To Improve the AcademyVolume 1, Issue 1 p. 125-136 Section III. Evaluating Practice to Improve Teaching Undergraduate Reactions to Teaching Assistants Robert J. Menges, Robert J. MengesSearch for more papers by this authorJeremy Wilson, Jeremy WilsonSearch for more papers by this author Robert J. Menges, Robert J. MengesSearch for more papers by this authorJeremy Wilson, Jeremy WilsonSearch for more papers by this author First published: June 1982 https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-4822.1982.tb00011.xAboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Volume1, Issue1June 1982Pages 125-136 RelatedInformation

The systemic changes facing postsecondary institutions today pose a threat to the quality of academic programs unless new faculty can be successfully attracted and retained. To be more competitive in the recruitment and retention of faculty, a better understanding is needed of the adjustment experiences of newly hired faculty. Our study examined the adjustment of new hires at the point of entry into their institutions using research productivity as one indicator of adaptation. It was expected that perceived personal control, age, gender, and type of institution would relate to research productivity. At the beginning of their first and second year, newly hired faculty in three different types of postsecondary institutions responded to a comprehensive questionnaire concerning their initial adjustment experiences. A path analysis indicated both direct and indirect linkages between the independent variables of interest and research productivity. Substantial direct paths were found between the institution type and research productivity, specifically for the research I and liberal arts/comprehensive institutions, and to a lesser degree, between age and research productivity. Age, the research I university, and the liberal arts/comprehensive universities had direct effects on two measures of perceived control and were linked indirectly to research productivity via perceived control. Perceived control resulting from the personal qualities of the faculty members was instrumental to research productivity, whereas perceived control resulting from activities initiated by faculty members were not related to productivity. Surprisingly, gender was not related to research productivity through either direct or indirect paths. If the adjustment of newly hired faculty is viewed in terms of research productivity, then these results suggest that perceived control, the milieu of research-oriented institutions, and age (to a limited extent), are important predictors of faculty performance.

As postsecondary institutions undergo major changes in the coming years, they will be hardpressed to maintain the quality of their programs unless they can successfully attract and retain new faculty. Understanding something about the experiences of new faculty should enable postsecondary institutions to be more effective in the recruitment process. The present study examined the adjustment of newly hired faculty at the point of entry into their institutions and subsequently for a three-year period. It was expected that perceived personal control, teaching experience, gender, type of institution, and time would be particularly critical to the adjustment of new faculty. Three surveys were administered one year apart to newly hired, tenure-track faculty who responded to questions about their adjustment experiences. The results indicated that perceived control is a critical factor affecting new hires' emotional well-being, stress levels, job satisfaction, etc., either by itself or in combination with institution type and time. Overall, new hires who were identified as having greater control believed they had more control over their teaching and career in general, were more satisfied with their teaching and their career, had less teaching- and career-related job stress, and were less likely to consider quitting their job. The type of institution also affected new hires' adjustment, with the liberal arts colleges and a comprehensive I institution having the most negative impact compared with a community college and a research I institution. Finally, time had an unexpected negative effect on adjustment. These finding were discussed in relation to the career development of faculty.

This study assessed the feedback-seeking behaviors of faculty in their third year of empinyment at fives onllpga.Q and A total of 121 faculty completed a mailed questionnaire on their feedbackand information-seeking behaviors, and a subset of 86 responded to interview questions about feedback. Statistical analyses of the survey and interview results indicated that faculty at 2-year institutions sought feedback more frequently; reported more credence, amount, and satisfaction with feedback from chairs and colleagues; and reported more job satisfaction and less academic stress than faculty at 4-year institutions. At 4-year institutions, male faculty reported more credence given to feedback from colleagues and students, more satisfaction with feedback from colleagues, and less stress than female faculty. Faculty with minimal teaching experience reported more feedback from students while those with extensive experience reported more feedback from colleagues and greater satisfaction with feedback from chairs. Faculty who sought feedback more frequently reported more stress but essentially the same perceived teaching success and job satisfaction as those that did not seek feedback at all. (Contains 10 references.) (MDM) ******************************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. ******************************************************************************** Feedback Seeking and Receiving by College and University Faculty Rita K. Bode Alloh; litotirtin Troctit,Itch rf vbAAAAA........avitA ..ILILJ....11411.11.0 V A N.-.11AVALE,V Robert J. Menges Northwestern University Paper Presented at the 1997 Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago IL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION °Mc° of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) gOr<-1; document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it. O Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. 2 PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

Teaching and learning at a distance is an area of education that is growing rapidly alongside the technology that makes it possible. But success in this area requires more than advanced technology; it requires skillful instructors, well-designed courses, and students ready to learn from the format. This issue of New Directions for Teaching and Learning provides insights from experienced practitioners into what is needed to make teaching and learning at a distance successful for everyone involved. This is the 71st issue of the quarterly journal New Directions for Teaching and Learning. .

