MOTIVATING AND SUPPORTING FACULTY - JoSSR

Journal of Student Success and Retention Vol. 3, No. 1, October 2016

1

MOTIVATINGANDSUPPORTINGFACULTYINNEWTECHNOLOGY‐BASEDSTUDENTSUCCESSINITIATIVES:ANEXPLORATIONOFCASESTUDIESON

TECHNOLOGYACCEPTANCE

MelissaIrvinTennesseeTechUniversity

[email protected]

[email protected]

Abstract

Highereducationinstitutionsareincreasinglyimplementingtechnologytoolsasakey

componentofstudentsuccessinitiatives.Becausefacultyareanessentialpartofany

studentsuccessprogramming,itisimportanttheyareabletoeffectivelyengagewiththese

studentsuccesstechnologyresources.Byexaminingtwoinstancesoftechnology

implementation,theauthorsidentifypotentialstrategiesandcommonroadblocksduring

programimplementation.Thisarticlereviewstheoriesonfacultymotivation,aswellas

technologyadoptioncycles,tomakerecommendationstoassistinstitutionsand

administratorsinidentifyingstrategiesthatcanresultinincreasedbuy‐inandengagement

withtechnologyresources.

Keywords:facultymotivation,technologyacceptance,innovationadoption,program,

implementation,changemanagement

Inan“InsideHigherEducation”opinionessay(October7,2014),PhilipAltbachand

MartinFinkelstein’sopeningsentenceencapsulatestheopinionsofmanyaboutthe


2

pressureandexpectationsplacedonfacultyinhighereducationtoday:“Theacademic

professionissqueezedfromallsides.”Thisincreasingpressureisgeneratedfromexternal

opinionsabouttheefficacyoffacultymembers,highereducationreformoriginatingatthe

stateandfederallevels,anddecliningresourcesinhighereducation(Altbach&Finkelstein,

2014;Blackburn&Lawrence,1995).Facultymembershavealwaysstruggledtoreconcile

theirmultiplecompetingrolesandresponsibilities(Baldwin&Blackburn,1981);however,

thewheelsofchange,particularlyoverthelastfivetotenyears,continuetogrindsteadily

forwardandregularlyintroducingnewtasks.Despitethesechallenges,institutionsexpect

facultyatalllevelstoengageconsistentlyinvariousways,butmanyarereluctant(orfeel

unable)todosoeffectively.

Oneoftheincreasinglydemandingareasoffacultyinvolvementisstudentsuccess.

Institutionsareinvestingintechnologyresources,suchaslearningmanagementsystems

(LMS)andpredictivemodeling,tobetteridentify,track,andengagewithstudentsto

improvesuccess(Buchanan,Sainter,&Saunders,2013).Thisrequiresthoseinvolvedwith

studentsuccesstolearntotrustandusethesetoolseffectively.Thisarticleexplores

effectivestrategiesadministratorscanusetoencouragefacultyengagementwithstudent

successtechnologytoolsthroughthelensoftwocasestudiesontheimplementation

process.Byreflectingonasuccessfulimplementation,aswellasaseparateinitiativethat

struggledtogarnerbuy‐in,thisarticlewillhighlightpotentialobstaclesandutilizeresearch

onfacultymotivationandinnovationadoptioncyclestodiscernsomemethodsthatcan

resultinmorefacultybuy‐inandinterestinengagementopportunities.


3

CaseStudy#1:FlightPathAttendanceInitiative

ProgramOverview

In2013,theOfficeofEnrollmentManagementandStudentSuccessatTennessee

TechnologicalUniversitybeganeffortstoimplementtheFlightPathAttendanceInitiative.

Thisinitiativewasdesignedtobeacentralprogrammaticelementfor“Improvingthe

UndergraduateStudentExperience,”oneoftheuniversity’sfourfocusareaswithinthe

institutionalstrategicplan.TheprimaryfocusofFlightPathistoencourageconsistentclass

attendancebyfreshmen.Regularclassattendanceisconsideredamajorfactorin

determiningtheacademicsuccessoffreshmen.Thisinitiativerepresentsacollaborative

effortamongmultipleofficeswithinbothAcademicAffairsandStudentServices,including

departmentalfaculty,ResidentialLife,RetentionServices,andacademicsupportstaff.Itis

designedtoidentifyandsupportfirst‐yearstudentswithdocumentedcourseabsencesby

utilizingearlyinterventioncontactsfromtrainedmembersoftheResidentialLifestaff,as

wellasRetentionServices,toensurestudentsareconnectedwithfaculty,staffandservices

specificallyallocatedtofacilitatetheirsuccess.

FlightPathisnotamandatoryattendancepolicy:itdoesnotrequirefacultytokeep

regularattendancerecordsortoincorporateattendanceintothecourserequirements.

Insteadthisprogramshouldbecharacterizedasatypeofformativeassessment,muchlike

midtermgrades,toshareinformationwithotherstudentservicesprofessionalsearlyinthe

student’sclassroomexperiencetodetermineifstudentsareprogressingwellorareinneed

ofanintervention.TennesseeTechUniversitydoesnotrequirefacultytotakeattendance


4

butencouragesandmotivatesfacultytoconsistentlyvolunteerattendanceinformation

abouttheirstudentsthroughtheprogram’sdesignandadministration.

