaches to

learning by students. Conversely, in courses where faculty reported employing a learner-

centered approach, students reported adopting a deep, non-surface approach to learning.

Prince (2004) noted that there are numerous obstacles to interpreting the literature

related to active learning. First, there are many distinct approaches encompassed under

broader headings such as problem-based learning, so it is a challenge to compare studies

 21

if the specific instructional method has not been clearly defined. Second, it is difficult

to compare the effectiveness of active learning due to the broad range of outcomes

examined in various studies.

To minimize these problems, in his review of the research on active learning,

which included collaborative learning, cooperative learning and problem-based learning,

specific core elements of instructional methods were examined. The studies cited

indicated that in classes that employed active engagement methods, students’ conceptual

understanding of concepts was significantly higher than in classes which used the

traditional, teacher-centered lecture approach. It is important to note that information on

class size and type of class (introductory or advanced course) was not consistently

provided.

In comparing collaborative and competitive learning methods, collaborative

teaching methods promoted academic achievement and student retention and fostered

positive student attitudes. Cooperative learning also enhanced academic achievement

and fostered the development of interpersonal skills. Although no evidence was cited to

indicate that problem-based learning enhanced academic achievement, the studies cited

did show problem-based learning facilitated longer retention of knowledge, a deeper

approach to learning and the development of life-long learning skills (Prince, 2004).

Learner-Centered Instruction in Social Work Education

Prescriptive advice is offered in the literature regarding the use of learner-

centered instructional methods in social work education. Knowles (1972) encouraged

social work educators to utilize teaching methods based upon andragogical principles.

Langer (2002) also supported this view but acknowledged that the use of lecture also had
 22

merit; whereas Gitterman (2004) proposed the need for a balance between lecture,

discussions, role play and other interactive teaching methods. Neuman and Blundo

(2000) advocated for instructional methodologies that are collaborative and similar to the

learner-center approach. Garrett (1998), and Swanberg, Platt, & Karolich (2003)

suggested implementing cooperative learning in social work research courses as a means

to reduce student resistance and enhance their learning of research concepts. Steiner,

Stromwall, Brzuzy and Gerdes (1999), advocated for the use of cooperative learning

strategies as a way to promote critical thinking, small group skills, advocacy and problem

solving. According to Lemieux (2001),

Student-centered approaches in social work education are pragmatic or problem

oriented teaching methods that generally “begin where the student is”. These
approaches promote self-awareness and reflection and use learning tools such as
experiential activities, project groups, exercise with journals, and case-based
problem solving” (p. 59).

Research evaluating the effectiveness of learner-centered instruction in social

work education has encompassed a wide range of approaches and courses. For example,

a study on the effectiveness of andragogical versus pedagogical models of instruction was

examined in an undergraduate social work research course using textbooks organized by

the respective principles of each model. Findings indicated no differences in students'

acquisition of knowledge although students indicated a preference for the andragogical

model (Nasuti, York, & Henley, 2003). A collaborative class research project

implemented in a masters level social work program resulted in students' increased

confidence and interest in research (Lundahl, 2008).

Johansen (2005), utilized online reflective journals as an active learning technique

in three sections of an undergraduate child welfare course taught over three semesters.
 23

Students reported that as a result of the online reflective journals they were more likely to

engage in online discussions, felt more connected to other students and the instructor and

became more aware of the viewpoints of others. In addition, cooperative learning

strategies increased students' sensitivity to diverse populations, increased their knowledge

of other populations, and increased their acquisition of course content (Steiner, Brzuzy,

Gerdes, & Hurdle, 2003).

A problem-based learning approach employed in an undergraduate social work

course promoted students' acquisition of course related knowledge and facilitated the

transfer of learning (Coleman, Collins, Bavlis, (2007). At the graduate level, problem-

based learning implemented in policy and practice courses resulted in positive responses

from social work students. Evaluation of the approach was based on students' subjective

feedback. Students indicated an increase in their knowledge about cultural diversity and

educational disabilities (Altshuler & Bosch, 2003).

Keller, Whittaker, and Burke (2001) examined the effectiveness of student

debates as an active learning technique in policy courses as a means to promote policy

practice skills and knowledge among graduate social work students. Findings indicated a

significant increase in knowledge ratings for topics debated compared to topics delivered

via traditional, teacher-centered instruction. Dalton and Kuhn (1998), compared a

cooperative learning model to a lecture/discussion model using a pretest/posttest

comparison group design in graduate level social work practice courses. Their findings

indicated that the cooperative learning model was more effective in promoting long-term

knowledge recall and increasing knowledge of social work history. However, there was
 24

no significant difference in rate of improvement in short term knowledge recall between

the two groups.

It is important to note that use of learner-centered instructional methods does not

negate the need for lecture. In fact, there may be situations which are more conducive to

lecture than learner-centered instructional methods. For example, the use of lecture

would be very appropriate as a means to provide direction or instructions; convey

information that is unavailable elsewhere; or introduce students to new subject or content.

Therefore, it is a more reasonable assumption that both teacher-centered and learner-

centered instructional methods can prove beneficial to enhancing various student

outcomes. As such, teaching methods should not be conceptualized as an either/or

proposition. However, the requirement that faculty recognize their goals for teaching

and utilize teaching methods that facilitate those goals is vital. Specific instructional

methods should be used with a purpose and end goal for instructional outcomes in mind.

Conceptual Models of Influences on Teaching Methods

Historically, within the realm of educational research, learning and student

outcomes have received extensive attention with a noted absence of research about

teaching, specifically in terms of theory development related to the teaching process or

explanations about how educators learn new ways of teaching and select teaching

strategies (Hill & Schrum, 2002; Nesbit, 1988; Putnam & Borko, 2000). However in

recent years, educational research has expanded to include a focus on faculty's

motivations to teach. It is recognized that teaching is a complex, multidimensional

process and there is much speculation about what motivates faculty to teach in a specific

way or to use innovative, student-focused methods.

 25

The research related to factors that influence the selection of teaching strategies

by faculty is varied. The areas of influence are broad and the literature indicates that

there are personal as well as organizational factors that influence the use of specific

teaching methods. It is important to understand these factors to begin to become more

aware of ways to facilitate the use of effective teaching methods, such as learner-centered

approaches. Discussion of three conceptual frameworks that address influences on

faculty teaching are presented.

Blackburn and Lawrence (1995)

Blackburn and Lawrence (1995), conducted a study in 1987-1988 through the

National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning at the

University of Michigan. They utilized a national, representative sample of 4,240 faculty

members from various disciplines including english, political science, sociology,

psychology, chemistry and math. In addition, the sample included nine types of

institutions including, community colleges, liberal arts colleges, research universities and

doctoral universities. Faculty members completed a mailed survey that included items

used to test the researchers’ theory that individual and institutional characteristics interact

to influence faculty motivation and behavior.

The study sought to bridge the gap in research related to faculty that either solely

examined organizational factors or personal factors. As stated by Blackburn and

Lawrence (2005):

"Most investigators have concluded that faculty behavior is likely the product of
such interactions between individual characteristics and institutional factors. In
order to answer the question of why faculty behave as they do, we must consider
both individuals' understanding of the environment in which they are teaching and
their ability and desire to meet the expectations of that environment." (p. 189).
 26

To accomplish this, the variables included in their study consisted of demographic factors

such as age, gender and ethnicity; and career variables including academic discipline and

type of institution. Additional variables analyzed included faculty members’ professional

skills, values and personality dispositions, the priorities of their institutions and faculty’s

perceptions that what they did would lead to desired outcomes (for example, that student

learning depended on their teaching effectiveness). These variables were categorized as

self-knowledge and social knowledge. Self-knowledge variables measured faculty

member’s perceived efficacy, competence and commitment. Social knowledge variables

focused on faculty members’ perceptions about the extent of colleagues’ commitment

and their institutions preference for and focus on various activities (research, teaching,

and/or service).

The researchers used multiple regression and path analysis to test their model.

Although the study did not examine specific teaching methods, results indicated that

perceptions of institutional values as well as sociodemographic factors influenced

educators’ engagement in time spent teaching. Commitment to instruction, interest in

teaching, and perceptions about institutional expectations about time spent teaching were

all shown to influence the actual amount of time allocated toward teaching.

Einarson (2001)

A study conducted by Einarson (2001) examined the influence of personal,

disciplinary and organizational variables on undergraduate faculty’s use of active

teaching methods. The study utilized secondary data from the 1992-1993 National

Survey of Postsecondary Faculty (NSPOF) which included results from 25,780 faculty

representing 817 institutions. The final sample size used in the study was 10,165
 27

undergraduate faculty. The study included respondents from research universities,

comprehensive universities, liberal arts colleges and community colleges.

Independent variables included teaching attitudes and institutional climate.

Teaching attitudes were operationally defined as the percent of work time educators

preferred to spend teaching as well as agreement with the statement that the primary

consideration for promotion should be teaching effectiveness. Institutional climate for

teaching was operationally defined as educators’ ranking of teaching facilities and

professional development funds and measurement of educators’ perceptions that their

institutions rewarded teaching more than research. The dependent variable, teaching

activities, was ranked on a continuum from promoting the least student involvement

(lectures) to promoting the most student involvement (cooperative learning). Path

analysis was used to examine the relationship between these variables and their influence

on the use of active teaching methods by undergraduate faculty.

The study’s results indicated that use of active teaching methods varied by

institution type with liberal arts colleges having the highest use of active teaching

methods. The study did not demonstrate that teaching attitudes and institutional climate

influenced active teaching methods. However, class size, discipline and gender were

predictors of the use of active teaching methods.

Colbeck, Cabrera, and Marine (2002)

The study by Colbeck, Cabrera and Marine (2002) used Motivational Systems

Theory (MST) as its theoretical foundation. In addition to demographics and experience,

the study sought to determine if three motivation variables (goals, capability beliefs, and

context beliefs) influenced teaching practices. The authors conceptualized teaching

 28

practices as instructors' use of traditional, teacher-centered lecture or their use of groups

to solve ill-defined design problems. They hypothesized that teaching practices would be

influenced by instructors' experience, training and background, teaching goals, beliefs

about their teaching skills (capability beliefs) and their perception about institutional

resources and supports for teaching (context beliefs).

The sample consisted of 426 engineering faculty from three universities which

represented 61% of all tenured and tenure-track engineering faculty at those institutions.

Data were collected through the use of a survey instrument. Demographic characteristics

were operationally defined as teaching rank, gender and ethnicity. Goals for teaching

was operationally defined as the score on a Likert-type scale with statements such as: “It

is important that undergraduate students learn from me how to function in groups,” and

“It is important that undergraduate students learn from me sensitivity to needs and

viewpoints of students from different ethnic backgrounds.” An instrument was also

developed that measured perceptions of departmental awards for teaching, beliefs about

the adequacy of resources for teaching and the teaching practices used in class during a

specified academic year.

Results from this study indicated that educators had high capability beliefs,

perceived research as being more valued by their institutions than teaching activities and

thought that resources and funding for undergraduate teaching were inadequate.

Two Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regressions were used to test the study's

hypothesis. Demographics, experience and motivational variables were significantly

associated with teaching methods. The regression models explained 28.7 % of the

variance in faculty member's use of group/design projects and 29% of the variance in
 29

faculty member's use of traditional, teacher-centered, teacher-centered teaching methods.

Within the models much of the variance was explained by the motivational variables.

Teaching goals, capability beliefs and context beliefs accounted for 20.9% of the variance

in the use of group and design projects. These variables accounted for 18.6% of the

variance in use of traditional, teacher-centered, teacher-centered teaching methods.

The current study used elements from each of the studies discussed although it

most closely replicates the Colbeck, Cabrera and Marine (2002) study and incorporates

Motivational Systems Theory as a main part of the conceptual framework. A discussion

and review of Motivational Systems Theory follows.

Conceptual Framework - Motivational Systems Theory

Motivational Systems Theory (MST) is derived from the Living Systems

Framework (LSF) which is a theory of human functioning and development that

addresses all aspects of humans as living systems. The Framework integrates biological,

environmental and non-motivational psychological and behavioral processes in

understanding human functioning and behavior. The LSF views human behavior as a

function of the interaction between people and their environment. It is a:

Comprehensive theory of human functioning and development that integrates

scientific and professional knowledge about the characteristics of people in
general (nomothetic knowledge) and the organization and operation of the
characteristics in individual persons (idiographic knowledge) (Ford, 1992, p. 19).

The abundance of motivational theories has limited the ability to view motivation

in a comprehensive manner. Martin Ford’s Motivational Systems Theory (1992)

addresses this problem.

The primary theoretical rational for Motivational Systems theory (MST) is the
urgent need for a conceptual framework that addresses the consensus, cohesion
and integration in the field of motivation. MST attempts to bring coherence to the
 30

field by providing a clear, concise and comprehensive conceptualization of the

basic substance and organization of motivational patterns and by showing how
other theories can be understood within this integrative framework (Ford, 1992, p.
244).

The goals of MST are: conceptual clarity, theoretical integration, heuristic utility

for guiding research, practical utility for addressing real-world problems and infusing the

field of motivation with a developmental orientation that views motivational patterns as

exhibiting both stability and variability.

A major strength of MST is that it is a composite theory that identifies the major

elements of motivation while simultaneously linking these elements to other motivational

theories. Ford selects 32 motivational theories, identifies their limitations and addresses

them and incorporates them into one comprehensive framework. Theories cited include

both classic and contemporary theories of motivation including Social Cognitive Theory,

Psychoanalytic Theory, Achievement Goal Theory, and Field Theory, to name a few.

On pages 174-200 of Motivating Humans Ford provides a thorough, elaborate table that

illustrates the interconnectedness of the elements of MST and these theories of

motivation.

An additional strength of MST is that it incorporates the three main elements of

motivation which focus on the direction, energization and regulation of behavior patterns.

According to Ford, these terms refer to “where people are heading and what they are

trying to do”, how people get “turned on or off” ”, and “how people decide to try

something, stick with it or give up” (pg. 3). Ford refers to these as personal goals,

emotions and personal agency beliefs and stresses that these elements work in

conjunction with each other to produce behavior. Ford represents this relationship with

the following heuristic (i.e. nonmathematical) equation:

 31

Motivation = Goals x Emotions x Personal Agency Beliefs

“MST is grounded in the premise that motivation provides the psychological basis
for individuals’ development of competence….and a desired consequence of
motivation is achievement, the attainment of a personally or socially valued goal
within a specific context” (Colbeck et al., 2002, p. 2).