Faculty experiences during the first three years in a new job were investigated by following new hires at five colleges and universities. Their initial years are characterized by stress, dilemmas about how to allocate time to competing responsibilities, uncertainty about what is expected of them, and dissatisfaction with feedback about their progress. Faculty development offices can promote more enlightened policies and practices to help ease faculty transition into a new job.

1. Using Scholarship to Improve Practice(Maryellen Weimer). Part One: Students and Learning. 2. Teaching and Today's College Students(M. Lee Upcraft). 3. Making the Transition to College(Patrick T. Terenzini, Laura I. Randoan, Susan B. Millar, M. Lee Upcraft, Patricia Gregg, Romero Jalomo, Kevin W. Allison). 4. Student Motivation from a Teaching Perspective(Raymond P. Perry, Verena H. Menec, C. Ward Struthers). 5. Collaborative Learning: Creating Knowledge with Students(Roberta S. Matthews). 6. Assessing Student Involvement in Learning(Robert Froh, Mark Hawkes). Part Two: Teachers and Teaching. 7. Teaching Today's Students Requires a New Role for Faculty(Susan B. Millar). 8. Research on Learning: A Means to Enhance Instruction(Marilla D. Svinivki, Anastasia S. Hagen, Debra K. Meyer). 9. Planning and Developing Effective Courses(George L. Geis). 10. Assignments That Promote and Integrate Learning(Joe Lowman). 11. Feedback That Enhances Teaching and Learning(Robert J. Menges, William C. Rando). Part Three: Issues and Contexts: Higher Education Today. 12. What College Teachers Need to Know(Sarah M. Dinham). 13. Instructor Vitality: Some Provocative Implications of Theory and Research on Human Motivation(Charles James Walker, Jennifer Woods Quinn). 14. Diversity in Academe: Cultural Strategies for Change(William G. Tierney, Estala M. Bensimon). 15. Improving Programs Through Assessing Student Outcomes(Trudy Banta).

AbstractA synthesis of suggestions and cautions about establishing recognition programs takes the form of ten guidelines that apply regardless of program format and context.

AbstractProblems common to awards programs can be avoided by subjecting them to three tests of program effectiveness.

Section One: Getting Under Way. Section Two: Responding to a Diverse Student Body. Section Three: Discussion Strategies. Section Four: Lecture Strategies. Section Five: Collaborative and Experiential Strategies. Section Six: Enhancing Students' Learning and Motivation. Section Seven: Writing Skills and Homework Assignments. Section Eight: Testing and Grading. Section Nine: Instructional Media and Technology. Section Ten: Evaluation to Improve Teaching. Section Eleven: Teaching Outside the Classroom. Section Twelve: Finishing Up.

New Directions for Teaching and LearningVolume 1995, Issue 62 p. i-i From the Series Editor From the series editors Robert J. Menges, Robert J. Menges Editor-in-Chief Professor of education and social policy at Northwestern University, and senior researcher, National Center on Post-secondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.Search for more papers by this authorMarilla D. Svinicki, Marilla D. Svinicki Associate Editor Associate editor, is Director of the Centerfor Teaching Effectiveness, University of Texas at Austin.Search for more papers by this author Robert J. Menges, Robert J. Menges Editor-in-Chief Professor of education and social policy at Northwestern University, and senior researcher, National Center on Post-secondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.Search for more papers by this authorMarilla D. Svinicki, Marilla D. Svinicki Associate Editor Associate editor, is Director of the Centerfor Teaching Effectiveness, University of Texas at Austin.Search for more papers by this author First published: Summer 1995 https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219956202 AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume1995, Issue62Summer 1995Pages i-i RelatedInformation

Conversations with faculty suggest ways in which a campus climate can be established to increase the intrinsic rewards of teaching.

AbstractThe only realistic approach to faculty development is one that views teaching from a faculty perspective.

New Directions for Teaching and LearningVolume 1991, Issue 45 p. 1-2 Editorial From the new editors Robert J. Menges, Robert J. Menges Editor-in-ChiefSearch for more papers by this authorMarilla D. Svinicki, Marilla D. Svinicki Associate EditorSearch for more papers by this author Robert J. Menges, Robert J. Menges Editor-in-ChiefSearch for more papers by this authorMarilla D. Svinicki, Marilla D. Svinicki Associate EditorSearch for more papers by this author First published: Spring 1991 https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219914502AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume1991, Issue45Spring 1991Pages 1-2 RelatedInformation

AbstractPersonal theories about teaching and learning are often implicit and likely to be inaccurate. When implicit theories become explicit, they can blend with formal theories to improve the practice of teaching.