normative support for improving undergraduate education in teaching-oriented colleges

Research in Higher Education, Vol. 42, No. 5, 2001

NORMATIVE SUPPORT FOR IMPROVINGUNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION INTEACHING-ORIENTED COLLEGES

Mardy T. Eimers, John M. Braxton, and Alan E. Bayer

::: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :A number of recommendations to improve undergraduate education have been putforth in the higher education literature. However, we maintain that the implementationof these recommendations at our colleges and universities is unlikely if norms or“group standards of appropriate and inappropriate behavior” do not support theserecommendations. Consequently, this study investigated the normative support for 6selected recommendations to improve undergraduate education at teaching-orientedcolleges. Results indicate support for 3 of the 6 recommendations: “systematic pro-gram of advisement,” “providing students with prompt, formative feedback on assign-ments,” and “fostering an egalitarian classroom climate.” These are the same recom-mendations supported by norms at higher education institutions that are morefocused toward research and graduate education. The implications suggest that thenormative structure that supports teaching improvement efforts may be more similaramong various institutions than previous research might have indicated.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::KEY WORDS: college teaching norms; undergraduate education.

INTRODUCTION

Although substantial efforts have been made at several colleges and universi-ties to place more emphasis on undergraduate education, its overall quality andmore specifically the quality of undergraduate teaching continues to be underattack at a heightened level (e.g., Boyer Commission on Educating Undergradu-ates, 1998; Kellogg Commission on the Future of State Land-Grant Universities,

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 1998 Annual Meeting of the Association forthe Study of Higher Education (ASHE) held in Miami, Florida, November 5–8, 1998.

Mardy T. Eimers is Director, Institutional Research & Planning, and Adjunct Assistant Professor,Educational Leadership, at the University of Missouri. John M. Braxton is Professor, in the Depart-ment of Educational Leadership, at Vanderbilt University, Peabody College. Alan E. Bayer is Pro-fessor of Sociology and Director of the Center for Survey Research at Virginia Polytechnic Instituteand State University.

Address correspondence to: Mardy T. Eimers, Director, Institutional Research & Planning, 730Lewis Hall, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211; [email protected].

569

0361-0365/01/1000-0569$19.50/0 2001 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

570 EIMERS, BRAXTON, AND BAYER

1996). The lack of attention placed on undergraduate education, some haveargued, can be directly attributed to the increasing emphasis our colleges anduniversities have placed on faculty to engage in research and scholarship. Forexample, at about the same time that a handful of key reports were publishedregarding the troubling condition of undergraduate education (e.g., National In-stitute of Education, 1984), Schuster and Bowen (1985) reported how their visitsto universities and colleges revealed an unprecedented level of emphasis beingplaced on research and scholarship. The authors submitted a “veritable surgetoward research” at several institutions, some of which had seldom in the pastever expected their faculty to engage in research and publish the results. More-over, these institutions had not previously considered research and scholarshipto be an important, much less essential, component for their faculty securingtenure and advancing professionally.

As a result, several constituencies have maintained that undergraduate educa-tion may be suffering because of the increased emphasis being placed on re-search. However, empirical inquiries have rarely evidenced this contention. Ex-amining studies completed during a 4-decade period, Braxton (1996) noted thatonly 1 of 30 studies found that a faculty member’s emphasis on research andscholarly pursuits had a clear negative impact on his or her teaching effective-ness. Despite these findings, public perception remains that the quality of under-graduate education and undergraduate teaching suffer in part because of theemphasis faculty members are placing on research.

There are a number of other factors in addition to the emphasis on researchthat contribute to concerns regarding the quality of undergraduate education.Nevertheless, if genuine efforts to enhance undergraduate education are pursued,what options are available to college administrators and faculty leaders? Institu-tions could surely shift the reward structure by placing more emphasis on under-graduate teaching and less emphasis on research. Likewise, more emphasiscould be placed on honing teaching skills in graduate school, and current facultycould participate more extensively in development efforts to improve teaching.Shifts in current policies and practices (e.g., enable faculty to teach smallerclasses, enhance the reward system for teaching excellence beyond current tokenawards for outstanding teaching, require frequent formative as well as summa-tive evaluations of teaching, etc.) may also lead to increased levels of quality.

NORMATIVE SUPPORT

We contend, however, that a key to improving undergraduate education mayhinge on understanding the normative structure that exists among faculty withinan institution. Norms are shared beliefs within a social or professional group ofwhat behavior ought to be in a given situation or circumstance (Gibbs, 1981;Merton, 1968, 1973). Relevant norms encourage faculty conformity to recom-

571IMPROVING EDUCATION IN TEACHING-ORIENTED COLLEGES

mendations to improve undergraduate education, where nonconformity wouldnormally prevail (Durkheim, 1951). Without supportive norms in place, facultyare likely to enact recommendations according to their own preferences. Normstake on added importance because of the high degree of autonomy most facultymembers possess in their teaching role performance and their out-of-class con-tact with undergraduate students.

In the past several years, a number of recommendations to improve under-graduate education in our colleges and universities have been put forth (e.g.,Association of American Colleges, 1985; Boyer, 1987, 1991; Boyer Commis-sion, 1998; Chickering and Gamson, 1987; Gaff, 1991; Kellogg Commission,1996; McKeachie, 1994; Weimer, 1992). These recommendations range frompromoting more interaction between faculty and students to provide studentswith more formative feedback on assignments, thus enabling students to take amore active role in their own learning, and encouraging faculty to allow studentsto learn from each other in the classroom. However, even though many of theserecommendations have been endorsed publicly by the higher education commu-nity, it is not difficult to find individual faculty members, academic departments,and sometimes entire colleges that have made relatively few strides toward suc-cessfully implementing these recommendations within the academic culture ofthe institution. Thus, if norms support a given recommendation then a facultymember is more likely to enact it. On the other hand, if little normative supportfor a given recommendation is present among the faculty, then that recommen-dation will be less likely endorsed. What is particularly compelling, then, iswhether norms espoused by faculty support specific recommendations to im-prove undergraduate education.

In terms of norms regarding undergraduate education, we are just beginningto understand some of the underlying premises in this area of research. Braxton,Bayer, and Finkelstein (1992) identified a normative structure for undergraduatecollege teaching—four domains characterized in the negative as InterpersonalDisregard, Particularistic Grading, Moral Turpitude, and Inadequate Planning.Braxton, Eimers, and Bayer (1996) broadened this scope and examined whetherthere was normative support for six specific recommendations to improve under-graduate education that have been widely endorsed in the literature. Surveyingfaculty from research-oriented institutions, the authors reported that three rec-ommendations were supported by norms and three were not. The recommenda-tions supported were: “systematic program of advisement,” “providing studentswith feedback,” and “fostering an egalitarian classroom climate.” However, nor-mative support for three of the recommendations—“learning about students,”“encouraging faculty-student contact,” and “concern to improve teaching”—wasnot evident among faculty at these institutions.