RetentionServicesreceivesallattendancedataandcompilesitintoanExcel

spreadsheetfordistributiontoResidentialLifestafftoinitiateFlightPathcontacts.Again,

forthepurposesoftheFlightPathinitiative,itisnotnecessarytohavedailyattendance

reportsfromfacultyeachtimeacoursemeets.Anyinformationthatisshareddaily,weekly

orintermittentlyisincorporatedintotheprogramandusedtodeterminewhichstudents

requireinterventions.Onceastudenthastwodocumentedabsencesinthesamecourse,

theOfficeofRetentionServiceswillrequestoneoftwodifferentFlightPathcontact

methods:1)abriefvisitfromaResidentAdvisorforon‐campusstudents;or2)abrief

phonecallfromRetentionServicesforcommutingstudents.

ImplementationofFlightPath

Inordertofocusonfirst‐yearstudents,therecruitmenteffortsforfaculty

participationfocusedonfull‐timeandadjunctfacultywhoteach1000‐levelcoursesaswell

asGeneralEducationcourses.TheOfficeoftheProvostandtheOfficeofEnrollment

ManagementandStudentSuccess(EMSS)weretheprimarypointsofcontactthroughout

theinitialcommunicationstagebeforethepilotversionoftheprogramlaunchedinthefall

of2013.Communicationaboutthisinitiative’spilotsemesterstartedwiththeacademic

deansandotherfacultymembersinkeyleadershippositions,suchasFacultySenate;they

wereprovidedinformationaboutFlightPath’sroleintheuniversity’sstrategicplanand

detailsabouttheprogramdesign.Theuniversityalsocollaboratedwithanoutsidevendor

toaddattendancecapabilitiestotheinstitution’smobiletechnologyandtodesignan


5

accompanyingweb‐basedplatformtologattendancereports.Additionally,EMSShireda

facultyconsultantwithexperienceimplementingattendanceprogramstoassistin

implementationofthisprogram,particularlywithtrainingeffortsforResidentialLife.

Duringtheinauguralsemester,EMSScontactedparticipatingfaculty(n=293)via

emailduringthefirstweekofthesemesterasareminderforparticipatingintheprogram.

Whiletherewassomelimitedparticipationbyfacultyintheearlyweeks,involvement

droppedsharplyastheprogram’sweaknesswereuncovered.Theprimarychallengewas

theattendancetechnology:theattendancewebmoduleandsupportingmobileapplication

wereunreliableandnotassimpletouseasoriginallyconceived.Inaddition,thepositionof

DirectorofRetentionServiceshadnotyetbeenhired,soitwasdifficulttocoordinateand

communicateconsistentlywithfacultythroughoutthesemester.OncetheDirectorwas

hired,effortsweremadetofollowupwithfacultywhohadattemptedtoparticipatein

FlightPath(17%oftheparticipatingfaculty)tocollectfeedbackpriortothespring

semester.

A10‐questionsurveywassentto52facultymembers.18participants(34%)

submittedthefollowingresponses:

77.7%tookattendanceateveryclassmeeting. 94.4%consistentlytookattendancethroughoutthesemester. 27.7%indicated“limitedtime”wasthelargestobstacleofrecordingattendance,

followedby“concernsaboutstudentdeception”(22%). 72.2%hadattemptedtousetheAttendanceWebpagetologattendanceandover

half(55.6%)useditthemajorityofthetime. 50%foundtheWebAttendancesite“VeryorSomewhatEasy”touse.


6

Veryfewoftheprofessorsusedmobiletechnologytorecordattendance:50%usedadesktoporlaptop,followedby39%whousedapen&paper.

50%remainopentotheideaofattendancebutfelttheprogram’simplementationhadbeendifficultand/oradjustmentsshouldbemadetoimprovementeffectiveness.

ThemostcommonresponsesabouthowFlightPathcouldbeimprovedwere:o 33.3%wantedimprovedaccuracy&efficiencyofthedata;o 27.8%wantedmoreinformationaboutthepurposeandexpectedoutcomes

ofFlightPath;ando 27.8%wantedadditionaltrainingonusingtechnologytorecordattendance.

Movingintothespringsemester,theDirectorofRetentionServicesscaledbackthe

programtoonlyincludeafractionoftheprofessors(n=63)fromthefallpilotgroupto

addressmanyofthecommentsfromthefeedbacksurvey.Theuseofthemobileapp’s

attendancefeaturewassuspendedandmorefocuswasplacedonimprovingthereliability

andeaseofuseofthewebplatform.TheDirectormadebriefpresentationsatseveral

Januaryfacultymeetings,aswellasatthenewfacultyorientation,toimprovethelevelof

understandingaboutthepurposeanddesignoftheFlightPath.Anewcommunicationplan

wasdevelopedtoincludeanintroductoryemailandfourfollow‐upremindersalignedwith

keydatesontheacademiccalendar(e.g.,lastdaytoaddaclass)toencourageparticipation.

Finally,theFlightPathandAttendancewebsiteswereredesignedbothtobecomemore

explanatory(e.g.,attendanceresearch)andtoprovideresourcerepositories(e.g.,FAQsand

directionswithscreenshots)forfacultytoreferencewhenloggingattendanceinformation.

Unfortunately,therewerecontinuingtechnicalproblemswiththeattendancewebportal

thatpreventedconsistentreporting;however,anecdotallyfacultyseemedmore

comfortablewiththeprogramanditsgoalsbasedonthefeedbackviaemailsandphone

calls.


7

Itbecameapparentthattechnologyissuespresentedamajorroadblocktothe

successfulimplementationofFlightPath.Overthenextfewmonths,upgradesweremade

andmoreextensivetestingwasconductedtobetterensurethewebplatform’sreliability.