Goals

Personal goals are defined as “thoughts about desired or (undesired) states or

outcomes that one would like to achieve (or avoid)” (Ford,1992, p. 248). MST asserts

that goals are critical because they represent both the consequences an individual is trying

to achieve and because they direct the processes the individual uses to produce the

consequences. As such, goals serve a leadership or guiding capacity in that they direct

motivational patterns and how they are pursued. To do so, however, goals must move

beyond “wishful thinking” and be clearly defined and highly prioritized over other

competing goals.

The Ford and Nichols Taxonomy of Human Goals (Ford, 1992) identifies six

distinct headings by which 24 goals are classified. Three of the broad categories of goals

(affective, cognitive and subjective organization) address within-person consequences.

The other broad categories of goals (task, self-assertive social relationship and integrative

social relationship) address consequences regarding people and their environment.

Affective goals focus on the maintenance of optimal levels of arousal and include

happiness, tranquility and physical well-being goals. Cognitive goals relate to outcomes

regarding thinking and perception and include understanding and intellectual creativity

goals. Subjective organization goals focus on states that people want to experience that

involve the interaction of complex thoughts and feelings and include unity and
 32

transcendence goals. Social relationship goals relate to promotion of self (self-assertive

goals) or the promotion of others (integrative goals). Self-assertive relationship goals

include individuality, self-determination and resource acquisition goals whereas

integrative relationship goals include social responsibility, belongingness and resource

provision goals.

Emotions

Emotional arousal processes are organized functional patterns that consist of

affective, physiological and transactional components that serve both a regulatory and

energizing function (Ford, 1992). Emotions provide insight into a person’s interaction

with their environment and the extent to which they perceive goals as being attainable

(Colbeck, Cabrera & Marine, 2002; Einarson, 2001; Ford, 1992). Emotions are often

transient and of limited importance in impacting behavior unless connected to a current

goal to which a person has attached some value or importance. Emotions influence

learning, decision making and problem solving and therefore provide insight, though not

direct information, into desired goals. Different types of emotions serve unique

purposes. For example, instrumental emotions (such as anger or fear) may serve to assist

with the ability to cope with difficult situations. In contrast, social emotions (such as

embarrassment or guilt) may serve to ensure that behavior conforms to social

expectations (Ford, 1992).

Personal Agency Beliefs

Personal agency beliefs are “evaluative thoughts involving a comparison between

a desired consequence (a goal) and an anticipated consequence (expectations about what

will happen if the goal is pursued)” (Ford, 1992, p. 251).

 33

There are two types of personal agency beliefs: capability beliefs and context

beliefs. Capability beliefs refer to a person’s judgment that they have the ability, skill or

aptitude to accomplish a goal and are primarily a function of the person’s subjective

evaluation of their own ability. Context beliefs refer to a person’s perceptions of the

extent to which their environment is a “responsive environment” that will facilitate their

acquisition of a particular goal through the provision of resources, social supports and

rewards. Context beliefs encompass a person’s subjective evaluation of the resources,

supports and/or barriers that an environment presents in regards to goal acquisition.

The acknowledgement of capability and context beliefs is important because

people’s perceptions about their own abilities as well as their perceptions about the

conduciveness of environments to achieve their goals may serve as catalysts to enhance

skills and create opportunities. But, it is also important to note that “positive capability

and context beliefs are not sufficient, however, for desired outcomes to occur.

Ultimately, people still must have relevant skills and a responsive environment” (Ford,

1992, p.251).

Ford developed a taxonomy of personal belief patterns that demonstrates the

relationships between capability and context beliefs (Table 2). The “Robust Pattern” is

the most desired as it is a combination of strong capability beliefs and positive context

beliefs. The “Hopeless Pattern” is the least desired as it is a combination of both weak

capability beliefs and negative context beliefs.

 34

Table 2. The Motivational Systems Theory Taxonomy of Personal Belief Patterns

CAPABILITY BELIEFS

Strong Moderate or Weak

Variable

Positive Robust Pattern Modest Pattern Fragile Pattern

CONTEXT
BELIEFS

Neutral or Tenacious Vulnerable Self-Doubting

Variable Pattern Pattern Pattern

Negative Accepting or Discouraged Hopeless

Antagonistic Pattern Pattern
Pattern
(Ford, 1992, p. 134)

Rationale for Selection of MST

Motivational Systems Theory can be useful for understanding the factors that

influence undergraduate social work faculty’s use of learner-centered teaching methods.

Given the expansive information and theories relative to motivation, it is important to

note the reason for selection of this theory over others. The strength of Motivational

Systems Theory is that it addresses the problems of conceptual narrowness, lack of

cohesion and consensus and lack of practical utility common to many other theories of

motivation. As a comprehensive model, MST provides a conceptual framework that

builds on the strengths of the other theories of motivation by combining them into a

logical whole.

In addition, the theory’s grounding in an even broader framework that assesses

human functioning from a person-in-environment perspective supports the values and

 35

ideals of the social work profession and provides a theoretical and conceptual model

consistent with the profession’s view of human behavior. Also, by focusing on the

process of change, and differentiating between characteristics of the person and context

characteristics, the theory promotes an ability to understand how various factors influence

behavior.

Additionally, there is evidence of the empirical testability of MST. For example,

in the Colbeck, Cabrera and Marine (2002) study, the combination of motivational

variables for goals, personal beliefs and context beliefs accounted for 20% of the variance

in participants’ use of selected teaching strategy. This lends support to the MST’s

potential explanatory power. MST has a high level of internal consistency, as this is one

of the primary purposes of the theory- to enhance conceptual clarity by removing the

ambiguity about the boundaries that separate motivational and non-motivational

phenomena and clearly define specific motivational concepts. Finally, the theory is fairly

parsimonious with clearly identified concepts and has an adequate level of replicability as

it has been tested in empirical studies.

Motivational Systems Theory has been tested empirically in undergraduate

education, though not specifically in social work education. MST’s comprehensiveness

and grounding in a perspective that supports the values and ideals of the social work

profession make it an ideal model for understanding the use of learner-centered

instructional methods by undergraduate social work faculty.

Research Questions

The primary research questions guiding this study were:

1. What are the teaching goals of undergraduate social work faculty?

 36

2. How confident are undergraduate social work faculty in their ability to perform

specific teaching behaviors?

3. How do undergraduate social work faculty perceive the adequacy of teaching

resources within their colleges or universities?

4. What instructional methods are used by undergraduate social work faculty?

5. To what extent do teaching goals, capability beliefs about teaching, and perceived

adequacy of teaching resource predict undergraduate social work faculty's use of

learner-centered teaching methods after controlling for years of teaching experience,

race, gender and rank?

Summary

In undergraduate education, student learning outcomes are influenced by a

multitude of factors including class size, students’ learning styles and motivation and

teaching methods employed by instructors. A prominent research focus is the debate

between the use of teacher-centered methods or learner-centered methods. Lecture is an

effective pedagogical method for the transmission of information. However, this method

is limited in that it does not promote higher order thinking and is relatively ineffective in

teaching values, changing attitudes or teaching behavioral skills. In contrast, active

teaching methods such as collaborative learning and problem based learning have

demonstrated effectiveness in enhancing student outcomes including information

retention, academic achievement and critical thinking skills.

The empirical evidence that documents the effectiveness of learner-centered

instruction in social work education and other disciplines, coupled with its similarities to

core social work values lends credibility to the need to integrate learner-centered
 37

instruction at l. As a comprehensive theory of motivation, Motivational Systems Theory

can be used to identify factors that facilitate or impede the use of learner-centered

instruction by undergraduate social work faculty.

 38

Chapter 3. Methodology

Chapter three describes the study’s research methods and includes the following

sections: research design, population and sampling method, data collection,

instrumentation, and data analysis procedures.

Research Design

The design employed in this study was a descriptive quantitative research design

in which the teaching practices of undergraduate social work faculty and the factors

associated with those practices were investigated using a web-based survey instrument.

An examination of the extant literature reveals that this study is the first to quantitatively

assess the motivational aspects of teaching practices of undergraduate social work

faculty.

The primary research questions guiding this study were:

Research Question 1

What are the teaching goals of undergraduate social work faculty?

Research Question 2

How confident are undergraduate social work faculty in their ability to perform specific

teaching behaviors?

Research Question 3

How do undergraduate social work faculty perceive the adequacy of teaching resources

within their colleges or universities?

Research Question 4

What instructional methods are used by undergraduate social work faculty?

 39

Research Question 5

To what extent do teaching goals, capability beliefs about teaching, and perceived

adequacy of teaching resource predict undergraduate social work faculty's use of

learner-centered teaching methods after controlling for years of teaching experience,

race, gender and rank?

Hypothesis 5.1

Teaching goals, capability beliefs about teaching, and perceived adequacy of teaching

resources will explain a significant amount of variance in undergraduate social work

faculty's use of learner-centered teaching methods after controlling for years of teaching

experience, race, gender and rank.

Population and Sampling Method

The population of the current study was undergraduate social work educators at

schools accredited by the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE). The target

population consisted of undergraduate social work faculty with a minimum of one-year

undergraduate social work education teaching experience that were employed to teach in

an undergraduate social work program during Spring, 2008. Participants were recruited

via the Association of Baccalaureate Program Directors (BPD) listserv. BPD

membership is not required to subscribe to the listserv that has over a thousand

participants including BSW directors, faculty, administrators and others

(www.bpdonline.org). An e-mail was sent to all subscribers of the listserv (Appendix A).

E-mails were also sent directly to approximately 400 accredited undergraduate programs

with contact e-mails listed on the Council on Social Work Education’s (CSWE) website.
 40

The e-mail included a description and purpose of the study, a link to the web-

based survey, and the researcher’s contact information. In addition, the e-mail stipulated

that participation in the study was voluntary and completely anonymous and that

completion of the survey would serve as consent to participate in the study. The e-mail

also contained a request to forward the e-mail to any other faculty who met the criteria

for inclusion in the study.

Power Analysis

The power of a study refers to the probability of rejecting a null hypothesis when

the null hypothesis is false. In other words, power is the probability that the null

hypothesis will be rejected when it should be rejected, thereby avoiding a Type II error.

(Cohen, 1988; Kerlinger & Lee, 2000; Mertler & Vannata, 2002; Newton & Rudestam,

1999; Rubin, 2007). "Power is a direct function of four variables: alpha (significance)

level, sample size, effect size, and the type of statistical test being conducted" (Newton

and Rudestam, 1999, p. 71). For multiple regression analysis, the number of predictor

variables (i.e. independent variables) used in the model must also be considered.

Statistical power analysis guides decision-making about sample size and is recommended

for the purpose of estimating required sample size before conducting a research study

(Rubin, 2007). In a priori power analysis, alpha and effect size are used to determine the

adequate size of a sample needed for a study.

The first factor related to power, alpha level, also known as the level of

significance, determines the probability of committing a Type I error (rejecting a "true"

null hypothesis). In the social sciences, the standard is .05. The second element, effect

size, is a measure of the strength or magnitude of the relationship between two or more
 41

variables in the population that is desired to be observed. A small effect size is 0.02,

medium is 0.15 and large is 0.35. (Cohen, 1998; Mertler & Vannata, 2002;). The final

element that has an effect on the minimum sample size needed is the number of

independent (predictor) variables there are in the model.

In this study, the following variables were used as control variables in the model:

gender, race, years of undergraduate social work teaching experience and rank. The eight

predictor variables used in the model were teaching skills, perceived adequacy of

teaching resources and six teaching goals. The desired amount of power, effect size and

alpha were all established a priori based on the standards for social science research. It

was determined that in order to demonstrate standard statistical power of .80 for a level of

significance set at .05, with a medium effect size of 0.15, a sample size of 114 was

needed for the hierarchical multiple regression analyses. The standard formula of

N>50+8k was utilized in which k is the number of predictor variable (Newton &

Rudestam, 1999). As this study included 169 faculty members, and the minimum number

required is 114, this study exceeded the above requirements.

Data Collection

Data collection occurred through the use of an online survey. This method was

employed to facilitate participation in the study, promote ease and convenience for

respondents and to reduce the chance of human error common with data entry (Lefever,

Dal, & Matthíasdóttir, 2007; Van Selm, & Jankowski, 2006). Data collection commenced

upon review of the protocol by the Case Institutional Review Board, Office of Research

Compliance. Since the present study did not involve collecting identifiable private

information, IRB Protocol Number 20080219 did not fit the definition of human subject
 42

research and therefore did not require exemption status, further IRB review, or IRB

approval.

The online survey company, SurveyMonkey was used to develop the survey and

store responses. All participants submitted the electronic surveys anonymously. No

individually identifiable information was collected. To further ensure anonymity,

respondents’ IP addresses were not stored with survey results. There were no known risks

to participants as all responses were anonymous and the survey instrument did not

contain questions of a sensitive nature. The benefit to participants was that they were

able to contribute to the body of knowledge focusing on teaching practices in

undergraduate social work education.

Information about the purpose of the study, and other elements of informed

consent were included in the initial e-mail (Appendix A) as well as on the website where

the survey was located. Specifically, the cover page of the web-based survey provided a

description of the study, information on voluntary participation, directions for how to

navigate through the survey, and the researcher’s name and University affiliation.

Respondents’ submission of the survey indicated their voluntary consent to participate in

the study. Access to the survey was available for three weeks in April, 2008. The cover

page and survey instrument are available in Appendix B. Data entered via the website

was downloaded and analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

(SPSS) v. 12.0.1.

Instrumentation

Figure 2 details the variables used in the study. Control variables included: race,

gender, rank, and years of undergraduate teaching experience. The dependent variable
 43

was teaching practices and the independent variables were teaching goals, beliefs about

teaching capabilities, and perceived adequacy of teaching resources.