In the present study we are interested in whether normative support for thesesix recommendations to improve undergraduate education would be different at


colleges that primarily emphasize undergraduate education (i.e., teaching-ori-ented colleges). Institutional missions exert a strong influence on institutionalstructures, which, in turn, affect the performance of professorial roles (Ruscio,1987a) and the norms accompanying these roles as well. As a consequence, wemight expect institutional differences. That is, research-oriented institutions of-fer graduate as well as undergraduate programs, and scholarly inquiry is anessential, if not the primary mission of these institutions. However, at collegeswhere few if any graduate programs exist and where undergraduate educationis clearly the primary mission even if there has been a surge toward researchemphasis at some institutions, might we find a different pattern of normativesupport for the six recommendations to improve undergraduate education?

TEACHING-ORIENTED COLLEGES

For this study we identified Liberal Arts I colleges (LA I), Liberal Arts IIcolleges (LA II), and community colleges as teaching-oriented colleges. LiberalArts I and II colleges primarily offer only baccalaureate degrees rather than alarge number of graduate degrees. Where LA I colleges are quite selective inadmissions and confer at least 40% of their degrees in liberal arts and sciencesfields, LA II college are less selective and award fewer than 40% of their de-grees in liberal arts and sciences fields (Carnegie Foundation for the Advance-ment of Teaching, 1987). Community colleges, however, offer a wide varietyof vocational and certificate degree programs that are typically 1- to 2-yearprograms (Carnegie Foundation, 1987) as well as traditional liberal arts andsciences courses, which allow students to transfer to 4-year institutions aftercompleting requirements for the associate’s degree.

Nevertheless, the difference between teaching-oriented colleges and research-oriented institutions goes well beyond the degrees they confer and the studentsthey teach. Teaching-oriented colleges are unequivocally dedicated to the under-graduate student and undergraduate education (e.g., see McGee, 1971; Wrightand Burden, 1986). This overarching mission penetrates the academic culture ofthese institutions and is reflected in faculty priorities, goals, rewards, and values.For example, the priorities of faculty at teaching-oriented colleges typically re-flect an emphasis on local issues such as the curriculum, student advising, cam-pus governance, student extracurricular involvement, and of course, undergradu-ate teaching (Clark, 1987). This is not to suggest that research and scholarshipdoes not take place at these institutions. In fact, some faculty, particularly thoseat LA I colleges, make frequent scholarly contributions to their disciplines.However, even these scholarly pursuits are often coalesced around involvingundergraduates in research (Ruscio, 1987b). Thus, the emphasis directed towardundergraduate education at teaching-oriented colleges suggests that the norma-tive support for the six recommendations to improve undergraduate education


may be different than what was identified with faculty at more research-orientedinstitutions.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This study investigates the normative support for the six recommendations toimprove undergraduate education among faculty at LA I colleges, LA II col-leges, and community colleges (Carnegie Foundation, 1987). Although theseinstitutions are teaching-oriented, we might expect differences among thesethree types of colleges in their level of normative support for recommendationsto improve undergraduate education. That is, the faculty in LA I colleges holda dual orientation toward their discipline and toward their institutions (Alpert,1985; Braxton and Toombs, 1982; McGee, 1971; Ruscio, 1987b). The teachingenvironments of such institutions are also characterized by not only an emphasison cognitive capacities (the mastery of disciplinary knowledge) but also on theliberal arts and preparation for graduate study (Platt, Parsons, and Kirshstein,1978). In contrast, “total learning environments” best depict the teaching envi-ronments of LA II colleges given that cognitive concerns as well as the moraland personal development of students are given considerable emphasis in theteaching goals of faculty in these colleges (Platt et al., 1978). Despite the em-phasis on teaching at both Liberal Arts colleges I and II, some scholars contendthat the prototypical teaching institution is the 2-year college (Cohen andBrawer, 1982). Thornton (1972) asserts that instruction is best in the 2-yearcollege because the students at such institutions possess a wide range of aca-demic ability and achievement. Accordingly, good instruction is a necessity.Given such differences among these three types of teaching-oriented colleges,we might anticipate differences among them in the level of support faculty es-pouse for norms supportive of recommendations to improve undergraduate edu-cation.

In addition, one might expect variations among faculty affiliated with differ-ent disciplines at teaching-oriented colleges. From their extensive review of re-search on academic disciplines, Braxton and Hargens (1996) conclude that thedifferences among academic disciplines “are profound and extensive.” Such dif-ferences occur along such dimensions as faculty preferences for teaching andresearch, publication productivity, and adherence to the research norms. Facultyin disciplines having high levels of paradigmatic development are more orientedtoward research than teaching, tend to have higher publication rates, and aremore likely to conform to the research norms of disinterestedness, organizedskepticism, and universalism than their colleagues in disciplines exhibiting lowparadigmatic development. In contrast, faculty in disciplines of low paradigma-tic development tend to be more oriented toward teaching, have higher courseevaluations, and are more likely to exhibit role complimentarity between teach-


ing and research than their counterparts in disciplines having high paradigmaticdevelopment.

As a consequence, we might anticipate that faculty in different academic dis-ciplines may vary in their level of support for norms supportive of the recom-mendations to improve undergraduate education. Thus, this study addressesthree questions:

1. Are faculty norms present at teaching-oriented colleges to support recom-mendations that have been suggested to improve undergraduate education?

2. If faculty norms do support these recommendations, then do these normsvary across different types of teaching-oriented colleges?

3. If faculty norms do support these recommendations, then do these normsvary across academic disciplines at teaching-oriented colleges?

The study is important for several reasons. First, by extending the Braxton,Eimers, and Bayer (1996) inquiry to teaching-oriented colleges, we can beginto develop a more comprehensive understanding of normative support for theimprovement of undergraduate education across the range of higher educationinstitutions. This study may also provide at least some perspective as to the easeor difficulty we might expect if genuine efforts are made to implement theserecommendations at different types of institutions and within different academicdisciplines. That is, college faculty enjoy significant levels of professional au-tonomy. They have the choice, to some degree, to accept or reject recommenda-tions that have been suggested to improve undergraduate education. However,their acceptance or rejection of these recommendations will depend substantiallyon whether norms are in place and endorsed by the faculty to support a particu-lar recommendation.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE UNDERGRADUATEEDUCATION

To identify the recommendations, we reviewed thoroughly the literature thatfocused on improving undergraduate teaching and learning, enhancing the un-dergraduate curriculum, and more general literature on strengthening the under-graduate academic experience. We looked at a variety of publications writtenfor different audiences and purposes. From this review, we identified a commonset of six recommendations to improve undergraduate college teaching andlearning. These six recommendations are not exhaustive of posited recommen-dations nor does every published report endorse these six recommendations.However, multiple authors of such reports have advanced each of these sixrecommendations. In addition, we also have data available on faculty percep-tions of whether behaviors reflective of these six recommendations meet norma-


tive criteria. Each of these recommendations is described in the following para-graphs.