WhenFlightPathlaunchedagaininthefallof2014,itwaswiththeoriginal,largernumber

offacultymembers(n=277)usingtheexpandedcommunicationsplanfromthespringand

bettertechnologysupport.Facultyparticipationincreasedfrom52participantsinfall2013

to118participantsinfall2014:thisnumberconstituted42.6%ofthefacultymembers

whowerecontactedtoparticipateinthisinitiative.Equallyasimportant,almostonethird

oftheparticipantssubmittedanattendancereportatleastthreetimesduringthesemester.

Thisincreaseinfacultyinvolvementcontributedtoimprovementsintheprogram’sability

tocontactmorestudentsthroughoutthesemester:theOfficeofRetentionServices

contacted462studentsinthefallof2014,comparedtocontactingfewerthan100during

thefallof2013.Anecdotalreportsfromfacultyalsoindicatedhigherincidentsofstudents

reengagingwithclassafterabsences.

CaseStudy#2:StudentSuccessCollaborative

ProgramOverview

Inthespringof2014,TennesseeTechnologicalUniversityalsobegantheprocessof

implementingEducationAdvisoryBoard’s(EAB)StudentSuccessCollaborative.EAB

providesacombinationofpredictiveanalyticssoftware,researchandconsultingtosupport

successinitiativesattwo‐yearandfour‐yearuniversities.Thedecisiontoutilizethe

StudentSuccessCollaborative(“Collaborative”)alsosupportstheuniversity’sstrategic

plantoimproveundergraduatestudentsuccessbyprovidingqualityandconsistent


8

academicadvising.TheCollaborativeisadynamictechnologytoolthatutilizespredictive

analyticstoassessastudent’saptitudeinaparticularmajorandtheirlikelihoodtopersist

tograduationinthatmajor.TheCollaborativeallowsadvisorstoproactivelyassess

student’sfitinamajor,identifyat‐riskstudentsinatimeliermanner,andofferappropriate

interventionstoassiststudentswithmakingprogresstowardgraduation.

TheCollaborativeusesnineyearsofTennesseeTechUniversity’shistoricalstudent

datatoformthebasisofitspredictiveanalytics.Themodelusespre‐enrollmentdata(such

ashighschoolGPA,testscores,homezipcode,gender,transferinstitutionandcredit,etc.)

aswellascurrentstudentcourseinformation(suchascoursegradesandcredit

accumulation).Theplatformoffersadvisorstheopportunitytoseehowcurrentlyenrolled

studentscomparetopaststudentswhosuccessfullygraduatedfromthesamemajor.The

Collaborativeassignseachstudentarisklevel(low,moderate,orhigh)basedonthe

previouslymentionedfactorsandassesseswhetherstudentsareatriskforbeingunableto

successfullycompletetheirchosenmajor.Theplatformassignsrisklevelstoother

TennesseeTechmajorsincaseastudentneedstorequestachangeofmajor.The

Collaborativealsooffersinstitutionalreportsexaminingstudentsuccessdata,suchasfirst‐

termGPA,whichcanassistacademicadministratorswithmakingcurricularchangesthat

couldbenefitandenhanceprogresstowardsgraduation.

ImplementationoftheCollaborative

TheStudentSuccessCollaborativewasstartedasapilotprojectinsummer2014

withfouracademicprogramsfromfourcollegesusingprofessionaladvisorsandasmall

numberoffacultyadvisors.TheEABconsultantcametocampusandconductedtraining


9

withtheadvisors,heldopenforumsessionsforfacultyandadministrativestaffwhowere

notinthepilotgroup,andheldin‐depthsessionswithdeans,assistantdeans,andkey

facultyandadministrativestaffwithinthepilotcolleges.Thesein‐depthsessionswere

usedtocreatecustomizedcurricularmilestonescourses(i.e.,successmarkers)andto

explaintheinformationthatcanbegleanedfromthistool.Theywerealsousedtogenerate

interestamongthedeansforaccessingkeystudent‐andprogram‐leveldatathatwerenot

easilyaccessibleelsewhere.

Infall2014,thedirectorsofRetentionServicesandAdvisementServiceswere

chargedwithexpandingtheuseoftheCollaborativeacrosscampus.Tocompletethe

expansion,over100majorsandconcentrationsneededsuccessmarkers,professional

advisingstaffandfacultyadvisorsrequiredtraining,andtheproject’sleadsstillneeded

increasedengagementfromdeansanddepartmentchairs.Thefirstchallengewasto

garnerbuy‐infromthedeans,departmentchairs,andfacultyadvisors.Thisstartedby

attendingaDeans’Councilmeetingtodiscusstheprojectandexplainwhatwasneeded

fromtheirunits.ThedirectorsofRetentionServicesandAdvisementServicessentfollow‐

upemailsandscheduledindividualmeetingswitheachacademicunit.Meetingswithall

sevenacademicdeanswereconducted,andafterwardemailsweredistributedthat

explicitlystatedwhatwasrequiredtomoveforwardwiththeCollaborative.Additional

meetingswithsomedepartmentchairswerealsoscheduledwithcorrespondingemails

sentaftertheirconclusion.Twomonthslater,theEABconsultantreturnedtocampusto

conducttrainingforacademicadministratorsandfaculty.Unfortunately,sincethe

individualdepartmentmeetingsinthefall,veryfewofthedepartmentshadshownany


10

interestinactivelyutilizingtheCollaborative.Despitethefactthedataworkshopwas

scheduledinresponsetotheseadministrators’requestsforadditionalinformation,only

oneDeanfromthesevenacademicunitsattended;thiswasafrustratingdevelopmentand

aclearindicationofthelackofprogress.