Figure 2. Variables and Measurement

VARIABLES OPERATIONAL DEFINITION

CONTROL
VARIABLES
GENDER Male; Female
RACE Black/African American; White; American Indian/Alaska Native;
Asian; Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander; Other
RANK Instructor; Assistant Professor; Associate Professor; Professor
YEARS OF Number of years of teaching experience in an undergraduate social
TEACHING work program.
EXPERIENCE
DEPENDENT
VARIABLE
TEACHING Composite score related to the use of three learner-centered teaching
PRACTICES methods (Seminars/Class Discussions, Experiential Learning/Role
Play, Cooperative Learning Groups) rated on a scale of: 1 – Never;
to, 4 – Almost Always.
INDEPENDENT
VARIABLES
TEACHING GOALS Teaching Goals Inventory (TGI)
(Angelo & Cross, 1993)
TEACHING Self-Efficacy Toward Teaching Inventory-Adapted (SETI-A)
CAPABILITIES (Prieto & Altmaier, 1994; Tollerud, 1990)
TEACHING Composite score related to perceived adequacy of eight types of
RESOURCES teaching resources rated on a scale of: 1 – Not Available; to, 5 –
(CONTEXT Outstanding.
BELIEFS)

Dependent Variable

The dependent variable in this study was use of learner-centered teaching

methods. It was operationalized as a continuous variable. The scale used to measure this

variable consists of three types of teaching activities: 1) Seminars/class discussions; 2)

Role plays/simulations; and 3) Group projects/cooperative learning. The teaching

method "extensive lecturing" was included for descriptive purposes. Respondents were
 44

asked to identify one course (Practice, Research, Policy, HBSE, Field, Other), that they

were presently teaching and indicate on a scale of 1-Never to 4- Almost Always, how

often they used each of the activities in the specific course that they identified. The

scores on the scales could range from 3 (never using the methods) to 12 (almost always

using the methods). In the current study, a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of .47 was

obtained for this scale.

Independent Variables

The independent variables used in this study were: 1) teaching goals; 2) teaching

skills (capability beliefs); and 3) perceived adequacy of teaching resources (context

beliefs).

Teaching Goals Inventory (TGI; Angelo & Cross, 1993)

Teaching goals were measured using the 53-item Teaching Goals Inventory (TGI)

developed by Angelo and Cross (1993). The TGI is a self-assessment of instruction goals

comprised of 52 specific goal statements. For each goal statement, respondents indicate

the level of importance on a five point scale: (5) Essential - a goal the respondent always

or nearly always tries to achieve; (4) Very Important; (3) Important; (2) Unimportant;

and (1) Not Applicable- a goal the respondent never tries to achieve. The 53rd item asks

respondents to indicate how they perceive their primary role as teaching professor related

to the six clusters. Instructions for the TGI clarify that the assessment of the importance

of each goal should be specifically related to what respondents deliberately aim to have

students accomplish (Angelo & Cross, 1993). The 52 goal statements form the following

six goal clusters:

 45

1. Higher-Order Thinking Skills

2. Basic Academic Success Skills

3. Discipline Specific Knowledge And Skills

4. Liberal Arts And Academic Values

5. Work And Career Preparation

6. Personal Development.

The six goal cluster scores are computed by calculating the mean for each cluster. In the

current study, the mean scores for each cluster were used for descriptive purposes. For

the multiple regression analyses, the sum of each subscale item was used (Gohagan, 200).

The TGI is designed to be completed for a specific course. In the present study,

participants were asked to select a specific course that they were currently teaching.

Course categories were as follows: Policy, Practice, Research, HBSE, Field, Other

(please specify).

Validity and Reliability

The validity and reliability of a survey instrument is important since this is what

allows a researcher to say that the instrument used in the study actually measures what it

was designed to measure. It also allows the researcher to say how consistent the

instrument is at measuring the designed constructs on the survey. For this reason, the

validity and reliability of the TGI has been established through various methods including

an extensive review of the literature, building on previous research related to instructional

goals, evaluation of the instrument by an expert panel consisting of 85 faculty

development educators, and multiple field tests.

 46

Between 1986 and 1990, the instrument was tested with almost 5,000 educators at

private and public institutions, community colleges and four-year institutions. Cronbach’s

alpha was computed to determine the reliability and internal consistency of each of the

clusters for the final version of the instrument administered in 1990 (Angelo & Cross,

1993). The alpha coefficients for the clusters Higher-order Thinking Skills, Basic

Academic Success Skill, and Discipline-Specific Knowledge and Skills were .77, .79,

and .71 respectively. For the clusters Liberal Arts and Academic Values, Work and

Career Preparation, and Personal Development, alpha coefficients were .84, .85, and .86,

respectively. According to Nunnally and Bernstein (1994), instruments with a reliability

of a least .70 are acceptable.

In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha was also computed to determine the

reliability and internal consistency of each of the clusters of the Teaching Goals

Inventory as well as the total scale. The alpha coefficients for the clusters Higher-order

Thinking Skills, Basic Academic Success Skill, and Discipline-Specific Knowledge and

Skills were .84, .85, and .78 respectively. For the clusters Liberal Arts and Academic

Values, Work and Career Preparation, and Personal Development, alpha coefficients

were .85, .87, and .91, respectively.

The second independent variable used in this study focused on undergraduate

social work faculty members' capability beliefs about their teaching skills.

Self-Efficacy Toward Teaching Inventory-Adapted (SETI-A; Prieto & Altmaier,

1994; Tollerud, 1990).

Capability beliefs about teaching were measured using the Self-Efficacy Toward

Teaching Inventory-Adapted (SETI-A). The SETI-A is comprised of 32 items related to

 47

specific teaching behaviors. The SETI-A measures respondents’ confidence in their

ability to perform specific teaching behaviors related to the following areas: course

preparation, instructor behavior, managing course materials, and evaluation. For each

item, participants rank their confidence in their ability to perform teaching behaviors

using a Likert scale ranging from 1 (not confident) to 4 (completely confident). Total

summed scores for the SETI-A can range from 32 (indicating a response of "not

confident" on all items) to 128 (indicating a response of "completely confident" on all

items) (Prieto & Altmaier, 1994). The original Self-Efficacy Toward Teaching Inventory

(SETI) developed by Tollerud (1990), is comprised of 35 items and one additional

domain: clinical skills training.

Validity and Reliability

The validity and reliability for the SETI has been established through the

development of the instrument which included various methods including an extensive

review of the literature and the use of experts in the field to identify teaching behaviors

deemed important for teaching of counselor education, a review of the instrument by six

senior-level faculty in Counselor Education, Counseling Psychology and Education, and

review of the instrument by a 24-member group of experienced counselor educators at an

institution different from that of researcher (Prieto & Altmaier, 1994; Tollerud, 1990).

The SETI’s internal consistency is .94 (Tollerud,1990). The SETI-A’s internal

consistency ranges from .93 to .94 (McCrea, 2006; Prieto & Altmaier, 1994; Prieto &

Meyers, 1999). In the current study, a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of .96 was obtained

for the SETI-A which is comparable to the reliability established in previous studies.
 48

The final independent variable used in this study focused on undergraduate social

work faculty members' beliefs about the perceived adequacy of teaching resources.

Perceived Adequacy of Teaching Resources

Derived from the Colbeck, Cabrera and Marine study (2002), context beliefs

were measured as a composite score related to perceived adequacy of eight types of

teaching resources: clerical support, release time, computer hardware, computer software,

library resources, audio/visual equipment, faculty development and professional support.

Respondents were asked to rate the adequacy of each resource at their college or

university on a scale of 1) – Not Available, to 5) – Outstanding. In the current study, a

Cronbach's alpha coefficient of .86 was obtained for this scale.

Data Analysis Procedures

The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS v 12.0.1) was used to

conduct all analyses of the data which included univariate descriptive analyses, bivariate

analyses and multivariate analyses. Analyses were determined based upon the levels of

measurement of the variables and the specific research question under investigation.

Univariate Analysis

Univariate analysis involves describing the distribution of cases for a single

variable. Univariate frequencies and descriptive statistics including means and other

measures of central tendency, and standard deviations and other measures of dispersion

were calculated for the study variables (Babbie, 2004). Descriptive statistics were

employed to provide a summary of the characteristics of the sample and to determine the

extent to which variables approximated a normal distribution (Babbie, 2004; Mertler &

Vannatta, 2002). This was done for exploratory purposes to ensure that assumptions
 49

required for multivariate analysis were met including the normal distribution of variables.

This examination also included an assessment of skewness and kurtosis and identifying

potentially influential outliers. Skewness and kurtosis are both used to determine the

extent to which a distribution approximates a normal curve. Alternatives such as

removing outliers or transforming data were considered if necessary assumptions were

not met (Babbie, 2004; Kerlinger & Lee, 2000; Mertler & Vannatta, 2002; Newton &

Rudestam, 1999).

Frequency tables provided information on the number and percentage of

participants that comprised the different categories for the discrete variables. Frequency

distributions were computed for the following demographic variables: gender, race,

ethnicity, rank and primary teaching area. Frequencies were also computed to present

sample characteristics relative to responses on the study's independent and dependent

variables. These variables included: teaching resources, teaching goals, capability beliefs

about teaching and instructional methods used.

Measures of central tendency, such as the mean and median, and measures of

dispersion, such as the standard deviation and the range are appropriate for variables at

the interval or ratio level of measurement (Weingach & Grinnell, 2008). These measures

were computed for the variables: years of undergraduate social work education teaching

experience, teaching resources, teaching goals and capability beliefs, and teaching

practices.

Bivariate Analysis

Bivariate analysis is appropriate for examining the relationship between two

variables and serves an explanatory rather than descriptive function (Babbie, 2004). An
 50

examination of the bivariate relationships of variables is recommended prior to

performing regression analysis (Rubin, 2007; Mertler & Vannatta, 2002; Newton &

Rudestam,1999) At the bivariate level of analysis, correlational procedures were used to

examine the relationship between the variables explored in the study and to identify

potential issues related to multicollinearity. Multicollinearity refers to high correlations

between two or more independent (predictor) variables that may distort regressions

solutions or regression analysis due to overlapping variability. In essence, the variables

are likely to be measuring the same thing (Rubin, 2007; Mertler & Vannatta, 2002;

Newton & Rudestam,1999). Common methods used to detect multicollinearity are to

examine the correlation matrix of the predictor variables and to use one of two statistical

procedures: tolerance or variance inflation factor (VIF). The problem of

multicollinearity is reflected in correlations of .80 or higher, tolerance values that are less

than 0.10 and values of VIF >10 (Mertler & Vannatta, 2002).

Multivariate Analysis

Hierarchical Multiple Regression

Multiple regression analysis determines the magnitude and direction of the impact

two or more predictor (independent) variables have on a criterion (dependent) variable.

The advantage of multiple regression analysis is the ability to simultaneously examine the

relationship of the independent variables to the dependent variable. The multiple

regression model examines the impact an individual independent variable has on the

dependent variable while accounting for the other variables in the model. The multiple

regression equation identifies the amount of variation in the outcome variable that is
 51

explained by the predictor variables (Mertler & Vannatta, 2002; Newton & Rudestam,

1999; Rubin, 2007; Weinback & Grinnell, 2007).

The three strategies or methods by which predictor variables can be entered into a

regression analysis are: standard multiple regression, stepwise multiple regression and

hierarchical multiple regression. Selection of a multiple regression procedure is

dependent upon the goals of a study. To simply describe the relationship between

variables, standard multiple regression is appropriate. With this strategy, all predictor

variables are entered simultaneously. There is no consideration of causal explanations

and no elimination of variables. Stepwise regression is often used in exploratory studies

when the goal is to reduce a large number of predictor variables by identifying those that

most accurately predict the criterion variable. Variables are entered sequentially but the

computer determines the order (and addition or subtraction of variables) based solely on

statistical decision making criteria. The researcher does not control the order of entry

(Mertler & Vannatta, 2002; Newton & Rudestam, 1999).

Hierarchical multiple regression should be used when the research purpose is to

test a theoretical model (Mertler & Vannatta, 2002). In hierarchical multiple regression,

the number of predictor variables and the order of entry of the variables is based on some

theoretical rationale and is controlled by the researcher rather than the computer.

Hierarchical multiple regression is also useful to control for confounding caused by

extraneous factors (Mertler & Vannatta, 2002; Newton & Rudestam, 1999; Rubin, 2007).

In hierarchical multiple regression, the order of entry of variables into the equation is

based on the conceptual model as well as the need to remove the influence of extraneous

variables. In this instance, in order to remove all of the variability caused by extraneous
 52

variables, those variables would be entered first into the model, followed by the variables

that are of importance to testing the theoretical model (Newton & Rudestam, 1999).

Since the goal of this study was to test the theoretical (conceptual) model of Motivational

Systems Theory (MST), while controlling for experience and demographic variables,

hierarchical multiple regression was the appropriate regression procedure.

Two multiple regression models were constructed to examine whether

motivational variables were significantly related to the use of learner-centered teaching

methods after controlling for the influence of experience and demographic variables. In

Model 1, the control variables: gender, race, years of undergraduate teaching experience,

and rank, were entered into a multivariate regression equation to predict teaching

practices. In Model 2, the predictor variables, teaching goals, beliefs about teaching

capabilities and beliefs about teaching resources were entered to ascertain the amount of

variance explained by the predictor variables and the amount of variance explained by the

model as a whole. This was done to remove all of the variability in teaching practices

explained by experience and demographic variables prior to assessing the effect of

motivation variables (Newton & Rudestam, 1999).

To facilitate the use of categorical variables in the regression analyses, dummy

coding was employed. Dummy coding permits the use of nominal or ordinal level data

in statistical techniques that require interval or ratio level data. The variable must be

dichotomous and coded using 1 and 0. If a variable has more than two groups, a series of

dummy variables must be created. “The number of dummy variables entered into a

regression equation is always one less than the number of categories of the categorical

variable being dummy coded” (Newton & Rudestam, 1999, pg. 190). Gender was
 53

dummy coded (female=1); as was race (white=1). Rank was included in the regression

analyses through the use of 3 dummy variables: assistant professor, associate professor

and professor. Each dummy variable used the values of one or zero for "other". Zeroes

on all three dummy variables describes the reference group, "instructor".