Encouragement of Faculty and Student Contact

In Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education, Chicker-ing and Gamson (1987) specifically identified “encouraging student-faculty con-tact” as one of seven principles. This recommendation has also been widelyendorsed by several other publications and reports (e.g., Boyer, 1987; Eble andMcKeachie, 1985; Mayhew, Ford, and Hubbard, 1990; National Institute of Ed-ucation, 1984). The Kellogg Commission (1996) strongly advocated increasingopportunities for undergraduate students in all disciplines to interact regularlywith faculty in classroom and nonclassroom learning situations. Moreover, theCommission encouraged the creation of opportunities for undergraduate studentsto work directly with faculty members on their research and scholarly pursuits.

Systematic Program of Advisement

The undergraduate experience is greatly improved when students are compe-tently advised when choosing courses, deciding a major, determining what col-lege activities and experiences best meet their academic and future needs, andwhen students are counseled as they make career plans (Boyer, 1987; Gaff,1991; Mayhew et al., 1990; National Institute of Education, 1984). Advising isparticularly salient when the same individual, especially if it is a faculty mem-ber, can advise the student throughout his or her career (National Institute ofEducation, 1984). The Boyer Commission (1998) may have said it best, propos-ing that every student “. . . should be able to feel that some faculty memberknows and appreciates the student’s situation and progress. . . . [T]his kind ofmentoring relationship needs to be created early and maintained when possiblethroughout a student’s program.” When confronted with issues outside his orher expertise, faculty advisors should at least be familiar with campus resourcesand personnel that can assist the student.

Feedback on Student Performance

This recommendation was widely supported by the vast majority of publica-tions and reports. It suggests that students should receive frequent, prompt, andconstructive feedback on their assignments, projects, and examinations. For ex-ample, Integrity in the College Curriculum (Association of American Colleges,1985) recommends that students have every reason to expect that “tests andpapers that are a part of the learning process will be fairly graded, promptlyreturned, and provided with helpful comment by the instructor.” Students should


be informed of their strengths and weaknesses so they can work to improve(Bok, 1986; Chickering and Gamson, 1987), and faculty should vary assign-ments so students can receive feedback in a variety of forms (Mancini andTiberius, 1991).

Learn About Students

Effective teaching hinges largely on recognizing and learning student interestsand characteristics in one’s class and then using examples and giving assign-ments based on these interests and characteristics (Katz, 1985). “Unless teachersknow their students reasonably well, it is impossible for them to know whetheror how any given idea will be understood, integrated into the mind, or used bythe student” (Gaff, 1991).

Foster Egalitarianism and Tolerance in the Classroom

Faculty members should respect the diverse backgrounds and interests stu-dents bring to a class and are encouraged to promote interaction among studentsso they can learn from each other (Boyer Commission, 1998; Mancini and Tibe-rius, 1991). When given the opportunity to participate in classroom discussions,students should feel comfortable expressing their opinions and perspectiveswithout receiving inappropriate criticism from classmates or the faculty member(Gaff, 1991; Kellogg Commission, 1996). In the classroom, undergraduate stu-dents need opportunities to enhance the texture of their learning by listeningand interacting with faculty and students from different ethnic and cultural back-grounds (Boyer Commission, 1998). In addition, fostering an egalitarian class-room climate provides an avenue for all students to participate and take anactive role in their own learning.

Demonstration of a Concern for Improving College Teaching

One of the most pronounced recommendations suggested in nearly every re-port or article we reviewed was that all faculty members should strive to en-hance their skills as a college teacher (e.g., Boyer, 1987, 1991; Boyer Commis-sion, 1998; Eble and McKeachie, 1985; Gaff, 1991; Kellogg Commission, 1996;Mayhew et al., 1990; Paulsen and Feldman, 1995; Travis, 1995). Eble and Mc-Keachie (1985) help to illuminate this recommendation: “the ability to analyzethe teaching situation, to monitor one’s own effectiveness, and to adapt one’smethods to a particular class and a particular teaching situation are elements incontinuing development as a faculty member.” This recommendation is espe-cially salient because faculty typically have little formal training in collegeteaching and student learning. Furthermore, as different modes of technology


become more pervasive in the college learning environment, it is imperative thatfaculty members learn to use these and other tools to enhance their teaching.

METHOD

The population of inference included tenured, full-time faculty in biology,psychology, mathematics, and history holding academic appointments at LA Icolleges, LA II colleges, and community colleges. Faculty from these four aca-demic disciplines were selected because they represent different categories ofthe Biglan (1973) schema, which classifies disciplines along several dimensionsincluding high-low paradigmatic development, pure-applied orientation and life-nonlife orientation. Biology and mathematics are pure, high paradigmatic disci-plines, whereas psychology and history are pure, low paradigmatic disciplines.Biology and psychology are classified as having a life orientation, while theother two disciplines have a nonlife orientation. We only included tenured, full-time faculty because they are more likely to have a greater degree of autonomyin their teaching role performance and have generally been teaching sufficientlylong as to have crystallized their normative standards.

RESEARCH DESIGN

This study employed an aggregated sample derived from two surveys. Bothsurveys used cluster sampling to derive their samples of faculty members. Spe-cific colleges, selected at random using a table of random numbers, constitutedthe clusters. These clusters were used to then randomly select names of individ-ual faculty members in each of the four academic disciplines represented in thisstudy. The College Teaching Behavior Inventory (CTBI), which is describedbelow, was mailed to faculty members selected to participate in Survey I andSurvey II.

Survey I focused on LA I and LA II colleges. The Carnegie Classification ofInstitutions (Carnegie Foundation, 1987) was used to identify specific institu-tions included in the population of 144 LA I and 545 LA II colleges. All 144LA I colleges were selected, and 131 LA II colleges were randomly selectedfrom the list of 545 LA II colleges for inclusion in Survey I. The most recentcollege catalog for each of the colleges was used to identify individual facultymembers holding academic appointments in the four academic disciplines. Atotal of 100 randomly selected individual faculty members per discipline wereincluded, for a total of 400 faculty members in LA I colleges and 400 facultymembers in LA II colleges. Of the 800 faculty members mailed the CTBI, 382individuals returned a completed survey form for a response rate of 47.8 percent.