Duetothelackoffeedback,itwasalsoexceedinglydifficulttoascertainhowand

wheretoproceed.Forexample,immediatelyaftertheworkshop,adepartmentchair

communicatedthathewasunsurewhathisresponsibilitieswereregardingimplementing

theCollaborative,despitestaffeffortstocommunicateearlierintheterm.Althoughinitial

outreachexplainedwhatthegoalsofthisinitiativewere,directorsallowedeach

departmenttodeterminethebestwayandtimingtoproceed;thiswasanattemptto

reassureeachdepartmentthattheystillhadinputandcontrolduringthisprocess.

Unbeknownsttotheprojectleads,thelackofdetailswasperceivedasambiguity,which

translatedintouncertaintyaboutwhatneededtobedone.Thisinteractionrevealedthat

whilefacultymemberswantautonomy,thereisalsoaneedandadesireforstructurewhen

itcomestoadministrativetasks.Asaresultofthesechallenges,themajorityofacademic

departmentsandfacultyadvisorshaveyettoviewtheCollaborativeasanimportant

studentsuccessresource.Thistechnologywillcontinuetobeanongoingprojectacross

campus;earlysuccessesinutilizationbytheprofessionaladvisorsintheacademicStudent

SuccessCentersareencouraging.In2014,Collaborativeusersloggedapproximately3,000

loginsandover9,500studentstatusupdates.(Studentstatusupdatesallowadvisorsand

administratorstotrackmodesofstudentcontactincludingone‐on‐oneappointments,

groupadvising,emailsandphonecalls.)Thefollowingyear,utilizationincreasedto7,800


11

loginsand12,000statusupdates.Thedirectors,aswellasotherswithinEnrollment

Management,believecontinueduseoftheCollaborativewillcreatemorecoordinated

studentsupporteffortsacrosscampusoffices.Theserevelationshavespurredthe

considerationanddesignofanew,morefocuseddirectivecampaignwithinacademicareas

withspecifieddeliverablesanddeadlinesforcompletion.

WhatMakesItWork:Motivation&Buy‐In

ResearchonFacultyMotivation:ExpectancyTheory

Afterconsideringthedifferentlevelsofsuccessinfacilitatingfacultyengagement

withinthesetwoinitiatives,itisclearthatitisessentialtobetterunderstandthe

conditionsandfactorsthatinfluencefacultyengagement—especiallyfacultymotivation:

Aricherunderstandingoffacultyperspectivesisessentialtosystemicchangebecausesuchchangemustultimatelybeenactedatthepersonallevelasindividualfacultyenterclassrooms,interactwithstudents,andmakechoicesaboutwhattostudyandhowtodesignresearchprograms.(Matusovich,Paretti,McNair,&Hixson,2014,p.304)

Studiesonfacultymotivationinhighereducationhaveexaminedavarietyofissues,

includinginterestinteaching,commitmenttoresearch,androletheories(Matusovichet

al.,2014;Chenetal.,2006;Mowday&Nam,1997;Blackburn&Lawrence,1995).While

individualfacultymembershavetheabilityandauthoritytodeterminetheirownbehavior,

thesocialnormswithintheacademicprofessionandtheinstitution’scampusculturealso

influencewhatbehaviorsareconsideredworthwhileandwhichareundesirable

(Blackburn&Lawrence,1995;Faia,1980).


12

Aparticularlycompellingareaofresearchisexpectancytheory,whichpositsthatan

individualdecideshowtobehavebaseduponabehavior’smostlikelyoutcomeandthe

valueofthatexpectedoutcome(Chenetal.,2006;Blackburn&Lawrence,1995).

Expectancytheorysuggeststhatindividualsareonlymotivatedtoactiftheyperceivetheir

actionswillleadtoadesirableandbeneficialoutcome.Thistheoryissalientinthiscontext

becauseitrecognizesboththeindividual’sautonomyandtheimpactofthesocial

environment,inthiscasehighereducationandfacultyroleswithinhighereducation

(Matusovichetal.,2014;Mowday&Nam,1997;Blackburn&Lawrence,1995).Applying

expectancytheorytofacultymotivationinvolvestheconsiderationofthreekey

components;Hancock(1996)definestheseasexpectancy,instrumentality,andvalence.

Expectancyisdefinedasthefacultymember’sbeliefintheirabilitytoeffectivelyperform

thegiventask,instrumentalityistheassumptionthatthetaskwillresultincertain

outcomes,andvalenceistheperceptionthattheexpectedoutcomeisbothdesirableand

valued(Hancock,1996).

Thesethreefactorsareimportantinunderstandinganddevelopingfaculty

engagementinnewinitiativesoncampus.First,iftheinitialfactorinfluencingmotivationis

theexpectationofsuccess,facultymembersaremorelikelytoengageinactivitiesthatthey

feelcompetenttocompletesuccessfully(Matusovichetal.,2014;Mowday&Nam,1997;

Hancock,1996;Blackburn&Lawrence,1995).Itisnotunexpected,then,thatfacultywould

bereluctanttousetechnologyorstrategiesrequiringneworunfamiliarskills.Next,the

goalsoftheinitiativesandtheexpectedoutcomesmustbeclearlycommunicated,sothat

facultymembersarenotforcedtomakeassumptionsaboutwhattheinstitution’sexpected


13

outcomesareinanygivencontext(Matusovichetal.,2014;Hancock,1996).Finally,itis

imperativetheoutcomesthefacultyexpecttoreceivefromtheirinvolvementarepositive

andpersonallybeneficial,aswellasdirectlyrelatedtotheirperceivedroleasafaculty

member(Matusovichetal.,2014;Mowday&Nam,1997;Hancock,1996).Thisfinalfactor

isespeciallyimportanttoconsiderbecausefacultydeemopportunitiesforprofessional

growthandadvancementassomeofthemostpivotalmomentsduringtheircareer

(Baldwin&Blackburn,1981).