Summary

Presented in this chapter were the study's research methods, population and

sample and data collection procedures. The design employed in this study was a

descriptive quantitative research design in which the teaching practices of 169

undergraduate social work faculty and the factors associated with those practices were

investigated through a web-based survey instrument. Participants were recruited via the

Association of Baccalaureate Program Directors (BPD) listserv and contact information

provided on the Council on Social Work Education's (CSWE) website. The desired

amount of power, effect size and alpha were all established a priori based on the

standards for social science research. It was determined that in order to demonstrate

standard statistical power of .80 for a level of significance set at .05, with a medium

effect size of 0.15, a sample size of 114 was needed for the hierarchical multiple

regression model that included four control variables and eight predictor variables.

Demographic variables included: race, gender, ethnicity, rank, years of

undergraduate teaching experience and primary teaching area. The dependent variable

was teaching practices and the independent variables were teaching goals, beliefs about

teaching capabilities, and perceived adequacy of teaching resources. A discussion of the

data collection instruments included details about reliability and validity of scales. The

Teaching Goals Inventory (TGI) and Self-Efficacy Toward Teaching Inventory - Adapted
 54

(SETI-A) had established reliability from previous studies. In addition, in the current

study, the Cronbach’s alpha was computed for both scales, each of which demonstrated

acceptable reliability and internal consistency.

Data collection procedures and methods of analysis were also discussed.

Univariate frequencies and descriptive statistics including means and other measures of

central tendency, and standard deviations and other measures of dispersion were

calculated for the study variables (Babbie, 2004). Descriptive statistics were employed to

provide a summary of the characteristics of the sample and to determine the extent to

which variables approximated a normal distribution. At the bivariate level of analysis,

correlational procedures were used to examine the relationship between the variables

explored in the study and to identify potential issues related to multicollinearity. Since the

goal of this study was to test the theoretical (conceptual) model of Motivational Systems

Theory (MST), while controlling for demographic variables, hierarchical multiple

regression was deemed the appropriate regression procedure.

 55

Chapter 4. Results

This chapter contains the results of the survey and findings of the statistical

analyses of the data to address the research questions posed in this study. Within this

chapter, characteristics of the sample are presented. In addition, descriptive information

on the study's dependent and independent variables are provided, followed by the results

of multivariate analyses. Findings are reported by research question.

Descriptive Statistics for the Sample

A total of 180 surveys were started. However, of that number 11 were omitted

because the respondent only answered a few of the items making the survey unusable.

This brought the final sample to 169 questionnaires. Table 3 provides descriptive data on

the sample.

Gender

In this sample, respondents were primarily female (71%).

Race and Ethnicity

Of the respondents that indicated their race, 84% were White, 13% were Black, 2.5%

were American Indian or Alaskan Native and less than 1% was Asian. Four percent did

not respond to the question. Four percent of the participants indicated they were Spanish,

Hispanic or Latino.

Rank

The majority of faculty in the sample was associate professors (44.9%). Assistant

professors comprised 29.9% of the sample, followed by professors at 16.8%. Only 8.4%

of faculty in the sample was ranked at the instructor level. Two faculty members did not

respond to this question.

 56

Teaching Experience

Faculty members' years of undergraduate social work teaching experience ranged from

1 year to 44 years with a mean of 12.47 years (SD = 8.87).

Primary Teaching Area

The majority of faculty in the sample indicated practice was their primary teaching area

(37.9%). The other primary teaching areas reported were: research (14.2%), policy

(13.6%), Human Behavior (HBSE) (11.8%), and field instruction (8.3%). In addition,

11.2% of faculty indicated they taught across the curriculum and did not have one

primary teaching area. Less than two percent reported their primary teaching area as

electives (1.8%) or introductory social work courses (1.2%).

 57

Table 3. Descriptive Data for Demographic Variables

Variable N Percent

Gender

Male 49 29

Female 120 71

Race
21 13
Black/African American

White 136 84

American Indian/Alaskan Native 4 2.5

Asian 1 0.6

Rank

Instructor 14 8.4

Assistant Professor 50 29.9

Associate Professor 75 44.9

Professor 28 16.8

Primary Teaching Area

Practice 64 37.9

Research 24 14.2

Policy 23 13.6

HBSE 20 11.8

Field 14 8.3

Across the Curriculum 19 11.2

Other 5 3.0
 58

Data Analysis of Research Questions

This section presents the analyses related to each research question. Each

question and analysis will be presented individually.

Research Question 1

What are the teaching goals of undergraduate social work faculty?

Teaching goals were measured using the Teaching Goals Inventory (TGI) which

is completed for a specific course that is indicated by the respondent. In responding to

the items related to teaching goals, the majority of faculty (38.5%) selected a practice

course. Other courses selected were research (18.9%), human behavior (14.9%), policy

(12.4%) and field (6.5%). Almost 9% of faculty selected a course that did not fit into the

proceeding categories.

Independent-samples t-tests were computed to determine if there were significant

differences in the mean Teaching Goal Inventory Cluster scores for gender and race.

Scores for males and females did not differ significantly on any of the clusters. However,

for the cluster "Basic Academic Success Skills", there was a significant difference in the

scores for whites (M=3.65, SD=0.67) and non-whites (M=3.98, SD=0.52); t(160)=2.403,

p=.02. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated that there were no significant

differences in the mean Teaching Goal Inventory Cluster scores across rank.

Of the six goals clusters, higher-order thinking skills ranked highest with a mean

of 4.52 (SD=.47), followed by discipline-specific knowledge and skills with a mean of

4.05 (SD=.55) and personal development with a mean of 3.96 (SD=.80). Table 4 provides

the means and standard deviations for all six clusters. More than 50% of faculty rated

eighteen teaching goals as "essential". The three teaching goals most often rated
 59

"essential" by faculty were: develop ability to think holistically (72.5%), develop ability

to distinguish between fact and opinion (71.4%); and develop capacity to make informed

ethical choices (67.9%) (Table 5).

Table 4. Teaching Goals Inventory (TGI) - Means and Standard Deviations

Goal Cluster M SD

I. Higher-Order Thinking Skills 4.52 0.47

II. Basic Academic Success Skills 3.70 0.65

III. Discipline-Specific Knowledge and Skills 4.05 0.55

IV. Liberal Arts and Academic Values 3.72 0.63

V. Work and Career Preparation 3.72 0.72

VI. Personal Development 3.96 0.80

 60

Table 5. Teaching Goals Rated "Essential" by More than 50% of Faculty

Item Percent

1. Develop ability to think holistically: to see the whole as well as the parts 72.5
2. Develop ability to distinguish between fact and opinion 71.4
3. Develop capacity to make informed ethical choices 67.9
4. Develop ability to synthesize and integrate information and ideas 66.9
5. Develop problem solving skills 65.7
6. Develop analytical skills 64.5
7. Develop capacity to think for oneself 64.5
8. Develop respect for others 61.9
9. Learn to understand perspectives and values of this subject 58.6
10. Cultivate an active commitment to honesty 55.7
11. Learn concepts and theories in this subject 55.6
12. Develop ability to apply principles and generalizations already learned 55.0
to new problems and situations
13. Improve writing skills 54.4
14. Develop an openness to new ideas 54.4
15. Develop capacity to make wise decisions 53.8
16. Develop ability to draw reasonable inferences from observations 53.3
17. Develop an informed appreciation of other cultures 52.4
18. Develop ability to think creatively 50.6
 61

Of the six goals clusters, the means for higher-order thinking skills was highest

for each of the courses taught ranging from 4.45 to 4.75. This indicated that regardless of

course taught, faculty ranked the higher order thinking skills cluster as very important to

essential. However, for faculty that selected practice or field as the course taught, the

second highest mean was for the goal of personal development (4.09 and 4.42). In

comparison, for faculty that selected research or policy as the course taught, the second

highest mean was for the goal cluster of discipline specific knowledge and skills (4.32

and 4.05). For faculty that selected HBSE as the course taught, the second highest mean

was for the following two goal clusters: personal development, and work and discipline

specific knowledge and skills (4.02).

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated that there was a statistically

significant difference in the Personal Development goal cluster scores for the six course

taught groups (F(5, 163) = 2.72, p=.02). Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test

indicated that the mean score for the group that selected research as the course taught (M

= 3.61, SD =0.71) was significantly different than the group that selected field as the

course taught (M = 4.42, SD = 0.73).

There was also a statistically significant difference in the Discipline Specific

Knowledge and Skills goal cluster scores for the six course taught groups (F(5, 163) =

2.53, p=.03). Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean

score for the group that selected research as the course taught (M = 4.32, SD =0.43) was

significantly different than the group that selected practice as the course taught (M =

3.98, SD = 0.72). Table 6 provides the means and standard deviations for all six clusters

by course taught.
 62

Table 6. TGI Clusters by Course Taught (M and SD)

Goal Cluster Practice Research Policy HBSE Field Other

(N=65) (N=32) (N=21) (N=25) (N=11) (N=15)
M M M M M M
(SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD)

I. Higher-Order 4.49 4.50 4.45 4.58 4.75 4.52

Thinking Skills (0.45) (0.49) (0.43) (0.48) (0.47) (0.56)

II. Basic Academic 3.65 3.84 3.57 3.80 3.74 3.56

Success Skills (0.60) (0.72) (0.63) (0.58) (0.96) (0.58)

III. Discipline Specific 3.98 4.32 4.05 4.02 4.09 3.81

Knowledge & (0.47) (0.43) (0.59) (0.58) (0.78) (0.62)
Skills

IV. Liberal Arts and 3.68 3.58 3.89 3.91 3.77 3.68
Academic Values (0.62) (0.63) (0.55) (0.61) (0.78) (0.64)

V. Work and Career 3.79 3.82 3.67 3.49 4.07 3.40

Preparation (0.62) (0.71) (0.68) (0.77) (0.93) (0.83)

VI. Personal 4.09 3.61 3.75 4.02 4.42 3.96

Development (0.74) (0.71) (0.78) (0.92) (0.73) (0.90)
 63

The majority of faculty (41.9%) ranked "helping students develop higher order

thinking skills" as their primary teaching role. Fostering student development and

personal growth was the second highest ranking response (22.2%), followed by preparing

students for jobs/careers (16.8%). See Table 7 for additional rankings. In addition, within

each of the primary teaching roles, the highest mean score was for TGI Cluster I –

Develop Higher Order Thinking Skills (Table 8).

Table 7. Percentage and Rank Order of Faculty Primary Teaching Role

Primary Teaching Role N %

Helping students develop higher order thinking skills 70 41.9

Fostering student development and personal growth 37 22.2

Preparing students for jobs/careers 28 16.8

Teaching students the facts and principles of the subject 16 9.6

matter

Providing a role model for students 14 8.4

Helping students develop basic learning skills 2 1.2

Total 167 100

 64

Table 8. TGI Clusters by Primary Teaching Role (M and SD)

Providing a role model for students.

Preparing students for jobs/careers.

Fostering student development and

Helping students develop higher
principles of the subject matter.
Teaching students the facts and

Helping students develop basic

order thinking skills.

personal growth.

learning skills.
Goal Cluster
4.37 4.46 4.62 4.38 4.50 4.94
I. Higher-Order Thinking Skills (0.56) (0.33) (0.41) (0.59) (0.47) (0.09)

3.51 3.74 3.68 3.54 3.88 4.61

II. Basic Academic Success Skills (0.69) (0.55) (0.65) (0.71) (0.57) (0.24)

4.08 4.06 4.05 3.96 4.05 4.75

III. Discipline Specific Knowledge (0.53) (0.35 (0.58) (0.58) (0.54) (0.35)
& Skills

3.54 3.86 3.85 3.54 3.67 4.10

IV. Liberal Arts and Academic (0.72) (0.68) (0.62) (0.63) (0.54) (0.42)
Values
3.51 3.89 3.65 3.73 3.85 4.50
V. Work and Career Preparation (1.11) (0.52) (0.65) (0.75) (0.67) (0.71)

3.61 4.29 3.84 3.94 4.19 4.56

VI. Personal Development (1.08) (0.71) (0.83) (0.79) (0.55) (0.63)
 65

For the most part, the primary teaching role selected by faculty did not differ

much across courses taught. Across all courses, with the exception of field, the majority

of faculty selected "preparing students for jobs/careers" as their primary teaching role.

Over half of the 11 faculty who selected field as the course taught selected "preparing

students for jobs/careers" as their primary teaching role. Table 9 provides the

percentages for faculty primary teaching role by course taught.

Table 9. Primary Teaching Role, in percent, by Course Taught

Primary Teaching Role Practice Research Policy HBSE Field Other

(n=64) (n=31) (n=21) (n=25) (n=11) (n=15)

Teaching students the facts 7.8 9.7 14.3 8.0 9.1 13.3
and principles of the subject
matter

Providing a role model for 7.8 12.9 0.0 16.0 0.0 6.7
students

Helping students develop 42.2 38.7 57.1 48.0 9.1 40.0

higher order thinking skills

Preparing students for 21.9 9.7 4.8 8.0 54.5 13.3

jobs/careers

Fostering student 18.8 25.8 23.8 20.0 27.3 26.7

development and personal
growth

Helping students develop 1.6 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

basic learning skills
 66

Research Question 2

How confident are undergraduate social work faculty in their ability to perform specific

teaching behaviors?

Faculty members' scores on the Self-Efficacy Toward Teaching Inventory-

Adapted (SETI-A) ranged from 78 to 128 with a mean score of 113.4 (SD=12.47).