Survey II concentrated on 2-year colleges. From the list of 1,366 2-year col-leges classified in this category by the Carnegie Classification of Institutions


(1987), 137 institutions were randomly selected. The most current catalog ofeach of the selected colleges was used to identify individual faculty membersholding academic appointments in the four academic disciplines used in thisstudy. A total of 200 faculty members per discipline were selected for a total of800 faculty members in the sample. A total of 265 faculty members completedusable survey forms for a response rate of 33.1 percent.

By aggregating the responses to Survey I and Survey II, a sample of 647faculty members is obtained. However, this study focuses only on tenured, full-time faculty members. A total of 426 faculty members who are full time andhold academic tenure were derived from the aggregated sample. These 426 indi-vidual faculty members comprise the sample used for this study. This sampleincludes 124 faculty in LA I colleges, 121 in LA II colleges, and 181 in 2-yearcolleges.

When returns from both samples were complete, we examined the possibilityof response bias in accordance with procedures proposed by Goode and Hatt(1952) and Leslie (1972). This technique assumes that late respondents are simi-lar to nonrespondents. Thus, by testing for statistically significant differencesbetween early respondents and late respondents on a number of key variables,one can get a much better sense as to whether response bias might exist. Weused the t test to compare faculty who responded to the initial mailing of theCTBI with faculty who responded to subsequent mailings on the six recommen-dations to improve undergraduate education. Separate sets of t tests were con-ducted for Survey I and Survey II for a total of 12 such tests. The .05 level ofstatistical significance was applied. All 12 of these t tests yielded statisticallynonsignificant differences between individuals who responded to the initialmailing and those who responded to subsequent mailings of the CTBI. As aconsequence, the sample of 426 individual faculty members appears to be repre-sentative of the population of faculty in the four academic disciplines at LA I,LA II, and 2-year colleges.

The College Teaching Behavior Inventory (CTBI) was designed and con-structed by Braxton, Bayer, and Finkelstein (1992) as an exploratory instrumentto identify undergraduate college teaching behaviors that are subject to norma-tive criteria. The CTBI includes 126 items organized around seven areas: in-class practices, out-of-class practices, faculty-student interaction, examinationand grading practices, course planning and design, the first day of class, and theinstructor’s relationships with colleagues in regard to the teaching role. Each ofthe 126 behaviors was negatively worded to put each behavior in the form of aviolation of a possible norm. This method follows the contention of both Durk-heim (1951) and Kitsuse (1972) that norms are best recognized when they areviolated.

Individuals were asked to indicate their opinion on each specific behavior asit might ideally apply to a faculty member teaching a lower division collegecourse of about 40 enrolled students. Individual faculty reactions to each of the


specific behaviors were indicated by the use of the following 5-point ratingscale: (1) appropriate behavior, should be encouraged, (2) discretionary behav-ior, neither particularly appropriate nor inappropriate, (3) mildly inappropriate,generally to be ignored, (4) inappropriate behavior, to be handled informally bycolleagues or administrators suggesting change or improvement, and (5) veryinappropriate behavior, requiring formal administrative intervention. By havingfaculty members ascribe sanctions to inappropriate teaching behaviors, we fol-lowed the Durkheimian principle of indexing the degree of moral indignationevoked by a violation of a norm (Durkheim, 1934; Zuckerman, 1977, 1988).

Table 1 identifies the composite variables and the items selected from theCTBI that we used to measure each of six recommendations to improve under-graduate education. To ascertain whether normative support existed for a givenrecommendation and how strongly it might be supported, we summed the valuesfor the items in a given composite variable and determined the mean score.Only those behaviors for which there were relatively strong sanctions (meanvalue of 3.5 or higher on the scale above) were judged to be suitable to bedesignated as a norm. That is, a value of 3.0 represents “mildly inappropriatebehavior” but not to the level that it would invoke action. A value of 4.0 repre-sents “inappropriate behavior” whereby actions would be recommended. Thus,a mean of 3.5 indicates that the typical respondent perceives the behavior to beinappropriate and above the level at which the behavior can be ignored. Braxton,Eimers, and Bayer (1996) likewise used a mean of 3.5 and above as the criterionfor normative support for a given recommendation. Because we make compari-sons between our findings and those from this earlier analysis, consistency inthe definition of normative support is necessary.

The Cronbach alpha estimate of internal consistency reliability for “encour-agement of faculty and student contact” (alpha = .48) and Learn about Students(alpha = .46) fall below generally accepted minimum levels of reliability (Car-mines and Zeller, 1979). However, we elected not to remove any items to im-prove reliability; nor did we choose to drop either of these two variables fromour statistical analyses. We chose this course of action to facilitate a comparisonof the findings of this study with those of Braxton, Eimers, and Bayer (1996)by including the same set of recommendations with the same items from theCTBI as used in that earlier study. We recognize, however, that a limitationto this study obtains from these relatively low internal consistency reliabilityestimates.

DATA ANALYSIS

There were two sets of independent variables, institutional type and academicdiscipline, and six dependent variables, one for each set of teaching behaviorscorresponding to the six selected recommendations for improving undergraduateeducation. Each variable was a composite measure of a faculty member’s reac-

TABLE 1. Proscriptive Teaching Behaviors Instrumental to the Achievement ofthe Six Recommendations to Improve Undergraduate Education

Encouragement of Faculty and Student Contact (Faculty-Student Contact)(Cronbach’s alpha = .48)Violations:• Office hours scheduled for student appointments are frequently not kept.• A faculty member avoids spending time with students outside of class time and/or

regular office hours.• A faculty member insists that they never be phoned at home by students regardless of

circumstances.Systematic Program of Advisement (Program of Advisement)(Cronbach’s alpha = .68)Violations:• A faculty member does not refer a student with a special problem to the appropriate

campus service.• An advisee is treated in a condescending manner.• A faculty member avoids giving career or job advice when asked by students.• A faculty member refuses to advise departmental majors.Feedback on Student Performance (Performance Feedback)(Cronbach’s alpha = .65)Violations:• Graded tests and papers are not promptly returned to students by the instructor.• Explanation of the basis for grades given for essay questions or papers is not provided

to students.• Written comments on tests and papers are consistently not made by the instructor.Learn about Students (Learn about Students)(Cronbach’s alpha = .46)Violations:• Students are not asked to record their background, experiences, and interests for refer-

ence by the instructor.• The instructor does not learn the names of all students in the class.Foster Egalitarianism and Tolerance in the Classroom (Classroom Climate)(Cronbach’s alpha = .61)Violations:• The instructor insists that the student take one particular perspective on course content.• Students are not permitted to express viewpoints different from those of the instructor.• The instructor does not allow students to direct their comments to other members of

the class.Demonstration of a Concern for the Improving of College Teaching (Improving Teaching)(Cronbach’s alpha = .76)Violations:• A faculty member avoids reading literature on teaching techniques or methods.• A faculty member avoids professional development opportunities that would enhance

their teaching.• The instructor does not introduce new teaching methods or procedures.