Inaddition,thevalenceofoutcomesassociatedwithprofessionalactivitiesis

complextounderstandbecauseitisareflectionofboththeindividual’svaluesand

environment(Mowday&Nam,1997;Blackburn&Lawrence,1995).Blackburnand

Lawrence(1995)notedthatitwastheinterrelatednatureoftheintrinsicfactorofself‐

knowledge,suchasperceivedlevelofcompetence,andtheextrinsicfactorofsocial

knowledge,suchastheperceptionofenvironmentalexpectations,thatcanbestdetermine

facultybehavior.Whilefacultyhighlyvaluetheirautonomy(Matusovichetal.,2014;

Blackburn&Lawrence,1995),thenormsandbehaviorsappreciatedandvaluedbythe

campusculturecaninfluencehowfacultymembersdeterminethelikelihoodofreceiving

desiredrewardsfromdifferenttypesofworkorengagement(Mowday&Nam,1997).For

example,evenifanEnglishprofessorconsidersteachingasherprimaryroleather

institution,iftheadministrationexpandsandpromotesrecognitionandrewardsrelatedto

researchactivities,theprofessormayadaptherworkprioritiestoincludeincreased

researchactivitiesmorelikelytogarnerprofessionaladvancement.


14

Lastly,facultyexperienceincreasedrolestrain(pressurecausedbythedemandsto

performmultiplerolesortocompletecompetingtaskswithinasinglerole)whentheyare

presentedwithnewresponsibilities.Thiscannegativelyaffecttheirfeelingsofefficacyand

performance(Faia,1980).Thismeansthatfacultymustconsidernotonlythepositive

benefitstheycouldearnbyincreasingengagementwithanewactivityorskill,butalsothe

potentiallynegativeimpactofspendinglesstimeonotherpursuitsthathaveprovided

valuedoutcomesinthepast,suchasteaching,research,orgrant‐writing(Matusovichetal.,

2014;Hancock,1996).Blackburn&Lawrence(1995)summarizethischallengebest:

“Whatbothersthem[faculty]mostisthattheydonothaveenoughtimetoaccomplishall

thatisontheiragenda”(p.295).Thisinvolvedandnuancedcost/benefitevaluationmay

explainwhyfacultycitethepressurefromtheirworkloadasthegreatestsourceofstress

withintheirworkplace(Baldwin&Blackburn,1981).

ResearchonTechnologyAdoption

Withtheever‐increasingnumberofresponsibilitiesinhighereducationcomesthe

growinguseoftechnology;computers,softwareprogramsandotherapplicationsareoften

viewedasapanaceatohelpalleviatethepressuresofanindividual’sworkload.However,

researchshowsthattechnologyisnotalwayswelcomedorappreciatedbyeveryone

expectedtomakeuseofit(Buchananetal.,2013).Itisessentialtounderstandwhether

thatreluctanceisbasedoninternalfactorsthataredifficulttoinfluence,suchasattitude,or

externalfactorsthataninstitutioncanmorereadilychange,suchasavailableresources.

Specifically,Buchanan,Sainter&Saunders(2013)foundthatfeelingsofself‐efficacy–

especiallyrelatedtotechnology,theperceivedusefulnessofthetechnology,andreliability


15

oftheinstitution’stechnologyinfrastructure–couldallimpactfacultyuseoftechnology

resources.Thesefactorsilluminatecentralcontextualvariablesthatmustbeconsidered

whenintroducingnewtechnologyataninstitution.

InCrossingtheChasm,Moore(2002)proposedaRevisedTechnologyAdoptionLife

Cyclemodelthatexplainshowandwhenvariouspopulationsutilizenewtechnology.The

modelhasfivephasesofadoptersandhastwosmallbreaksinuptakeofnewtechnology,as

wellasonelargebreakorchasm.Themodelseekstoexplainhoweachsegmentofthe

populationutilizesnewtechnologyandhowtocaptureeachsegment’sinterestinorderto

marketnewtoolstothem.Mooreassertedinthefirstiterationsofthemodelthatthe

phasesflowedcontinuouslybetweeneachofthestages;however,practicalapplicationof

thetheorydemonstrateditwasnotacontinuousflowfromeachphasetothenext.Instead

smallbreaksexistedbetweeneachphase,includingonetransitionwithalargechasmto

overcome.Thevariousphasesandtheircharacteristicswillbeexplained,aswellaswhere

toexpectgapsinuptake.

ThefirstphaseistheInnovators,ortheTechies.Techieslovelearningaboutand

usingnewproductsjustforthesakeofnewtechnology.Theyaretheoneswhoarethefirst

torecognizethepotentialoftheproduct,aswellasappreciatethedesignofitandits

competitiveedgeoverotherproducts(Moore,2002).TheInnovatorswillspendmany

hoursinvestigatingandusingtheproductandwillbemorewillingthanotherstoforgive

theproduct’sshortcomings.Theywillgivetheirhonestandcandidfeedbackonthe

technologybecausetheygenuinelycareiftheproductissuccessful.Unfortunately,this

segmentofthepopulationisverysmallandisnotabletogreatlyaffectthemarket.