Independent-samples t-tests did not indicate significant differences in the mean SETI-A

scores for gender or race. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) also did not indicate

significant differences in SETI-A scores across rank or course taught. For all 32 items,

the mean score was no lower than 3.23 (Table 10). With the exception of only five items,

more than 50% of faculty indicated they were "completely competent" in their ability to

be effective in the teaching skills and behaviors which comprised the SETI-A (Table 11).
 67

Table 10. SETI-A - Means and Standard Deviations

Item M SD
1. State goals and objectives clearly for class 3.77 0.45
2. Plan lectures 3.69 0.51
3. Write a course syllabus 3.78 0.46
4. Plan discussions 3.59 0.59
5. Plan class exercises 3.62 0.56
6. Select textbooks for the class 3.56 0.62
7. Select readings for the class 3.59 0.54
8. Develop student assignments 3.61 0.53
9. State class grading criteria 3.64 0.61
10. Deliver lectures 3.60 0.56
11. Initiate class discussion 3.66 0.57
12. Draw students into discussions 3.51 0.69
13. Communicate at a level that matches students’ ability to comprehend 3.38 0.63
14. Ask open, stimulating questions 3.50 0.60
15. Encourage participation of women and minorities in class 3.66 0.52
16. Respond to individual differences in an inclusive way 3.46 0.58
17. Manage student disagreements with instructor 3.33 0.65
18. Communicate consistently both verbally and nonverbally 3.46 0.61
19. Show respect for student ideas and abilities 3.75 0.46
20. Respond to students’ questions 3.65 0.53
21. Respond in a timely manner to student difficulties 3.60 0.56
22. Respond to student emotional reactions in class 3.39 0.65
23. Integrate readings and lectures 3.46 0.60
24. Construct essay questions that require integration of content, critical 3.42 0.71
thinking, self- expression
25. Score and interpret examinations 3.51 0.64
26. Evaluate student assignments 3.52 0.60
27. Utilize exams as a learning tool 3.36 0.74
28. Provide constructive feedback on exams and assignments 3.59 0.62
29. Utilize student evaluations 3.51 0.65
30. Utilize self-evaluation in teaching 3.49 0.61
31. Arrange for constructive peer feedback and suggestions 3.23 0.76
32. Demonstrate ethical behavior 3.81 0.40
 68

Table 11. SETI-A Items Faculty Rated "Completely Competent " to Perform
Item Percent
1. State goals and objectives clearly for class 78.1
2. Plan lectures 71.6
3. Write a course syllabus 79.9
4. Plan discussions 63.9
5. Plan class exercises 65.7
6. Select textbooks for the class 62.7
7. Select readings for the class 60.9
8. Develop student assignments 62.7
9. State class grading criteria 71.4
10. Deliver lectures 63.9
11. Initiate class discussion 70.4
12. Draw students into discussions 61.5
13. Communicate at a level that matches students’ ability to comprehend 46.2
14. Ask open, stimulating questions 55.0
15. Encourage participation of women and minorities in class 68.0
16. Respond to individual differences in an inclusive way 49.7
17. Manage student disagreements with instructor 42.6
18. Communicate consistently both verbally and nonverbally 51.5
19. Show respect for student ideas and abilities 75.7
20. Respond to students’ questions 67.3
21. Respond in a timely manner to student difficulties 63.3
22. Respond to student emotional reactions in class 47.9
23. Integrate readings and lectures 51.2
24. Construct essay questions that require integration of content, critical 53.6
thinking, self- expression
25. Score and interpret examinations 58.7
26. Evaluate student assignments 57.4
27. Utilize exams as a learning tool 50.3
28. Provide constructive feedback on exams and assignments 66.1
29. Utilize student evaluations 58.6
30. Utilize self-evaluation in teaching 54.4
32. Arrange for constructive peer feedback and suggestions 42.0
32. Demonstrate ethical behavior 80.8
 69

Research Question 3

How do undergraduate social work faculty perceive the adequacy of teaching resources

within their colleges or universities?

The scale used to measure perceived adequacy of teaching resources could range

from 16 (indicating a perceived lack of availability of all resources) to 40 (indicating that

the perceived adequacy of all of the resources was "outstanding"). In this study, faculty

members' scores ranged from 16 to 40 with a mean score of 28.23 (SD=5.37).

Independent-samples t-tests were computed to determine if there were significant

differences in the mean scores for perception of teaching resources for gender and race.

Scores for whites and non-whites did not differ significantly. However, there was a

significant difference in the scores for males (M=30.33, SD=5.16) and females

(M=27.37, SD=5.23; t(163) =3.321, p=.001.

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated that there were no significant

differences in the mean scores across courses taught. However, there was a statistically

significant difference in mean scores across rank; F (3, 160) = 3.71, p=.02). Post hoc

comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for professors

(M=31.26, SD=5.07) was significantly different from associate professors (M=27.79,

SD=5.46), assistant professors (M=27.67, SD=5.01), and instructors (M=26.79,

SD=5.26).

Tables 12 and 13 provide the percentages, means, and standard deviations related

to faculty's perceptions of the adequacy of teaching resources. The majority of faculty

ranked the adequacy of 8 types of teaching resources as either satisfactory or good. More

than one-fourth of faculty ranked the following resources as outstanding: computer

 70

hardware (28.6%), computer software (25.4%), library resources (29.0%) and

audio/visual equipment (29.0%). Only a small percentage of faculty indicated some of

the teaching resources were not available: clerical support (5.9%), release time (3.0%),

faculty development (1.2%) and professional support (1.8%).

Table 12. Faculty Perceptions of the Adequacy of Teaching Resources - Percent

Not Available Inadequate Satisfactory Good Outstanding

Teaching Resources
% % % % %

Clerical Support 5.9 23.1 33.7 26.6 10.7

Release Time 3.0 33.9 34.5 25.5 3.6

Computer Hardware 0.0 6.0 25.0 40.5 28.6

Computer Software 0.0 7.7 26.6 40.2 25.4

Library Resources 0.0 7.1 26.6 37.3 29.0

Audio/visual Equip. 0.0 10.1 18.3 42.6 29.0

Faculty Development 1.2 20.7 34.9 30.8 12.4

Professional Support 1.8 18.6 35.9 32.3 11.4

 71

Table 13. Faculty Perceptions of the Adequacy of Teaching Resources - M and SD

Teaching Resources M SD

Clerical Support 3.13 1.07

Release Time 2.92 0.92

Computer Hardware 3.92 0.88

Computer Software 3.83 0.90

Library Resources 3.88 0.91

Audio/Visual Equipment 3.91 0.93

Faculty Development 3.33 0.98

Professional Support 3.33 0.97

Research Question 4

What instructional methods are used by undergraduate social work faculty?

Faculty's use of teaching methods is presented in Tables 14 through 20. An

independent-samples t-test did not indicate significant differences in the mean scores for

race. An independent samples t-test did indicate significant differences in the mean

scores for males (M=9.19, SD=1.23) and females (M=9.67, SD=1.23). Levene’s test for

equality of variances indicated that the equality of variances assumption was violated,

F(48,119) = .5.255, p = .02. Therefore, a t statistic not assuming

homogeneity of variance was computed t(107)=-2.141, p=.04. One-way analysis of

variance (ANOVA) indicated no significant differences in scores across rank or course

taught.
 72

Although 44.3% of faculty responded they usually or almost always use extensive

lecturing, 55.7% indicated they rarely or never used this teaching method. Almost the

entire sample (98.9%) responded they usually or almost always use seminars, class

discussions or class presentations. Almost three-fourths of the sample usually or almost

always used role plays, simulations exercises or experiential learning (74.4%); and 81.5%

usually or almost always used group projects or cooperative learning groups. Faculty that

taught field courses had the highest mean score for use of learner-centered methods

(10.00, SD=1.76). However, the mean scores across all courses was no less than 9.00.

Table 14. Teaching Methods Used by Percent

Almost
Teaching Method Used Never Rarely Usually
Always

Extensive Lecturing 8.4 47.3 31.7 12.6

Seminars/Class Discussions/Class Presentations 0.0 1.2 55.4 43.5
Role plays/Simulation Exercises/Experiential Learning 4.8 20.8 46.4 28.0
Group Projects/Cooperative Learning Groups 0.6 17.9 47.6 33.9
 73

Table 15 - Teaching Methods Used - Usually/Almost Always - Combined Percent

Practice Research Policy HBSE Field Other

Extensive Lecturing 39.1 58.1 57.1 36 27.3 46.7

Seminars/Class Discussions/Class 98.5 96.8 100 100 100 100

Presentations

Role plays/Simulation 89.2 59.4 38.1 80 80 80

Exercises/Experiential Learning

Group Projects/ Cooperative 81.5 90.3 85.7 68 81.9 80

Learning Groups

Table 16. Use of Extensive Lecturing by Course Taught - Percent

Practice Research Policy HBSE Field Other

Frequency of Use (n=64) (n=31) (n=21) (n=25) (n=11) (n=15)

Never 9.4 6.5 4.8 4.0 18.2 13.3

Rarely 51.6 35.5 38.1 60.0 54.5 40.0
Usually 29.7 38.7 38.1 24.0 18.2 40.0
Almost Always 9.4 19.4 19.0 12.0 9.1 6.7
 74

Table 17. Use of Seminars/Class Discussions by Course Taught - Percent

Practice Research Policy HBSE Field Other

Frequency of Use (n=65) (n=31) (n=21) (n=25) (n=11) (n=15)

Never 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Rarely 1.5 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Usually 60.0 64.5 61.9 56.0 0.0 46.7
Almost Always 38.5 32.3 38.1 44.0 100 53.3

Table 18. Use of Role Plays/Simulation Exercises by Course Taught - Percent

Practice Research Policy HBSE Field Other

Frequency of Use (n=65) (n=32) (n=21) (n=25) (n=11) (n=15)

Never 1.5 12.5 9.5 0.0 10.0 0.0

Rarely 9.2 28.1 52.4 20.0 10.0 20.0
Usually 55.4 37.5 9.5 64.0 50.0 46.7
Almost Always 33.8 21.9 28.6 16.0 30.0 33.3

Table 19. Use of Group Projects by Course Taught- Percent

Practice Research Policy HBSE Field Other

Frequency of Use (n=65) (n=31) (n=21) (n=25) (n=11) (n=15)

Never 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0

Rarely 18.5 9.7 14.3 32.0 9.1 20.0
Usually 53.8 35.5 47.6 44.0 45.5 53.3
Almost Always 27.7 54.8 38.1 24.0 36.4 26.7
 75

Table 20. Learner-Centered Teaching Methods by Course Taught (M and SD)

Practice Research Policy HBSE Field Other

M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Learner-Centered 9.68 9.39 9.19 9.32 10.00 9.73

Teaching (1.32) (1.48) (1.94) (1.14) (1.76) (1.58)
Methods

Research Question 5

To what extent do teaching goals, capability beliefs about teaching, and perceived

adequacy of teaching resource predict undergraduate social work faculty's use of

learner-centered teaching methods after controlling for years of teaching experience,

race, gender and rank?

Examination of Data

At the univariate level, outliers were detected for five of the independent

variables. Also, seven of the independent variables were not normally distributed as

assessed by skewness and kurtosis using a range of +2 to -2. A number of methods were

employed to move the distributions of these variables toward normality. These methods

included first using square root transformations of the variables which did not move all of

the variables into the normal ranges for skewness and kurtosis. Secondly, seven cases

that contained outliers were omitted and the transformed variables again assessed

(Babbie, 2004; Kerlinger & Lee, 2000; Mertler & Vannatta, 2002; Newton & Rudestam,

1999). Although these methods created more normal distributions, they did not lead to

significant changes in the results of the regression analyses. Therefore, the final

regression analyses used the original variables with no excluded cases.

 76

Prior to the analysis, data were examined to determine if any assumptions of

regression analysis were violated. The assumptions of multiple regression, normality,

linearity and homoscedasticity, can be assessed through the use of histograms, residuals

scatterplots and the normal probability plot of residuals (Mertler & Vannatta, 2002; Newton

& Rudestam, 1999). The normal probability plot of residuals "shows the distribution of

residuals compared to the actual distribution under the assumption of normality" (Newton &

Rudestam, 1999, p.111). Both the histogram of the residuals and the normal probability plot

of the residuals showed that the residuals were approximately normal. Thus, the assumption

of normality was not seriously violated.

An examination of the normal probability plot of residuals indicated moderate

violation of the assumptions of linearity and homoscedasticity. However, results of the

ANOVA tests of linearity comparing each independent variable to the dependent variable

showed that the degree of nonlinearity between the independent variable and each dependent

variable was not significant (http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/assumpt.htm). Also,

as previously discussed, removal of univariate outliers and transformations of variables did

not lead to substantial changes in the regression analyses. Also, "moderate violations of

linearity and homoscedasticity merely weaken the regression analysis, but do not invalidate it

(Mertler & Vannatta, 2002, p. 174).

Correlation Analysis

Bivariate correlations were conducted for the control variables, predictor variables

and outcome variables. These findings are presented in Table 21. The problem of

multicollinearity is reflected in correlations of .80 or higher. The Pearson product

moment correlations indicated that all variables correlated within the acceptable range

(<.80). An examination of tolerance values and VIF also indicated no problems with
 77

multicollinearity (VIF<10, Tolerance >.10) (Mertler & Vannatta, 2002). Multivariate

analyses results are presented following the discussion of the bivariate

correlational analyses.

Significant Correlations - Control and Predictor Variables

Perceived adequacy of teaching resources was negatively and significantly

correlated with gender (r = -.252); and positively and significantly correlated with the

rank of professor (r =.250). This indicated that female faculty had lower ratings for the

adequacy of teaching resources variable than male faculty; and that professors had higher

ratings for this variable than instructors. Race was negatively and significantly correlated

with the teaching goal cluster "Basic Academic Success Skills" (r = -.177). This indicated

that scores for white faculty were lower than scores for non-white faculty on this

variable. The years of teaching experience was negatively and significantly associated

with the teaching goal clusters, "Discipline Specific Knowledge and Skills" (r = -.232),

and "Work and Career Preparation" (r = -.162).

Significant Correlations - Predictor Variables

Teaching capabilities, as measured by the SETI-A, was positively and

significantly associated with the following teaching goal clusters: Higher-Order

Thinking Skills (r = .385); Basic Academic Success Skills (r = .215); Discipline Specific

Knowledge and Skills (r = .185); and Liberal Arts and Academic Values (r = .207). All

of the Teaching Goal Inventory Clusters were positively and significantly correlated with

each other ranging from r = .385 to r = .781.