Note: These behaviors are negatively worded because of the method for identifying norms used inthis study. See text for discussion.


tion to a set of teaching behaviors selected from the CBTI for each of the sixrecommendations.

For the first research question, we used the mean values of the six teachingbehavior variables to determine whether or not these particular patterns of be-havior met the definition of a norm. For the second and third questions, we useda 3 × 4 analysis of variance: the three institutional types by the four disciplinaryareas. Because of the possibility of heterogeneous variances, we used the .01level to identify statistical significance. In those cases where statistically signifi-cant F-ratios for institutional type or discipline were identified, we employedthe Scheffe method to determine statistically significant group differences at theinstitutional level or at the disciplinary level.

RESULTS

Table 2 exhibits the means and standard deviations for the six teaching behav-iors by all faculty, by institution type, and by academic discipline. Table 3displays the results of the six 3 × 4 analyses of variance conducted to addressthe second and third research questions of this inquiry.

Question 1

As indicated above, the mean values of the six sets of teaching behaviors wereused to ascertain whether normative support exists for each recommendation toimprove undergraduate education. As previously stated, a mean value of 3.50or greater is used to determine whether a given pattern of behavior meets norma-tive criteria. As indicated by the means exhibited in Table 2, significant normsexist for three of the six recommendations to improve undergraduate educationas their mean values exceed 3.50: “systematic program of advisement” (mean= 3.87), “providing students with feedback” (mean = 3.73), and “fostering anegalitarian classroom climate” (mean = 3.62). In contrast, normative supportdoes not exist for three recommendations given that their mean values fail tomeet 3.50. These recommendations are: “encouragement of faculty and studentcontact” (mean = 3.24), “learning about students” (mean = 2.58), and “demon-stration of a concern to improve teaching” (mean = 3.16).

Question 2

Although norms appear to support three of the recommendations, it is possiblethat any one of these norms may not be present at either LA I colleges, LA IIcolleges, or community colleges. For the recommendations where normativesupport was noted, we also found normative support at each of the three types ofinstitutions. Likewise, for the three recommendations that were not substantially


TA

BL

E2.

Mea

nsan

dSt

anda

rdD

evia

tion

sfo

rth

eSi

xT

each

ing

Beh

avio

rsby

All

Fac

ulty

,Ins

titu

tion

Typ

e,an

dA

cade

mic

Dis

cipl

ine

Facu

lty-

Stud

ent

Prog

ram

ofPe

rfor

man

ceL

earn

Abo

utC

lass

room

Impr

ovin

gC

onta

ctA

dvis

emen

tFe

edba

ckSt

uden

tsC

limat

eT

each

ing

NM

ean

s.d.

Mea

ns.

d.M

ean

s.d.

Mea

ns.

d.M

ean

s.d.

Mea

ns.

d.

All

Fac

ulty

426

3.24

0.67

3.87

0.59

3.73

0.67

2.58

0.63

3.62

0.68

3.16

0.77

Inst

itut

iona

lT

ype

Com

mun

ityC

olle

ges

181

3.13

0.64

3.79

0.64

3.74

0.72

2.55

0.64

3.58

0.72

3.19

0.79

Lib

eral

Art

sII

Col

lege

s12

13.

400.

764.

000.

573.

760.

652.

710.

693.

670.

693.

340.

75L

iber

alA

rts

IC

olle

ges

124

3.26

0.58

3.86

0.52

3.68

0.58

2.48

0.55

3.65

0.62

2.93

0.69

Ade

mic

Dis

cipl

ine*

Mat

h91

3.35

0.71

3.81

0.58

3.66

0.64

2.61

0.67

3.42

0.68

3.11

0.74

Bio

logy

123

3.40

0.75

4.02

0.59

3.77

0.69

2.70

0.71

3.72

0.63

3.34

0.68

Psyc

holo

gy10

43.

040.

513.

800.

623.

700.

712.

410.

563.

650.

773.

110.

83H

isto

ry10

73.

180.

623.

810.

553.

770.

622.

570.

553.

670.

633.

030.

79

*Dis

cipl

inar

yaf

filia

tion

unkn

own

=1

case

.


TABLE 3. Teaching-Oriented Colleges: F-Ratios for Sources of Variancein the 3 × 4 Analyses of Variance of the Six Scales of Behavior Instrumental

to Recommendations for the Improvement of Undergraduate Education

F-Ratio F-RatioF-Ratio Institutional Academic

Recommendation Overall Type (T) Discipline (D)

Faculty-Student Contact 6.22* 5.62* 6.18*Program of Advisement 4.10* 4.74* 3.52Performance Feedback .58 0.48 0.67Learn About Students 4.14* 4.26 4.03*Classroom Climate 2.56 0.72 3.76Improving Teaching 6.14* 9.78* 4.09*v

vAlthough the F-ratio was significant, post hoc mean comparisons did not identify any statisticallysignificant differences at the .01 level.* < .01.

supported by norms, we note that there is consistency among the three types ofcolleges. Nevertheless, we found a statistically significant difference betweenfaculty in LA II colleges and their counterparts in 2-year colleges in their levelof support for the recommendation “systematic program of advisement.” Morespecifically, faculty members in LA II colleges (mean = 4.00) accord greaterstrength to this normative orientation than do their colleagues in 2-year colleges(mean = 3.79).

We also observed statistically reliable institutional differences on two recom-mendations failing to receive normative support: “encouragement of faculty andstudent contact” and “demonstration of a concern for improving college teach-ing.” Faculty members in LA II colleges (mean = 3.40) ascribe greater supportto the “encouragement of faculty and student contact” than do academics in 2-year colleges (mean = 3.13). Moreover, faculty members in LA II colleges(mean = 3.34) also provide greater backing to “demonstrating a concern for im-proving college teaching” than do their colleagues in LA I colleges (mean =2.93). Although we observed institutional variations on these two recommenda-tions, normative support for either recommendation fails to emerge. We alsofound no statistically significant institutional variation in support for the recom-mendation “learn about students.”