16

ThesecondphaseistheEarlyAdopters,ortheVisionaries.Theearlyadopterstend

tobeveryvocalabouttheproductbecausetheyseethebenefitstotheirorganizationof

adoptingthenewproduct.Thevisionariesdonotvaluethetechnologyitself,buttheydo

valuethestrategicadvantagetheirorganizationcangainfromusingthetechnology.This

populationlovestobeinvolvedinthepilotphase.Theycanbeeasytosellto,buthardto

please(Moore,2002).Visionariescommunicatehorizontallywithintheirorganizations

andworktopromotetheproductwithintheorganization.

ThethirdphaseistheEarlyMajority,orthePragmatists.Theearlymajoritymakes

uponethirdofthepopulation,buttheyaredifficulttocharacterizebecausetheytendnot

todrawattentiontothemselves(Moore,2002).Inordertosuccessfullymarkettothis

population,itisimportanttounderstandtheirvaluesandusethatknowledgetothebest

advantage.Thepragmatistsarehardtowinover,butoncecommittedareloyal.Theywant

strongreferencesfromotherswhohaveutilizedtheproduct.Whentheyinvestinanew

technology,theywanttoknowaboutthecompany,itsquality,itsinfrastructure,and

availablesupportbecausetheyareinvestingforthelonghaul.Theywantanestablished

productthatisreadyandeasytouse.

ThefourthphaseistheLateMajority,ortheConservatives.Thispopulationisalso

onethirdofthetotalpopulation.However,theyareagainstdiscontinuousinnovation,

meaningthissubpopulationisresistanttoproductsthatcausethemtochangetheiractions

(Moore,2002).Thisgroupisaveryhardgrouptowinoverbecauseoftheirlowcomfort

levelwithtechnology,stubbornresistancetochange,andslowembraceofnewtechnology.


17

Theywantpre‐assembledpackageswitheverythingbundledtogether,aswellasastrong

supportsystem.

ThefifthphaseofthemodelistheLaggards,ortheSkeptics.Thispopulationtotals

aboutonesixthofthetotalpopulation.Unfortunately,thissegmentofthemarketworksto

blocktheemergenceoftechnologyinthemarketorworkplace.Marketingprofessionals

typicallyignorethissubsetofthepopulation;however,Moore(2002)suggeststakingthe

opportunitytoheartheirconcernsandcomplaintsaboutthetechnologyastheycangive

insightsintothenegativesoftheproduct.

Moore(2002)foundthattechnologyadoptionisnotonecontinuousmovement

througheachoftheabove‐mentionedphases,butadisruptedandcrackedcontinuum;and

thereforethemodelwasadaptedtoshowthesechasms.Whentransitioningfromone

groupofadopterstothenext,thereisadissociationbetweenthetwogroupsnotedas“the

difficultyanygroupwillhaveinacceptinganewproductifitispresentedinthesameway

itwastothegrouptoitsimmediateleft”(Moore,2002,p.16).Thedissonancebetween

groupscausesaslightormoremoderateshiftinmomentumintheadoptionofthe

technologyand,ifnothandledappropriately,cancauseafailedtransitionbetweengroups.

Thefirstcrackinadoptionofanynewtechnologyhappensbetweentheinnovators

andtheearlyadopters.Innovatorsaresotechsavvyandappreciatingofnewtechnology

thatitissometimesdifficultfortheearlyadopterstoseethetruevalueoftheproductasit

relatestotheirday‐to‐daypractice.Theearlyadoptersneedassistanceinunderstanding

thetechnology’suseasitrelatestotheirbusiness.Becausetheearlyadoptersare


18

visionarieswithintheirorganizations,thisisnottypicallyhardtoachieve,andthusonly

presentsaminorcrackinthetechnology’sadoptioncycle.

Asthetechnologyadoptioncyclemovesfromearlyadopterstoearlymajority,the

modelintroducesthelargechasminthecycleandthegreatestopportunitytodisruptthe

adoptioncycle.Moore(2002)assertsthatisthe“mostformidableandunforgivingchasm,”

andyetitoftengoesunrecognized(p.19).Toovercomethischasm,thetechnologyaswell

asthepromotersofthetechnologymustprovethatwhatwaspromisedbythevisionaries

andthetechnologypromotershasbeendelivered.Inthisstageofadoption,thepromoters

transitionfromworkingwithvisionariestopragmatists,andthepragmatistswanttobe

soldonthevision.Thepragmatistsarereference‐orientedandalsowanttobesupported

duringtheiruseofthetechnology.Thechasmwidensifthepromotersareunwillingor

unabletoshowthepragmatists,ortheearlymajority,thepurportedvalueandimmediate

usesofthetechnology.Thesecond,andfinal,crackoccursbetweentheearlymajorityand

latemajority.Atthispointinthetechnology’sadoptionitismainstream;however,thelate

majorityneedaproductthathasbeenmadeeasiertouse.Ifthisadaptationandeaseofuse

isnotheavilypromotedandexplained,thetechnology’sadoptionmaybestalled.