Significant Correlations - Control and Outcome Variables

None of the control variables were significantly related to the outcome variable.
 78

Significant Correlations - Predictor and Outcome Variables

The outcome variable learner-centered teaching methods was positively and

significantly correlated with five of the Teaching Goal Inventory Clusters: Higher-Order

Thinking Skills(r = .268); Basic Academic Success Skills(r = .259) ; Liberal Arts And

Academic Values (r = .203); Work And Career Preparation (r = .338); and Personal

Development (r = .298).
Table 21. Correlation Matrix of the Control, Predictor and Outcome Variables
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
CONTROLS
1. Gender 1 -
2. Race 2 .017 -
3. Years Experience -.089 .095 -
4. Assistant Professor .163* -.155* -.396** -
5. Associate Professor -.079 .052 .159* -.590** -
6. Professor -.133 .158* .472** -.293** -.405** -
PREDICTORS
7. Teaching Capabilities -.116 -.018 .058 -.010 .003 .067 -
8. Teaching Resources -.252** .064 .037 -.068 -.077 250** .152 -
Teaching Goals

9. Higher-Order Thinking
Skills -.015 -.053 .088 .023 -.051 .065 .385** .062 -
10. Basic Academic Success
Skills -.078 -.177* -.144 .073 -.028 -.068 .215** -.035 .565** -
11. Discipline Specific
Knowledge and Skills .022 -.079 -.232** .117 -.013 -.103 .185* .030 .442** .632** -
12. Liberal Arts and
Academic Values .022 -.109 -.139 .072 .007 -.086 .207** -.038 .596** .651** .545** -
13. Work and Career .080 -.133 -.162* .075 -.072 -.040 .109 -.039 .456** .689** .593** .672** -
Preparation

14. Personal Development .111 -.135 -.135 .097 -.092 -.088 .079 -.021 .385** .574** .429** .624** .781** -
OUTCOME
15. Learner-Cent. Instruction .150 -.014 -.060 .114 -.083 -.100 .129 .067 .268** .259** .147 .203** .338** .298**
* p<0.05, ** p< 0.01; 1 1=Female, 0=Male; 2
1=White, 0=Non-White

79
 80

Results of Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis 5.1

Teaching goals, capability beliefs about teaching, and perceived adequacy of teaching resources

will explain a significant amount of variance in undergraduate social work faculty's use of

learner-centered teaching methods after controlling for years of teaching experience, race,

gender and rank.

To test this hypothesis, a hierarchical regression model was used to determine if Motivational

Systems Theory factors were predictors of use of learner-centered teaching methods by faculty after

controlling for race, gender, years of teaching experience and rank. In the first step, the control

variables were entered as a block. These variables included years of teaching experience; a dummy

variable for race; a dummy variable for gender; and 3 dummy variables for rank. In the second step,

the eight predictor variables were entered as a block. These variables included teaching capabilities,

perceived adequacy of teaching and the six teaching goal clusters.

Table 22 presents the hierarchical regression results for testing this hypothesis. Model 1

indicated that experience and personal characteristics accounted for a non-significant portion of

the variability in undergraduate social work educators’ use of learner-centered teaching methods

(F (6, 150) =1.221, p>.05). The second model included the predictor variables (teaching

capabilities, perceived adequacy of teaching resources and teaching goals) in addition to the
2 2
experience and background variables. Model 2, R =.216, adj. R =.138, F(14, 142) = 2.787;

p=.001 was statistically significant and explained 21.6% of the variance in respondents’ use of

learner-centered teaching methods.

 81

2
An examination of the R change indicated that the predictor variables accounted for

16.9% of the explained variance, over and above the 4.7% explained by the control variables

themselves. The Teaching Goal Inventory cluster “Work and Career Preparation” was the only

motivation variable that was significantly associated with the use of learner-centered teaching

methods (β=.343, p<.05). The amount of variance explained by the motivation factors was

significant after controlling for the experience and demographic factors (F (8, 142) =3.823,

p<.001). Therefore, this hypothesis was supported.

Summary

This chapter presented the analyses related to each of the five research questions and

results of hypothesis testing. Findings indicate that undergraduate social work faculty rank

higher-order thinking skills as the most essential teaching goal; and consider "helping students

develop higher order thinking skills" as their primary teaching role. In addition, results show that

overall, undergraduate social work faculty were highly confident about their ability to effectively

perform teaching activities. In addition, the majority of faculty perceived the adequacy of

teaching resources as either satisfactory or good. Faculty used multiple teaching methods,

including extensive lecture. Faculty reported a high level of use of learner-centered methods.

Findings suggest that Motivational Systems Theory factors influence the use of learner-centered

teaching methods. Specifically, teaching goals were significant predictors of the use of learner -

centered methods.
 82

Table 22. Hierarchical Regression for Predicting Use of Learner-Centered Methods

Model 1 Model 2

Variable B SE B β B SE B β
Gender .387 .262 .120 .470 .259 .146
Race .056 .325 .014 .246 .308 .062
Years Exp. .010 .017 .061 .013 .017 .079
Rank
Assistant Professor -.242 .457 -.076 -.213 .433 -.067
Associate Professor -.647 .468 -.221 -.566 .450 -.193
Professor -.888 .578 -.227 -1.103 .563 -.282

Teaching Capabilities .008 .010 .071

Teach Resources .039 .022 .144

Higher Order Thinking Skills .066 .042 .165

.027 .031 .108

Basic Academic Success Skills

Discipline Specific Knowledge -.051 .035 -.153

and Skills

Liberal Arts and Academic -.033 .028 -.138

Values
.089 .037 .343*
Work and Career Preparation
.004 .026 .021
Personal Development

R2 .047 .216

Adjusted R2 .008 .138

R2 Change .169

F for change in R2 1.221 3.823

Note: Rank was represented as three dummy variables with instructor serving as the reference group.
*p<.05
 83

Chapter 5. Discussion

This chapter provides a discussion of the study's findings Implications for undergraduate

social work education are also presented. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the study's

limitations and recommendations for future research.

Discussion of Findings

Research Question 1

What are the teaching goals of undergraduate social work faculty?

Of the six goal clusters, promoting students' higher-order thinking skills ranked as the

highest teaching goal among undergraduate social work faculty. In addition, regardless of course

taught, faculty ranked the higher order thinking skills cluster as very important to essential.

These findings are consistent with other research that indicated that teaching goals are discipline

specific and that faculty in the humanities and social sciences are likely to report higher order

thinking skills as a primary teaching goal (Angelo & Cross, 1993); and that across disciplines,

faculty goals for undergraduate education emphasize developing students' ability to think

critically (Lindholm, Szelényi, Hurtado, & Korn, 2005).

The majority of faculty in the study also ranked "helping students develop higher order

thinking skills" as their primary teaching role. This role was consistent across courses taught

with the exception of faculty teaching field courses who selected "preparing students for

jobs/careers" as their primary teaching role. This finding was expected as field instruction

courses are usually the "capstone" courses in the undergraduate social work curriculum requiring

the integration and use of content from all of the other curriculum areas (practice, human

behavior, research and policy). This is also the primary mechanism by which social work
 84

students gain hands-on experience in the practice of social work and one of the last educational

experiences prior to entering the professional social work arena. In addition, previous research

has indicated that across disciplines, 73% of undergraduate faculty deem as essential the goal of

preparing students for employment and/or advanced education (Lindholm, Szelényi, Hurtado, &

Korn, 2005).

The purpose of social work programs is to prepare professionals who are competent and

effective and are capable of providing leadership in the development of service delivery systems

(Council on Social Work Education, 2001). Undergraduate social work faculty are therefore

charged with preparing graduates for generalist social work practice by helping them to acquire

knowledge, skills and basic competencies that transcend employment settings and practice areas.

Undergraduate social work faculty must teach students how to engage in ethical decision making

and problem resolution, evaluate the effectiveness of their practice, maintain professional

accountability and effectively manage complex cases.

In this light, it is evident that the promotion of higher order thinking skills is both a

necessary and vital teaching goal for undergraduate social work faculty. In fact, this teaching

goal is consistent with multiple core competencies required by the Council on Social Work

Education's Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS) related to critical thinking,

employing evidence based interventions, and applying social work ethical principles

(www.cswe.org). Therefore, the finding that the social work faculty in this study indicated the

importance of promoting critical thinking as a teaching goal is to be lauded because it provides

some evidence that the goals of undergraduate education align with its purpose and mission.
 85

Research Question 2

How confident are undergraduate social work faculty in their ability to perform specific teaching

behaviors?

Overall, undergraduate social work faculty were highly confident about their ability to

effectively perform teaching activities ranging from planning discussions and class exercises to

drawing students into discussions. Although the reported teaching self-efficacy of the faculty

members was very high, these findings were not surprising when viewed in context of the rank

and years of experience of the participants. More than half of the faculty (61.7%) were ranked at

the associate professor level or higher. In addition, on average, faculty in this study had over 12

years of teaching experience. Therefore, since most of the items on the SETI-A related to

common teaching activities, it is reasonable that experienced faculty would report high levels of

confidence.

A number of the items on the SETI-A were particularly consistent with the mission and

goals of social work education and the social work profession, such as "respond to individual

differences in an inclusive way"; "demonstrate ethical behavior"; " encourage participation of

women and minorities in class"; and "show respect for student ideas and abilities". Therefore,

faculty's confidence in these areas may be less related to their role as educators and more directly

linked to their own educational and professional socialization as social workers.

Research Question 3

How do undergraduate social work faculty perceive the adequacy of teaching resources within

their colleges or universities?

 86

In this study, the majority of faculty perceived all eight types of teaching resources as

either satisfactory or good. Very few faculty indicated the unavailability of any of the teaching

resources. Because most of the teaching resources, such as computer hardware and software,

library resources and audiovisual equipment, are fairly ubiquitous on college and university

campuses, this finding was expected. It is important to note that, for the most part, faculty also

perceived faculty development, professional support, release time and clerical support to be

satisfactory as well. However, faculty were more likely to report these teaching resources as not

available or inadequate (20.4% to 36.9%) compared to the former four types of teaching

resources (6.0% to 10.1%). These findings indicate that tangible teaching resources are readily

available for most of the faculty. However, these findings also point to the need for the provision

of additional resources in the form of professional development.

The finding that professors were more likely to perceive teaching resources as more

readily available than faculty at any other rank is revealing. Because the actual availability of

resources was not measured, this finding is open to multiple interpretations. It may speak to the

need for university and departmental administrators to engage in more outreach to junior faculty

in an effort to make them more aware of the resources that are available. Or, the issue may be

related to junior faculty member's access to and eligibility for those resources, particularly

faculty development and professional support.

Research Question 4

What instructional methods are used by undergraduate social work faculty?

All social work faculty utilized learner-centered instructional methods to some degree.

However, in terms of the use of extensive lecture, the sample was divided with 44.3% of faculty
 87

responding they usually or almost always used this method and 55.7% indicating they rarely or

never used this teaching method. As expected, faculty teaching research and policy courses were

more likely to report frequent use of this teacher-centered method compared to faculty who

taught practice, field and human behavior courses. This may be attributed to the fact that in

social work education, students often approach policy and research courses with fear and

apprehension and are the courses with which students have the most difficulty (Anderson &

Harris, 2005; Swanberg, Platt, & Karolich, 2003).

Since policy and research content is often difficult for students to grasp, the need to

focus on the transmission of information may become paramount, naturally leading to the use of

lecture. However, it is significant to note that research and policy faculty also employed learner-

centered strategies to a large degree. This finding is consistent with the idea that teacher and

learner-centered strategies are not mutually exclusive but may be used in conjunction with each

other to facilitate positive student outcomes.

The types of learner-centered strategies used were also related to course taught. Since

practice, human behavior and field courses focus on content and learning objectives that are

conductive to the use of role plays and simulations, it is not surprising that over 80% of faculty

teaching in these areas reported the use of this teaching method. Also, because learner-centered

strategies often parallel core social work values such as empowerment, and the individual’s right

to participate in the helping process, it was expected that social work educators would utilize

teaching methods that provide an opportunity to model the values and skills that they teach.
 88

Research Question 5

To what extent do teaching goals, capability beliefs about teaching, and perceived adequacy of

teaching resource predict undergraduate social work faculty's use of learner-centered teaching

methods after controlling for years of teaching experience, race, gender and rank?

Hypothesis 5.1

Teaching goals, capability beliefs about teaching, and perceived adequacy of teaching resources

will explain a significant amount of variance in undergraduate social work faculty's use of

learner-centered teaching methods after controlling for years of teaching experience, race,

gender and rank.

This hypothesis was supported. However, findings indicated that teaching goals were the

only motivation variables significantly related to the use of learner-centered teaching methods.

There are several possible interpretations that can explain this finding. First, although the

instrument used to measure faculty members' capability beliefs about teaching had established

reliability and validity, it focused on general teaching behaviors and teaching efficacy. The

scales lack of a specific focus on teaching behaviors associated with the use of learner-centered

teaching strategies may have limited its utility in predicting the use of learner-centered teaching

methods among this group. Second, the scale used to measure learner-centered teaching

practices had very low reliability. This requires all findings to be interpreted with caution.

Finally, it is possible that there were other teaching resources that were not included in the study

that may have demonstrated an influence on teaching behaviors. However, this finding does

support the use of Motivational Systems Theory in understanding factors that influence the use

of learner-centered teaching methods among undergraduate social work faculty.

 89

Limitations of the Study

There were a number of limitations to this study. The population was selected using a

non-probability sampling method. This limits the external validity of the study and the ability to

generalize the findings. Another limitation is that faculty were recruited via e-mail. Although e-

mail is widely available and it can be reasonably assumed that faculty have access to it, it is also

likely that this method of data collection may have been uninviting to some faculty members. As

a result, the participants in this study may not be truly representative of the majority of

undergraduate social work faculty.

An additional limitation was that the instrument used to measure learner-centered

instruction was developed by the researcher and lacked a high degree of reliability. Although the

items in the scale were selected based on information in the literature, the absence of a pilot

study to test the instrument was problematic. In addition, participants in the study were not

provided with uniform definitions of each of the teaching methods. As such, it is likely that

faculty may have had varying personal interpretations and definitions of each method which they

used to respond to the items. The instrument used to measure participants capability beliefs about

teaching may also have been a limitation. The instrument measured self-efficacy related to

teaching but did not specifically focus on learner-centered instruction. As such, it is possible that

this study failed to capture an actual relationship that exists between these constructs.

Finally, although the study was based upon constructs identified in Motivational Systems

Theory, all of the constructs were not included. Emotions were not included in this study

because the focus was on faculty members' sustained use of learner-centered teaching methods.

As described by Ford (1992), emotions are often transient and provide some insight thought not
 90

direct information into desired goals. So, although the use of the theory in this study was

consistent with other studies, the omission of this aspect of the theory can be viewed as a

limitation.