Question 3

Normative support for “systematic program of advisement,” “providing stu-dents with feedback,” and “fostering an egalitarian classroom climate” is invari-ant across the four academic disciplines of biology, history, mathematics, and


psychology.1 However, we observed disciplinary differences for two recommen-dations that fail to garner normative support: “encouragement of faculty andstudent contact” and “learn about students.” On the other hand, no statisticallyreliable disciplinary differences were noted for “demonstration of a concern forthe improvement of college teaching.” For the recommendation urging facultyand student contact, academic biologists (mean = 3.40) offer more support thando their faculty counterparts in psychology (mean = 3.04). Likewise, academicbiologists (mean = 2.70) attach more importance to learning about students thando academic psychologists (mean = 2.41). Despite these disciplinary differences,neither recommendation receives strong normative support.

ADDITIONAL ANALYSES

This study’s pattern of findings bears a close similarity to those of Braxton,Eimers, and Bayer (1996).2 The same three recommendations to improve under-graduate education—“systematic program of advisement,” “provision of feed-back on student performance,” and the “fostering of an egalitarian and tolerantclassroom”—appear to have norms in place at both research-oriented institu-tions and teaching-oriented colleges. Moreover, the other three recommenda-tions—“encouragement of faculty-student contact,” “learn about students,” and“demonstrate a concern for improving college teaching”—failed to have sup-portive norms in either teaching-oriented colleges or research-oriented institu-tions.

Such striking similarities raise two additional questions: (1) Is the level ofsupport for the three focal norms greater in the teaching-oriented colleges thanin research-oriented universities? (2) Is the level of support for those recommen-dations that were not supported by strong norms greater in the teaching-orientedcolleges than in research-oriented universities? Although the norms supportingrecommendations to improve undergraduate education exist in both, the level ofsupport they garner may be quite different between teaching-oriented collegesand the research-oriented universities. Likewise, the level of support for thoserecommendations without normative supports may also be variable.

To address these questions, we conducted additional statistical analyses using4 × 4 analyses of variance: four types of institutions (Research I universities, LAI, LA II and 2-year colleges) and four types of academic disciplines. Althoughdisciplinary differences are not of interest in this additional analysis, we con-trolled for such variation because such controls were used in the current studyas well as in Braxton, Eimers, and Bayer (1996). We used the .01 level ofstatistical significance because of possible heterogeneous variances among thevarious levels of the two factors included in the 4 × 4 ANOVAs performed. Wealso used the Scheffe method of post hoc mean comparisons to identify statisti-cally significant group differences where statistically significant institutional


type main effects were observed. Table 4 displays the means and standard devia-tions for Research I university faculty and Table 5 shows the results of the 4 ×4 ANOVAs.

Our analyses indicate that the level of normative support for “providing stu-dents with feedback” and “fostering an egalitarian classroom climate” is equiva-lent across the four types of colleges and universities given that the analyses ofvariance conducted for these two recommendations failed to yield statisticallysignificant results. However, faculty members in Research I universities (mean= 3.61) afford a statistically significant lesser degree of normative support thando their counterparts in LA II colleges (mean = 4.01) for the recommendation“providing a systematic program of advisement.” For this recommendation,however, Research I university faculty members do not differ in their level ofnormative backing in a statistically significant way from their colleagues in LAI colleges or in 2-year colleges.

For the three recommendations failing to receive normative support in eitherresearch universities or in teaching-oriented colleges, faculty in Research I uni-versities tend to grant less support for these recommendations. To be specific,faculty members in Research I universities ascribe less support (mean = 3.11)to the “encouragement of contact between faculty and students” than do academ-ics in LA II colleges (mean = 3.39). However, Research I university facultymembers do not differ in a statistically significant way from their counterpartsin LA I colleges and in 2-year colleges. For the recommendation to “learn aboutstudents,” Research I university academics (mean = 2.28) also voice less supportfor this particular recommendation than do their colleagues in LA II colleges(mean = 2.71) and in 2-year colleges (mean = 2.56). Faculty members in Re-search I universities and in LA I colleges, however, espouse similar levels ofsupport. Faculty members in Research I universities (mean = 2.68) also tend toaccord less support for “demonstration of a concern for the improvement ofcollege teaching” in contrast to their colleagues in LA II colleges (mean = 3.34)and in 2-year colleges (mean = 3.19). However, similar levels of support arevoiced for this recommendation by faculty in Research I universities and in LAI colleges.

LIMITATIONS

Several limitations temper the conclusions of this study. First, the six recom-mendations to improve undergraduate education included in this study are notexhaustive of such recommendations advanced in the literature. Nevertheless,these recommendations are made by multiple authors of reports urging improve-ments in undergraduate education. Second, the behaviors reflective of each ofthe six recommendations are not exhaustive of all possible behaviors that mightbe subsumed under each of the six recommendations.


TA

BL

E4.

Res

earc

hI

Uni

vers

ity

Fac

ulty

:M

eans

and

Stan

dard

Dev

iati

ons

for

the

Six

Tea

chin

gB

ehav

iors

Facu

lty-

Stud

ent

Prog

ram

ofPe

rfor

man

ceL

earn

Abo

utC

lass

room

Impr

ovin

gC

onta

ctA

dvis

emen

tFe

edba

ckSt

uden

tsC

limat

eT

each

ing

NM

ean

s.d.

Mea

ns.

d.M

ean

s.d.

Mea

ns.

d.M

ean

s.d.

Mea

ns.

d.

Res

earc

hI

Uni

vers

ities

118

3.11

0.58

3.61

0.62

3.61

0.68

2.28

0.52

3.46

0.65

2.68

0.68


TABLE 5. Research I Universities and Teaching-Oriented Colleges:F-Ratios for Sources of Variance in the 4 × 4 Analyses of Variance of the

Six Scales of Behavior Instrumental to Recommendations for theImprovement of Undergraduate Education

F-Ratio F-RatioF-Ratio Institutional Academic

Recommendation Overall Type (T) Discipline (D)

Faculty-Student Contact 4.88* 5.29* 4.00*Program of Advisement 6.98* 8.62* 4.65*Performance Feedback 1.06 1.14 0.99Learn About Students 7.61* 10.57* 4.38*Classroom Climate 2.91* 2.11 3.64Improving Teaching 11.96* 18.89* 4.71*

* < .01.