Moore(2002)cautionedthatinorderforthetechnologyadoptioncycletofunction

optimally,themarkets,orgroupsofadopters,mustbewillingandabletoreferenceeach

other.Inapplyingthistothehighereducationsetting,facultymembersmustbewilling

andabletorefertotheknowledgeandexpertiseofprofessionaladministratorswhomay

bethevisionaries,earlyadopters,orpromotersofthetechnology,andviceversa.Ifthe

groupmembersareunwillingtovaluetheothergroups’opinions,thetechnologyadoption


19

cyclecanbe,andoftentimeswillbe,disrupted.Ifthisself‐referencingdoesoccurwithin

theorganizationandbetweenthemarkets,wordofthetechnologyspreadsandassiststhe

promotersinsellingittotheothergroups.Mooreemphasizedthat“themoreself‐

referencingthemarketandthemoretightlyboundedtoitscommunicationchannels,the

greateropportunityforsucheffects”(p.30).Understandingthepowerofself‐referencingis

vitaltohowthepromotingadministratorscanleveragefacultymembers’interestinthe

newtechnologyandutilizeittospreadthewordtotheircolleagues.Understandingcampus

cultureandhowthefacultyandadministratorsinteractisessentialwhenidentifying

specificmarkets,ortechnologyadoptiongroups,inordertohavewelldefinedaudiences

andaudience‐specificstrategiesduringtheimplementationprocess.

LessonsLearned:StrategiesforEngagingFacultywithStudentSuccessTechnologies

Howcanthisresearchonmotivationandtechnologyadoptionhelpuncover

effectivestrategiesforincreasingfacultyengagementinstudentsuccess?Matusovichetal.

(2014)noted“researchfocusingonfacultybeliefsandmotivationcancomplementexisting

researchondiffusionofinnovationsbyofferingaframeworkstructuredonwhyindividuals

maketheadoptionornon‐adoptionchoicesthattheydo”(p.308).Sowhatarethecentral

questionstohighlightaspectsfrombothcasestudiestorevealwhyfacultywerewilling(or

reluctant)toengagewitheitherinitiative?

1. Arethereclearfactorsfacultyusedtodecidewhattheirlevelofinvolvementwould

be?

2. Didfacultycompetenciesandskillsimpactthedesiretobeinvolved?Whyorwhy

not?

3. Howwellweretheexpectedoutcomesdefinedandcommunicatedtofaculty?


20

4. Isitclearhowvaluedtheseinitiativeswerebyfaculty,aswellasthecampusasa

whole?

ThesteadyimprovementinfacultyinvolvementintheFlightPathinitiative

constitutesa“success‐in‐progress”whenevaluatingfacultyengagement,whichdoubledin

oneyear’stime.Overthisprogram’sinauguralyear,threekeyactionareaswerepivotalin

helpingtopromoteFlightPath’scontinuedimprovement:thetransparencyofthe

initiative’sintent,communicatingthevalueoftheinitiativewithinthecontextofthe

faculty’srole,andthecreationofaclosedfeedbackloopforfacultyinput.Taking

attendancewasinitiallymetwithconcernthattheprogramwouldinfringeontheacademic

domainandthefaculty’sautonomywithinacademicareas.Inaddition,theadministration

prefersnottoenactanymandatorypolicy,likerequiringattendancereporting,becauseofa

campusculturethatoftenperceivestop‐downchangemanagementasheavy‐handedand

outoftouchwithfacultyrolesandresponsibilities.However,beingtransparentaboutthe

initiative’sprioritiesandrespondingtofacultyconcernsquicklyreducedmuchoftheinitial

uneasiness.Itwasalsoessentialtoensurethatthecommunicatedgoalswerenotjustfrom

theperspectiveoftheadministration,butthattherehadbeenconsiderationabouthowthe

programcouldpositivelyaffectthefaculty’sworkexperience.Itwasequallyimportantto

continuetocommunicatewithfacultysotheywereawarethattheireffortswere

appreciatedandtheworkcontributedwasbeingused.Closingthefeedbackloop

demonstratesthatthefaculty’sinvolvementisvaluedandappreciatedbytheinstitution.

AfterreflectingontheCollaborativecasestudy,itisapparentEnrollment

Managementmustbetteridentifymarkets,orgroupsofusers,forthistechnologyacross


21

campus.Sometimes,asevidencedinthecracksofthetechnologyadoptionlifecycle,two

marketshavetroublecommunicatingandvaluingeachother,whichcausesalaginuptake.

Whileitisimportantthatthedeansareawareofwhatishappening,theyarenotthesole

catalystsneededtoimplementanewinitiativeatthedepartmentallevel.Insteadthis

initiativeneeded(andstillneeds)keyfacultymembersanddepartmentchairswillingtobe

earlyadoptersoftheprogramandtoseethevalueintheplatform.Theprofessional

advisorswerethepilotleadsonthistechnologyimplementationproject.Difficultiesgetting

facultyadvisorsinvolvedhavecontinuedbecausefacultywerenotinvolvedinthepilot

stage.Oncefacultyadvisorshavebeentrainedandbroughtonlinewiththetechnology,

thoseearlyadopterscanbeutilizedtopromotethetoolamongsttheirpeerstoencourage

otherstoutilizethetechnology.Thentheprocesscanharnessthepowerofself‐

referencing,mentionedbyMoore(2002),byearlyadopterstalkingwiththeirpeersabout

thebenefitsofthenewtechnology.Thiscommunicationstrategywillbehelpfulwhen

expandingtoadditionalfacultymembersbecausetheywillbeabletosharetheir

experiencestobettercontextualizethetool’svalue.Engagingandencouragingfacultyis

challenging;however,thebuy‐infromfacultyisabsolutelycrucialtostudentsuccess

initiativesoncampus.