Implications

This study provides insight into the selection and use of learner-centered teaching

methods by undergraduate social work faculty and provides a foundation upon which further

inquiry into the relationship between motivational factors and selection of teaching methods in

undergraduate social work education can be based. The results of this study support the use of

Motivational Systems Theory as a means to understand the process of teaching.

A major implication of the study is the need for social work programs and faculty to give

greater attention to the relationship between teaching goals and teaching methods.

Awareness of and focus on teaching goals could help faculty to identify the potential conflicts

between what they seek to accomplish as educators and what they actually do. In addition, social

work programs could be encouraged to promote training programs that emphasize the

importance of identifying goals for teaching to increase faculty's awareness of how their goals

for teaching may influence or impede their use of learner-centered teaching methods.

It is important to note that the areas in which faculty had the highest perceptions of

adequacy of resources related to tangibles that are often vital for research (computer hardware

and software, library resources, and audio/visual equipment). However, any commitment by

undergraduate social work education to promote the use of learner-centered instructional

methods must incorporate the provision of necessary resources which may include additional

clerical support, and increased opportunities for release time, faculty development and
 91

professional support. This is particularly significant since many faculty lack formal training in

how to teach or the effectiveness of competing teaching methods. So, if assistance is not

provided, it is likely that despite an innate enthusiasm and intention to use more effective

teaching methods, faculty may revert to what they know - the standard lecture.

The results of this study also point to the need to enhance the availability of all resources

particularly for female and junior faculty. Ensuring equality of access or perceived availability

of resources is especially significant in social work education which should strive to model the

values and ideals of the social work profession. The issue may be one of perception or reality.

For example, the problem may lie in the lack of mentoring opportunities available to female and

junior faculty who may be simply unaware of the institutional supports that are available. On

the other hand, it is possible that in social work education, as in higher education in general,

there continues to exist disparities in terms of resources related to rank which is linked to gender.

Future Research

The results of this study, which must be interpreted with caution due to the study's

limitations, provide a foundation for recommendations for future research in the area. First,

future research should employ random samples as well as the inclusion of a qualitative

component. This is necessary not only to facilitate the generalizability of findings but also to

provide a more in-depth understanding of how motivational factors may impede or influence the

use of learner-centered instructional methods in undergraduate social work education. In

addition, future research in this area should employ an established measure of teaching practices

along with definitions for each method.

 92

The study's finding that faculty were extremely confident in their ability to perform

various teaching behaviors could be further explored by incorporating actual measures of

performance. In other words, do faculty members' perceptions of their teaching capabilities align

with their actual abilities? Additionally, it is important to determine the extent to which the use

of learner-centered instruction methods by undergraduate social work faculty actually maximizes

student outcomes.

Future studies should also incorporate some emotional aspect of teaching as a means to

further understand how faculty make decisions about which instructional methods to use. For

example, teaching can be conceptualized as a combination of an educator's expertise, energy and

enthusiasm. Enthusiasm or passion for teaching could be vital emotional elements necessary to

gain a greater understanding of this topic and could build upon the other concepts in MST (goals

and personal agency beliefs).

Finally, future research in this area should examine the relationship between the use of

learner-centered instruction in undergraduate education and the primary teaching area and types

of institutions. This study's findings indicate that there is a relationship between the specific

course taught and use of learner-centered teaching methods. But future research can delve further

into the relationship between a faculty member's general teaching area and likelihood of using

learner-centered methods. For example, are practice faculty more likely than research faculty to

use learner-centered instruction regardless of if they teach a course in their particularly area?

This may be an important area of study because some areas of social work education (i.e., field

instruction and practice) may align more naturally with principles of learner-centered instruction

than other areas (i.e, research and policy).

 93

Future research should also focus on the relationship between types of institutions and

use of learner-centered methods by undergraduate social work faculty. For example, it may be

that undergraduate social work faculty at liberal arts institutions are more likely to use learner-

centered methods because of a greater institutional focus on (and rewards for) teaching. In

comparison, use of learner-centered teaching methods by undergraduate social work faculty at

research universities may be impeded by an institutional climate in which there is greater

emphasis on and rewards for research, grants and publications.

 94

Appendices
Appendix A

E-mail Subject Heading:

Dissertation Research: Undergraduate Social Work Educators Needed

I am a doctoral student at the Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve
University. I am also a faculty member at Southern University, Baton Rouge, LA. This study is
related to my doctoral dissertation and the focus is on the relationship between teaching goals,
perceptions about teaching ability and perceptions about the adequacy of teaching resources on
teaching practices.

If you are currently employed to teach in an undergraduate social work program and have a
minimum of one-year undergraduate social work education teaching experience, I ask you to
complete the online survey located at:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=zY6gwVZfN6hZLwLU_2bZmx2w_3d_3

Your participation is completely voluntary and anonymous and there are no known risks or harm
to participants. Completing the online survey will serve as your consent to participate in this
study.

Thank you for contributing to the body of knowledge on undergraduate social work educators
and undergraduate social work education. Please feel free to forward this e-mail to any other
faculty that you know who may meet the selection criteria.

Sincerely,

Roslyn C. Richardson, MSW, GSW

Doctoral Candidate
Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences
Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland, OH 44106
 95

Appendix B

Online Survey

This survey is open to anyone currently employed to teach in an undergraduate social work
program with a minimum of one-year undergraduate social work education teaching experience.

The survey will be used to identify your teaching goals, perceptions about your teaching ability,
your perceptions about the adequacy of teaching resources, and your actual teaching practices as
an undergraduate social work educator.

This survey will take about 20-25 minutes to complete. Your participation is completely
voluntary and anonymous. Completing this survey will serve as your consent to participate in
this study.

To progress through this survey:

Click "Next" to continue to the next page.
Click "Previous" to return to the previous page.
Click "Done" to submit your survey.
Click "Exit this Survey" to leave the survey.

Thank you for your participation!

Roslyn C. Richardson, MSW, GSW

Doctoral Candidate
Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences
Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland, OH 44106
 96

Please rate how confident you are in your ability to be effective in each of the following teaching
skills and behaviors on a scale of 1-Not Confident to 4-Completely Confident.

NC---------CC
1. State goals and objectives clearly for class 1 2 3 4
2. Plan lectures 1 2 3 4
3. Write a course syllabus 1 2 3 4
4. Plan discussions 1 2 3 4
5. Plan class exercises 1 2 3 4
6. Select textbooks for the class 1 2 3 4
7. Select readings for the class 1 2 3 4
8. Develop student assignments 1 2 3 4
9. State class grading criteria 1 2 3 4
10. Deliver lectures 1 2 3 4
11. Initiate class discussion 1 2 3 4
12. Draw students into discussions 1 2 3 4
13. Communicate at a level that matches students’ ability to comprehend 1 2 3 4
14. Ask open, stimulating questions 1 2 3 4
15. Encourage participation of women and minorities in class 1 2 3 4
16. Respond to individual differences in an inclusive way 1 2 3 4
17. Manage student disagreements with instructor 1 2 3 4
18. Communicate consistently both verbally and nonverbally 1 2 3 4
19. Show respect for student ideas and abilities 1 2 3 4
20. Respond to students’ questions 1 2 3 4
21. Respond in a timely manner to student difficulties 1 2 3 4
22. Respond to student emotional reactions in class 1 2 3 4
23. Integrate readings and lectures 1 2 3 4
24. Construct essay questions that require integration of content, critical 1 2 3 4
thinking, and self-expression
25. Score and interpret examinations 1 2 3 4
26. Evaluate student assignments 1 2 3 4
27. Utilize exams as a learning tool 1 2 3 4
28. Provide constructive feedback on exams and assignments 1 2 3 4
29. Utilize student evaluations 1 2 3 4
30. Utilize self-evaluation in teaching 1 2 3 4
31. Arrange for constructive peer feedback and suggestions 1 2 3 4
32. Demonstrate ethical behavior
 97

Please select ONE course you are currently teaching. Please rate the importance of each goal to
the specific course you have selected.

Assess each goal’s importance to what you deliberately aim to have your students accomplish,
rather than the goal’s general worthiness or overall importance to your institution’s mission.
There are no “right” or “wrong” answers.

Please identify one course that you are currently teaching.

__Practice
__Research
__Policy
__HBSE
__Field
__Other (please specify) ________________

In relation to the course that you are focusing on, indicate whether each goal you rate is:

Not applicable - a goal you never try to achieve

Unimportant - a goal you rarely try to achieve
Important - a goal you sometimes try to achieve
Very important - a goal you often try to achieve
Essential - a goal you always or nearly always try to achieve

Very Important

Not Applicable
Unimportant
Rate the importance of each goal to what you Important
Essential

aim to have students accomplish in your course

1. Develop ability to apply principles and generalizations already 5 4 3 2 1

learned to new problems and situations
2. Develop analytical skills 5 4 3 2 1
3. Develop problem solving skills 5 4 3 2 1
4. Develop ability to draw reasonable inferences from observations 5 4 3 2 1
5. Develop ability to synthesize and integrate information and 5 4 3 2 1
ideas
6. Develop ability to think holistically: to see the whole as well as 5 4 3 2 1
the parts
7. Develop ability to think creatively 5 4 3 2 1
8. Develop ability to distinguish between fact and opinion 5 4 3 2 1
9. Improve skill at paying attention 5 4 3 2 1
 98

Very Important

Not Applicable
Unimportant
Rate the importance of each goal to what you

Important
Essential
aim to have students accomplish in your course

10. Develop ability to concentrate 5 4 3 2 1

11. Improve memory skills 5 4 3 2 1
12. Improve listening skills 5 4 3 2 1
13. Improve speaking skills 5 4 3 2 1
14. Improve reading skills 5 4 3 2 1
15. Improve writing skills 5 4 3 2 1
16. Develop appropriate study skills, strategies, and habits 5 4 3 2 1
17. Improve mathematical skills 5 4 3 2 1
18. Learn terms and facts of this subject 5 4 3 2 1
19. Learn concepts and theories in this subject 5 4 3 2 1
20. Develop skill in using materials, tools, and/or technology central 5 4 3 2 1
to this subject
21. Learn to understand perspectives and values of this subject 5 4 3 2 1
22. Prepare for transfer or graduate study 5 4 3 2 1
23. Learn techniques and methods used to gain new knowledge in 5 4 3 2 1
this subject
24. Learn to evaluate methods and materials in this subject 5 4 3 2 1
25. Learn to appreciate important contributions to this subject 5 4 3 2 1
26. Develop appreciation of the liberal arts and sciences 5 4 3 2 1
27. Develop an openness to new ideas 5 4 3 2 1
28. Develop an informed concern about contemporary social issues 5 4 3 2 1
29. Develop commitment to exercise the rights and responsibilities 5 4 3 2 1
of citizenship
30. Develop a lifelong love of learning 5 4 3 2 1
31. Develop aesthetic appreciations 5 4 3 2 1
32. Develop an informed historical perspective 5 4 3 2 1
33. Develop informed understanding of the role of science and 5 4 3 2 1
technology
34. Develop an informed appreciation of other cultures 5 4 3 2 1
35. Develop capacity to make informed ethical choices 5 4 3 2 1
36. Develop ability to work productively with others 5 4 3 2 1
37. Develop management skills 5 4 3 2 1
38. Develop leadership skills 5 4 3 2 1
39. Develop a commitment to accurate work 5 4 3 2 1
40. Improve ability to follow directions, instructions, and plans 5 4 3 2 1
41. Improve ability to organize and use time effectively 5 4 3 2 1
 99

Very Important

Not Applicable
Unimportant
Rate the importance of each goal to what you

Important
Essential
aim to have students accomplish in your course

42. Develop a commitment to personal achievement 5 4 3 2 1

43. Develop ability to perform skillfully 5 4 3 2 1
44. Cultivate a sense of responsibility for one’s own behavior 5 4 3 2 1
45. Improve self-esteem/self-confidence 5 4 3 2 1
46. Develop a commitment to one’s own values 5 4 3 2 1
47. Develop respect for others 5 4 3 2 1
48. Cultivate emotional health and well-being 5 4 3 2 1
49. Cultivate physical health and well-being
50. Cultivate an active commitment to honesty 5 4 3 2 1
51. Develop capacity to think for oneself 5 4 3 2 1
52. Develop capacity to make wise decisions 5 4 3 2 1

53) In general, how do you see your primary role as a teacher?

1) Teaching students the facts and principles of the subject matter

2) Providing a role model for students
3) Helping students develop higher order thinking skills
4) Preparing students for jobs/careers
5) Fostering student development and personal growth
6) Helping students develop basic learning skills

The following items relate to specific teaching methods and activities. For each item, please
indicate how often you use each of the following activities in the specific course that you
identified.

Never Rarely Usually Almost

Always
1. Extensive lecturing
2. Seminars/class discussions/class
presentations
3. Role play/simulation
exercises/experiential learning
4. Group projects/cooperative
learning groups
 100

Please indicate the adequacy of the following resources at your college or university.

Not Inadequate
Available Satisfactory Good Outstanding
1. Clerical Support
2. Release time
3. Computer hardware
4. Computer software
5. Library resources
6. Audio/visual equipment
7. Faculty development
8. Professional support

1. What is your gender

Male Female

2. What is your race?

Black/African American
White
American Indian/Alaska Native
Asian
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander
Other ______________________

3. Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino?

Yes No

4. What is your current position?

Instructor
Assistant Professor
Associate Professor
Professor

5. How many years have you taught in an undergraduate social work program?
______________

6. What is your primary teaching area?

Practice
Research
Policy
HBSE
Field
Other ______________________
 101

References

Altshuler, S., & Bosch, L. (2003). Problem-based learning in social work education. Journal of

Teaching in Social Work, 23(1/2), 201-215.

Anderson, D., & Harris, B. (2005). Teaching social welfare policy: A comparison of two

pedagogical approaches. Journal of Social Work Education, 41(3), 511-526.

Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Austin, D. M. (1986). A history of social work education. In J. Otis, D. M. Austin, & A. Rubin

(Eds.), Social Work Education: Education Monograph Series. The University of Texas

at Austin.

Austin, D. M. (1997). The institutional development of social work education: The first 100

years-- and beyond. Journal of Social Work Education, 33 (3), 599-612.

Austin, A. (2002). Creating a bridge to the future: Preparing new faculty to face changing

expectations in a shifting context. The Review of Higher Education, 26 (2), 119–144.