Third, the teaching behaviors that comprise the CTBI are all negativelyworded in order to cast each behavior in the form of a violation of a particularnorm. The negative wording of each behavior is necessary to identify behaviorsmeeting normative criteria. However, a response bias may have resulted becauseof such negative wording. Such response bias may be minimal because thebehaviors not only vary in length but also in the manner in which negativewording is used. These variations may lessen response bias to some extent.Fourth, the Cronbach alpha estimates of internal consistency reliability of “en-couragement of faculty and student contact” and “learn about students” are rela-tively low. As a consequence, the random measurement error of these two vari-ables is attenuated (Carmines and Zeller, 1979). Such error attenuation mayhave resulted in the failure to identify statistically significant variations for“learn about students.” Nevertheless, “learn about students” would fail to re-ceive normative support even if only one item in the two-item construct wasused. That is, the mean for the first item was 2.47 (“students are not asked torecord their background, experiences, and interests for reference by the instruc-tor”) and the mean for the second item was 2.90 (“instructor does not learn thenames of all students in the class”). Moreover, two of the three specific behav-iors subsumed under “encouragement of faculty and student contact” also failto meet normative criteria as their means are 2.90 (“a faculty member avoidsspending time with students outside of class time and/or regular office hours”)and 2.55 (“a faculty member insists that they never be phoned at home bystudents regardless of circumstances”), whereas a mean of 4.27 was obtainedfor the item “office hours scheduled for student appointments are frequently notkept.” Thus, it appears that “encouragement of faculty and student contact”


would also fail to receive normative support if the item “office hours scheduledfor student appointments are frequently not kept” was dropped from this com-posite variable. The removal of this behavior would result in a Cronbach alphainternal consistency reliability estimate of .57 for this composite scale. As pre-viously indicated, we elected not to drop behaviors from these two compositescales in order to permit comparisons between the findings of this study andthose of Braxton, Eimers, and Bayer (1996).

DISCUSSION

The results of this study reveal several important findings and implications.These results suggest that norms are in place among teaching-oriented collegesfor three of the six recommendations. Following Durkheim’s formulation thatconformity is largely externally imposed, the likelihood of successfully imple-menting these recommendations is strongest where normative support is inplace. Evidently, faculty at teaching-oriented colleges feel strongly about effec-tively advising their students, providing prompt feedback on assignments, andcreating an egalitarian atmosphere in the classroom where students share ideasand learn from each other.

Successful implementation of the other recommendations—“encouraging fac-ulty-student contact,” “learning about students,” and “demonstration of a con-cern to improve teaching”—is less assured, and special efforts may be necessaryto enhance the likelihood of their successful implementation at these colleges.From one perspective, the lack of normative support for these three recommen-dations is somewhat surprising given that these colleges focus largely on under-graduate education. The failure of faculty across the three types of teaching-oriented institutions to accord normative support to the recommendation “dem-onstration of a concern for improving teaching” is particularly striking. Evenmore striking is the lack of normative support for this recommendation amongfaculty in community colleges, institutions viewed by some to be the prototypi-cal teaching-oriented college. Many of these institutions have certainly sharedwith prospective students that faculty are accessible, they get to know you,and they strive to improve their effectiveness as teachers. Nevertheless, facultyapparently feel that noncompliance does not justify potential sanctions.

Furthermore, faculty members at teaching-oriented colleges tended to supportor refute norms for the six recommendations to improve undergraduate educa-tion regardless of their disciplinary affiliation. This finding appears to be consis-tent with Clark (1987) and others who have suggested that institutional affilia-tion can have a powerful affect on faculty behavior. The influence ofinstitutional affiliation, in contrast to disciplinary affiliation, would also seem tobe particularly influential among faculty affiliated with teaching-oriented col-leges. That is, because of the emphasis on undergraduate education and the


campus community, these faculty members may find it more difficult to asserttypical cosmopolitan perspectives (e.g., maintaining ties with disciplinary col-leagues, publishing, participating in disciplinary association meetings, etc.).

Another important finding is that faculty members in research-oriented insti-tutions provide normative support for the same three recommendations to im-prove undergraduate education as do their academic counterparts in the moreteaching-oriented colleges. Thus, the likelihood of reliably implementing anyone of the six recommendations to improve undergraduate education is similarin not only teaching-oriented colleges but also in highly research-oriented uni-versities. To elaborate, from a national perspective the consistency among theseinstitutions suggests that we are likely to have better success in implementingrecommendations that encourage faculty to advise students effectively, providethem with prompt feedback on assignments, and work to develop an egalitarianclassroom climate. Conversely, because strong norms are not in place for theother recommendations, substantially more effort may be required to success-fully implement these recommendations across the spectrum of the higher edu-cation community. This may call for more collaborative and concerted initiativesamong national associations and higher education institutions to identify effec-tive strategies to implement these recommendations.

This is not to suggest, however, that faculty members at the three types ofprimarily teaching-oriented colleges or the highly research-oriented universitiessupported each of the recommendations equally. As the additional analysis dem-onstrated, there were varying levels of support, particularly with the recommen-dations that did not receive normative support. Furthermore, when significantdifferences were noted, faculty at research-oriented universities exhibited lesssupport. Thus, another layer of understanding can be put forth in regard tothis study: for the recommendations that did not receive substantial normativesupport—“learn about students,” “encouraging faculty-student contact,” andhaving a “concern for the improvement of college teaching”—administratorsand faculty leaders at research-oriented universities may be particularly chal-lenged to implement these recommendations within the prevailing academic cul-ture of the institution.

Furthermore, in our quest to better understand a more conceptual perspectiveof how normative support for the recommendations vary among different institu-tions and among different discipline areas, two points should be put forth. First,institutional affiliation, particularly at teaching-oriented colleges, tends to havea more important impact on normative support for the recommendations thanthe faculty member’s disciplinary affiliation. Second, although we did not findstatistically significant variation among the four types of institutions in terms ofnormative support for the recommendations, we did note that faculty at certaintypes of institutions tended to provide higher levels of normative support thandid those at other institutions.


In conclusion, this study’s findings, coupled with those of Braxton, Eimers,and Bayer (1996), delineate structural possibilities and limitations to the im-provement of undergraduate education that are consistent across different typesof colleges and universities—regardless of the relative level of their singularinstructional missions. Although such structural properties may exist at the levelof institutional systems of higher education, individual colleges and universitiesmay exhibit a different pattern of normative support for the six recommenda-tions. As a consequence, academic affairs officers, faculty development officers,and institutional researchers should conduct “normative” audits at their institu-tions to determine which recommendations receive normative backing. Basedon such audits, the possibility of successful implementation of recommendationsto improve undergraduate education can be assessed and institutional implemen-tation plans and policies can be developed.

In summary, the findings of this study add to an area of research that isessentially in its infancy. Hopefully this study will lead to similar inquiries,especially inquiries that seek an understanding of the normative structures thathave been identified as being consistent across different types of colleges anduniversities in contrast to known institutional differences in faculty roles, priori-ties, values, and rewards.