Inconclusion,thepracticallessonslearnedineachofthesecases,combinedwith

researchonmotivationandinnovationadoption,revealsstrategiesinstitutionscanutilize

togetfacultytoengageinnewrolesandresponsibilities.Administratorsshould:1)find

waystoassessandsupplementfacultymembers’perceptionoftheircompetencylevelin

theanticipatedactivity;and2)clearlycommunicatethevalueoftheinitiativeinacontext


22

thatisrelevanttofacultygoals.Helpingfacultydevelopfeelingsofcompetencycanbe

accomplishedbyprovidingearlyopportunitiesfortrainingandcontinuingdevelopmentas

wellascreatingintentionalinteractionstoboostfacultyself‐efficacy,sofacultywillfeel

theyareskilledenoughtobesuccessfulatthisnewtask.Additionally,theremustbe

investmentsmadetoensurethetechnologicalinfrastructureisreadytosupportthese

innovations.Lackingsuchinvestment,effortstoengagefacultywillbeoverlydifficult

(muchliketheinitialroll‐outoftheFlightPathAttendanceprogram)andunsustainable

(Buchananetal.,2013).

Asanadministrator,thereareavarietyofwaystocreateintentionalinteractionsto

improvethecommunicationaboutaprogram’simplementation:

Donotbeafraidtorespondtocritics:usethenegativefeedbackaswaysto

encourageinterestandinteractionduringtheinitiative.

Communicateearlywins:allowearlyadopterstosharetheirexperiencesandwhat

theywereabletoachieveasaresult.

Createdevelopmentopportunitiesthatallowinteractionwithearlyadopterswho

canespousethebenefitsoftheprogramtothepeoplewhoareslowtoengage.

Whenpromotingnewtechnology,ensurethetoolcanbepreviewed,andbesureto

demonstrateandemphasizeitseaseofuse.

Workcarefullywiththeearlyadopterstocreateusageguides/FAQsthatwillmake

adoptionofthetechnologyorinvolvementinthenewinitiativeeasierforthelate

majority.


23

Thesestrategiesformakingthemostofthecommunicationandcontactbetweenkey

stakeholdersarealsoanimportantelementinhighlightingvalue.Researchonexpectancy

theoryindicatestheimportanceofacknowledgingatask’soutcomesandtheperceived

valueofthoseoutcomes.Byprovidingearlyadopterswithapublicforumtosharepersonal

successstories,itbecomesmucheasierforotherfacultymemberstoalsoclassifythe

activityasworthwhile.Asnotedintheresearchontechnologyadoption,therecanbesome

difficultywhengroupsindifferentstagestrytorelatetheirexperiencestooneanother.As

aresult,communicationsshouldremainfluidandadaptableasthegroupsofkey

stakeholderschange.Additionally,providingthoseforumsforcriticscangive

administratorsinsightintothefaculty’spriorities,sotheconversationaboutnewprograms

canremainrelevantandtimely.Althoughthesestrategiesmayappearbasic,allrequire

vigilanceandcommitmentbythoseselectedtoleadanyfaculty‐basedprogramming.


24

References

Altbach,P.G.&Finkelstein,M.J.(2014,October7).Forgettingthefaculty.InsideHigher

Education.Retrievedfrom

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2014/10/07/essay‐way‐many‐reformers‐

higher‐education‐are‐ignoring‐faculty‐role.

Baldwin,R.G.&Blackburn,R.T.(1981).Theacademiccareerasadevelopmentalprocess:

Implicationsforhighereducation.TheJournalofHigherEducation,52(6),598‐614.

Blackburn,R.T.,&Lawrence,J.H.(1995).Facultyatwork:Motivation,expectation,

satisfaction.Baltimore,MD:TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.

Buchanan,T.,Sainter,P.&Saunders,G.(2013).Factorsaffectingfacultyuseoflearning

technologies:Implicationsformodelsoftechnologyadoption.JournalofComputing

inHigherEducation,25(1),1‐11.

Chen,Y.,Gupta,A.,&Hoshower,L.(2006).Factorsthatmotivatebusinessfacultyto

conductresearch:Anexpectancytheoryanalysis.JournalofEducationforBusiness,

81(4),179‐189.

Faia,M.A.(1980).Teaching,research,androletheory.AnnalsoftheAmericanAcademyof

PoliticalofSocialScience,448,36‐45.

Hancock,D.R.(1996).Enhancingfacultymotivationtoadvisestudents:Anapplicationof

expectancytheory.NACADAJournal,16(2),11‐15.


25

Matusovich,H.M.,Paretti,M.C.,McNair,L.D.,&Hixson,C.(2014).Facultymotivation:A

gatewayfortransformingengineeringeducation.JournalofEngineeringEducation,

103(2),302‐330.

Moore,G.A.(2002).Crossingthechasm:Marketingandsellingdisruptiveproductsina

mainstreammarket.NewYork:HarperCollins.

Mowday,R.T.&Nam,S.H.(1997).Expectancytheoryapproachestofacultymotivation.In

J.L.Bess(Ed.),Teachingwellandlikingit:Motivatingfacultytoteacheffectively(pp.

110‐124).Baltimore,MD:TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.

MOTIVATING AND SUPPORTING FACULTY - JoSSR

Documents

Transcript of MOTIVATING AND SUPPORTING FACULTY - JoSSR