Babbie, E. (2004). The practice of social research methods (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning—a new paradigm for undergraduate

education. Change, 27, (6), 12-23. Retrieved September 23, 2006, from Academic

Search Premier via EBSCOhost.

Blackburn, R. T., & Lawrence, J. H. (1995). Faculty at work: Motivation, expectation,

satisfaction. Baltimore, MD : Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bligh, D. A. (2000). What’s the use of lectures? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 102

Bonwell, C. C. & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning creating excitement in the classroom.

ASHEERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, DC: George Washington

University.

Brandler, S. (1999). The small structured group: A tool for teaching social work values. Social

Work with Groups, 22, (1) 79-97.

Braxton, J. M. (2008). Toward a theory of faculty professional choices in teaching that foster

college student success. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory

and Research (pp. 181-207). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2006-

07 Edition, Social Workers, on the Internet at www.bls.gov/oco/ocos060.htm (visited

July 03, 2006).

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, G. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in

undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39 (7), 3-7.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Colbeck, C. L., Cabrera, A. F., & Marine, R. J., (2002, April). Faculty motivation to use

alternative teaching methods. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American

Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Coleman, H., Collins, D., & Baylis, P. (2007). You didn't throw us to the wolves: Problem-based

learning in a social work family class. Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 12(2), 98-

113.
 103

Council on Social Work Education (2001). Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards.

Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education, Inc.

Council on Social Work Education (2005). Annual report 2004-2005. Alexandria, VA: Council

on Social Work Education, Inc.

Council on Social Work Education (2006). Statistics on social work education in the United

States 2006: A summary. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education, Inc.

Dalton, B., & Kuhn, A. C. (1998). Researching teaching methodologies in the classroom. Journal

of Teaching in Social Work, 17 (1/2), 169-184.

Dore, M. M. (1993). The practice-teaching parallel in educating the micropractitioner. Journal

of Social Work Education, 29 (2), 181-190. Retrieved September 16, 2006, from

Academic Search Premier via EBSCOhost.

Dubin-Bryant, P. A. (2004). Teaching styles of interactive television instructors: A descriptive

study. The American Journal of Distance Education, 18 (1), 39-50.

Dunkin, M. J. (1983). A review of research on lecturing. In J. P. Powell (Ed.), Higher Education

Research & Development, 2 (1), (pp.63-78). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.

ED240897)

Einarson, M. (2001). A comparative study of personal, disciplinary and organizational

influences on undergraduate faculty use of teaching methods that promote active student

involvement in learning. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, United States --

Michigan. Retrieved September 15, 2005, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database.

(Publication No. AAT 3016840).

 104

Einarson, M. (2001, April). Path analytic study of personal, disciplinary and organizational

influences on undergraduate teaching methods. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of

the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

Fear, F. A., Doberneck, D. M., Robinson, C. F., Fear, K. L., Barr, R. B., & Van Den Berg, H.

(2003). Meaning making and “The Learning Paradigm”: A provocative idea in practice.

Innovative Higher Education, 27, (3), 151-168.

Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (1996). Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction.

College Teaching, 44 (2), 43-47.

Ford, M. E. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals, emotions and personal agency beliefs.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Frances, R. (1996). Principles for structuring cooperative education programs. The Journal of

Cooperative Education, 31, 8-22.

Garcia, J. A., & Floyd, C. E. (1999). Using single system design for student self-assessment: A

method for enhancing practice and integrating curriculum. Journal of Social Work

Education, 35 (3), 451-461.

Garrett, K. J. (1998). Cooperative learning in social work research courses: Helping students

help one another. Journal of Social Work Education, 34 (2), 237-246.

Gayle, D. J., Tewarie, B., & White, A. Q. (2003). Governance in the twenty-first-century

university: approaches to effective leadership and strategic management: ASHE-ERIC

Higher Education Report, 30 (1).

Gibbs, P. (1995). Accreditation of BSW programs. Journal of Social Work Education, 31 (1),

4-16.
 105

Gitterman, A. (2004). Interactive andragogy: Principles, methods, and skills. Journal of Teaching

in Social Work, 24(3/4), 95-112.

Gohagan, D. (2000). An examination of pedagogical issues and computer-facilitated instruction

in social work education. Ph.D. dissertation, University of South Carolina, United States

-- South Carolina. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication

No. AAT 3040753).

Hancock, D. R., Bray, M, & Nason, S. A. (2002). Influencing university students’ achievement

and motivation in a technology course. The Journal of Educational Research, 95 (6),

365-372.

Hawkins, C. A., Smith, M. L., Hawkins, R. C., & Grant, D. (2005). The relationship among

hours employed, perceived work interference, and grades as reported by undergraduate

social work students. Journal of Social Work Education, 41 (1), 13-27.

Haynes, D. T. (1999). Theoretical integrative framework for teaching professional social work

values. Journal of Social Work Education, 35, 39-50.

Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) (2002). The American college teacher: National

norms for the 2001-2002 HERI Faculty Survey. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education

Research Institute, University of California at Los Angeles.

Hill, J. R. , Schrum, L. (2002). Theories on teaching: Why are they so hard to find? Tech

Trends, 46, (5), 22-26.

Holly, L. C., & Steiner, S. (2005). Safe space: Student perspectives on classroom environment.

Journal of Social Work Education, 41 (1), 49-64.

 106

Huba, M. E. & Freed, J. (2000). Learner-centered assessment on college campuses: Shifting

the focus from teaching to learning. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Huff, M. T., & Johnson, M. M. (1998). Empowering students in a graduate level social work

course. Journal of Social Work Education, 34, 375-385.

Hull, E. B. (2004). Learning from the experiences of faculty: The process of adopting a

learning-centered paradigm. Ph.D. dissertation, University of New Orleans, United

States -- Louisiana. Retrieved May 16, 2005, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations

database. (Publication No. AAT 3127777).

Johansen, P. S. (2005). Using reflective online journals to create constructivist, student-centered

learning environments in undergraduate social work education. The Journal of

Baccalaureate Social Work, 11 (1), 87-100.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college.

Change, 30, (4), 26-35. Retrieved September 23, 2006, from Academic Search Premier

via EBSCOhost.

Keller, T. E., Whittaker, J. K., & Burke, T. K. (2001). Student debates in policy courses:

Promoting policy practice skills and knowledge through active learning. Journal of

Social Work Education, 37 (2), 343-355.

Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research (4th ed.). Orlando,

FL: Harcourt College Publishers.

Kluge, L. (1990). Cooperative learning. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.

Knowles, M. S. (1972). Innovations in teaching styles and approaches based upon adult

learning. Journal of Education for Social Work, 8(2), 32-39.

 107

Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy.

Chicago: Follett Publishing Co.

Langer, N. (2002). Enhancing adult learning in aging studies. Educational Gerontology, 28, 895-

904.

Lefever, S., Dal, M., & Matthíasdóttir, Á. (2007). Online data collection in academic research:

Advantages and limitations. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(4), 574-582.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00638.x

Lemieux, C. M. (2001). Teaching for professional learning: Peer review, self-evaluation, and the

problem of grading, Arete, 25(2), 58-70.

Lindholm, J.A., Szelényi, K., Hurtado, S. & Korn, W.S. (2002). The American college teacher:

National norms for the 2001-2002 HERI Faculty Survey. Los Angeles: Higher Education

Research Institute, UCLA.

Lindholm, J.A., Szelényi, K., Hurtado, S. & Korn, W.S. (2005). The American college teacher:

National norms for the 2004-2005 HERI Faculty Survey. Los Angeles: Higher Education

Research Institute, UCLA.

Lundahl, B. W. (2008). Teaching research methodology through active learning. Journal of

Teaching in Social Work, 28(1/2), 273-288.

McCarthy, J. P., & Anderson, L. (2000). Active learning techniques versus traditional, teacher-

centered teaching styles: Two experiments from history and political science. Innovative

Higher Education, 24 (4), 279-294.

McCrea, L. G. (2006). An investigation of the relationship between graduate teaching-assistants’

teaching self-efficacy and attributions for student learning. (Doctoral dissertation,

 108

University of Akron, 2006). Retrieved March, 6, 2008, from OhioLINK ETD database.

(Document No. akron1144943095).

McKeachie, W. J., & Kulik, J. A. (1975). Effective college teaching. Review of Research in

Education, 3, 165-209.

McKeachie, W. J., Pintrich, P. R., Lin, Y., & Smith, D. A. (1987). Teaching and learning in the

college classroom: A review of the research literature (1986) and November 1987

Supplement. Ann Arbor, Mich.: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary

Teaching and Learning, 1987. (ED 314 999)

McKeachie, W. J. (1990). Research on college teaching: The historical background. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 82 (2), 189-200.

Meyers, S. A., Lansu, M. L., Hundal, J. S., Lekkos, S., K., & Prieto, L. R. (2006). Preparing new

psychology instructors to teach undergraduates: Developing confidence and competence.

Journal of Faculty Development, 21 (1), 169-178.

Mertler, C. A., & Vannatta, R. A. (2002)/. Advanced and multivariate statistical methods (2nd

ed.). Los Angeles: Pryczak Publishing.

Nasuti, J., York, R., & Henley, H. (2003). Teaching social work research: does andragogy work

best? .Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 9(1), 149-175.

Nesbit, T. (1998). Teaching in adult education: Opening the black box. Adult Education

Quarterly, 48, (3), 157-170.

Nettles, M. T., Cole, J. J. K., & Sharp, S. (1997). Assessment of teaching and learning in higher

education and public accountability. Stanford, CA: National Center for Postsecondary

Improvement.
 109

Neuman, K., & Blundo, R. (2000). Curricular philosophy and social work education A

constructivist perspective. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 20 (1/2), 19-38.

Newton, R. R., & Rudestam, K. E. (1999). Your statistical consultant. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-

Hill.

Pascarella, E. T. (1994). Effects of teacher organization/preparation and teacher skill/clarity on

general cognitive skills in college. University Park, PA: National Center on

Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.

Pascarella, E. T. (1995). What have we learned from the first year of the National Study of

Student Learning? University Park, PA: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching,

Learning, and Assessment.

Pearson, P. G.. (1992). The relationships between selected background factors and the

educational philosophy of graduate social work faculty. Ph.D. dissertation, University of

Denver, United States -- Colorado. Retrieved May 12, 2005, from ProQuest Digital

Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 9233707).

Prieto, L. R., & Altmaier, E. M. (1994). The relationship of prior training and previous teaaching

experience to self-efficacy among graduate teaching assistants. Research in Higher

Education, 35, 481-497.

Prieto, L. R., & Meyers, S. A. (1999). Effects of training and supervision on the self-efficacy of

psychology graduate teaching assistants. Teaching of Psychology, 26, 264-266.

 110

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering

education, 93, (3), 1-9.

Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say

about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29, (1), 4-15.

Ramasar, P. (1987). Preferences of teaching styles and strategies as related to conceptual

system variables, educational qualifications and experiential backgrounds. (A study

among social work educators in South African universities). Ph.D. dissertation, Case

Western Reserve University, United States -- Ohio. Retrieved May 12, 2005, from

ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 8802463).

Ricks, F. (1996). Principles for structuring cooperative education programs. The Journal of

Cooperative Education, 31, 8-22.

Rubin, A. (2007). Statistics for evidence-based practice and evaluation. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth.

Saroyan & Snell (1997). Variations in lecturing styles. Higher Education, 33, 85-104.

Schuh, K. L. (2004). Learning centered principles in teacher centered practices. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 20 , 833–846.

Schulman, L. (1993). Teaching the Helping Skills: A Field Instructor’s Guide (2nd ed.).

Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education.

Sivan, A., Wong Leung, R., Woon, C., & Kember, D. (2000). An implementation of active

learning and its effect on the quality of student learning. Innovations in Education and

Training International, 37 (4), 381-389.

 111

Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what

we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43-69.

Speck, B. W. (2002). Facilitating students' collaborative writing: issues and recommendations:

ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report 28 (6).

Steiner, S., Brzuzy, S., Gerdes, K., & Hurdle, D. (2003). Using structured controversy to teach

diversity content and cultural competence. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 23(1/2),

55-71.

Steiner, S., Stromwall, L. K., Brzuzy S., & Gerdes, K. (1999). Using cooperative learning

strategies in social work education. Journal of Social Work Education, 35, 253-264.

Swanberg, J., Platt, P., & Karolich, R. (2003). Cooperative learning in social work education: An

alternative approach to teaching research methods. Arete, 27(2), 36-49.

Teare, R. J., & Sheafor, B. W. (1995). Practice-Sensitive Social Work Education. Alexandria,

VA: Council on Social Work Education.

Tollerud, T. (1990). The perceived self-efficacy of teaching skills of advanced doctoral students

and graduates from counselor education programs Ph.D. dissertation, The University of

Iowa, United States -- Iowa. Retrieved March 5, 2008, from ProQuest Digital

Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 9112495).

Toth, L. S., & Montagna, L. G. (2002). Class size and achievement in higher education: A

summary of current research. College Student Journal, 36 (2), 253-260.

Totten, S., Sills, T., & Digby, A. (1991). Cooperative learning: A guide to research. New York:

Garland.
 112

Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. T. (1999). Relations between teachers' approaches to teaching and

students' approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37, (1), 57-70.

Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in student

learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46 (20), 153-184.

Van Selm, M., & Jankowski, N. (2006). Conducting online surveys. Quality & Quantity, 40(3),

435-456. doi:10.1007/s11135-005-8081-8

Verner, C. & Dickinson, G. (1967). The lecture: An analysis and review of research. Adult

Education Quarterly, 17 (2), 85-100.

doi: 10.1177/074171366701700204

Weimer, M. G. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Weinbach, R. W, & Grinnell, R. M. (2007). Statistics for social workers (7th ed.). Boston, MA:

Pearson Education, Inc..

Wodarski, (1986). An introduction to social work education. Springfield, IL: C.C. Thomas.

Wolk, J. L., & Wertheimer, M. R. (1999). Generalist practice vs. case management: An

accreditation contradiction. Journal of Social Work Education, 35 (1), 101-114.

Yoder, J. D., & Hochevar, C. M. (2005). Encouraging active learning can improve students’

performance on examinations. Teaching of Psychology, 32 (2), 91-95.