NOTES

1. The means displayed in Table 2 suggest that mathematics faculty members fail to afford norma-tive support for the recommendation “fostering an egalitarian classroom environment.” Becausethe overall F-ratio for this particular ANOVA (see Table 3) is not statistically significant, thedifference between mathematics faculty members and faculty in the other three disciplines is dueto chance. As a consequence, we conclude that normative support for this particular recommen-dation is invariant across the four academic disciplines.

2. In the original study published in the Journal of Higher Education, Braxton, Eimers, and Bayer(1996) examined normative support for the recommendations to improve undergraduate educa-tion at Research I Universities and Comprehensive Universities and Colleges II (Carnegie Classi-fication of Institutions, 1987). Only data from this original study for faculty in Research I univer-sities are employed here, in order to optimize the comparison between highly research-orienteduniversities and the traditionally teaching-oriented institutions.

REFERENCES

Alpert D. (1985). Performance and paralysis: the organizational context of the Americanresearch universities. Journal of Higher Education 53: 241–281.

Association of American Colleges. (1985). Integrity in the College Curriculum: A Reportto the Academic Community. Washington, DC: Author.

Biglan, A. (1973). Relationships between subject matter area characteristics and outputof university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology 57: 204–213.

Bok, D. (1986). Higher Learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates. (1998). Reinventing Undergraduate


Education: A Blueprint for America’s Research Universities. Princeton, NJ: The Car-negie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Boyer, E. L. (1987). College: The Undergraduate Experience in America. New York:Harper and Row.

Boyer, E. L. (1991). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton,NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Braxton, J. M. (1996). Contrasting perspectives on the relationship between teaching andresearch. In John Braxton (ed.), Faculty Teaching and Research: Is There a Conflict?New Directions for Institutional Research, No. 90, pp. 5–14. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Braxton, J. M., Bayer, A. E., and Finkelstein, M. J. (1992). Teaching performance normsin academia. Research in Higher Education 33: 533–569.

Braxton, J. M., Eimers, M. T., and Bayer, A. E. (1996). The implications of teachingnorms for the improvement of undergraduate education. Journal of Higher Education67: 603–625.

Braxton, J. M., and Hargens, L. L. (1996). Variation among academic disciplines: analyt-ical frameworks and research. In John C. Smart (ed.), Higher Education: Handbookof Theory and Research, Vol. XI, pp. 1–46, New York: Agathon Press.

Braxton, J. M., and Toombs, W. (1982). Faculty uses of research training: a consider-ation of a technique for the differentiation of scholarly effort from research activity.Research in Higher Education 16: 265–282.

Carmines, E. G., and Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and Validity Assessment. BeverlyHills, CA: Sage Publications.

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (1987). A Classification of Insti-tutions for Higher Education. Princeton, NJ: Author.

Chickering, A. W., and Gamson, Z. E. (1987). Seven principles for good practice inundergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin 39: 3–7.

Clark, B. R. (1987). The Academic Life: Small Worlds, Different Worlds. Princeton, NJ:The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Cohen, A. M., and Brawer, F. B. (1982). The American Community College. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Durkheim, E. (1934). The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. London: Allen and Un-win. (Original work published in 1912)

Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide (J. H. Saulding and G. Simpson, Trans.). New York: FreePress.

Eble, K. E., and McKeachie, W. J. (1985). Improving Undergraduate Education throughFaculty Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gaff, J. G. (1991). New Life for the College Curriculum. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Gibbs, J. P. (1981). Norms, Deviance and Social Control: Conceptual Matters. New

York: Elsevier.Goode, W. J., and Hatt, P. K. (1952). Methods of Social Research. New York: McGraw-

Hill.Katz, J. (1985). Teaching Based on Knowledge of Students. New Directions for Teaching

and Learning 21: 3–11.Kellogg Commission on the Future of State Land-Grant Universities. (1996). Returning

to our Roots: The Student Experience. Washington DC: National Association of StateUniversities and Land-Grant Colleges.

Kitsuse, J. I. (1972). Deviance, deviant behavior, and deviants: some conceptual issues.In W. J. Filstead (ed.), An Introduction to Deviance, pp. 233–243. Chicago: Markham.


Leslie, L. L. (1972). Are response rates essential to valid surveys? Social Science Re-search 323–334.

Mancini, B. J., and Tiberius, R. G. (1991). Effective social arrangements for teachingand learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 45: 87–109.

Mayhew, L. B., Ford, P. J., and Hubbard, D. L. (1990). The Quest for Quality: TheChallenge for Undergraduate Education in the 1990s. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McGee, R. (1971). Academic Janus. San Franscisco: Jossey-Bass.McKeachie, W. J. (1994). Teaching Tips: A Guide for the Beginning College Teacher.

Lexington, MA: Heath.Merton, R. K. (1968). Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: The Free Press.Merton, R. K. (1973). The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investiga-

tions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.National Institute of Education. (1984). Involvement in Learning: Realizing the Potential

of American Higher Education. Washington, DC: Author.Paulsen, M. B., and Feldman, K. A. (1995). Taking teaching seriously: meeting the

challenge of instructional improvement (ASHE-ERIC Report No. 2). Washington DC:The George Washington University.

Platt, G. M., Parsons, T., and Kirshstein, R. (1978). Undergraduate teaching environ-ments: normative orientations to teaching among faculty in the higher educationalsystem. Sociological Inquiry 43: 3–21.

Ruscio, K. P. (1987a). Many sectors, many professions. In Burton R. Clark (ed.). TheAcademic Profession, pp. 331–368. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Ruscio, K. P. (1987b). The distinct scholarship of the selective liberal arts college. Jour-nal of Higher Education 58: 205–221.

Schuster, J., and Bowen, H. (1985). The faculty at risk. Change September/October:13–21.

Thornton, J. W. (1972). The Community Junior College, third edition. New York: Wiley.Travis, J. (1995). Models for improving college teaching: a faculty resource (ASHE-

ERIC Report No. 6). Washington DC: The George Washington University.Weimer, M. (1992). Improving College Teaching: Strategies of Developing Instructional

Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Wright, R. A., and Burden, J. A. (1986). Teaching in the Small College: Issues and

Applications. New York: Greenwood Press.Zuckerman, H. E. (1977). Deviant behavior and social control in science. In E. Sagarin

(ed.), Deviance and Social Change, pp. 87–138. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Zuckerman, H. E. (1988). The sociology of science. In Neal J. Smelser (ed.), Handbook

of Sociology, pp. 511–574. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Received June 27, 1999.

normative support for improving undergraduate education in teaching-oriented colleges

Documents