Finding #1: There is an inconsistency between the way many faculty perceived themselves as teachers and how they scored on the Grasha-Reichmann Teaching Style Inventory.
The first finding of this study demonstrates the inconsistency between the way the faculty perceived themselves as teachers, and the score results of the Grasha-Reichmann Teaching Style Inventory (see Table 20). A total of eighteen faculty self-identified as constructionist, meaning either a Facilitator or Delegator, while twelve identified as instructionist, meaning an Expert, Formal Authority, or Personal Model. However, the results of the Teaching Style Inventory indicated that only thirteen faculty of the thirty faculty were indeed constructionist. This means that the majority of faculty is instructionist in teaching style, even though they may not perceive themselves this way.
More specifically, seventeen faculty perceived themselves to be not only constructionist, but Facilitators, although only nine actually scored as a Facilitator. Of the eight who perceived themselves to be Facilitators but scored in a different category, five scored the highest in an instructionist category. Many faculty perceived themselves to be more of the guide than the sage. However, these results would indicate that more faculty are the sage rather than the guide.
Discussion of Finding #1
Clearly, the results indicate the possibility that many faculty have a unclear idea of who they are as a teacher. Their perceptions of themselves as teachers may be tenuous. Perhaps they have not reflected on what classroom methodologies they use and why they use them. Consequently, particularly given the newness of instructional technology, their incorporation of instructional technology could be affected as it may not fit into their existing belief system, especially if that belief system is tacit.
There are a few possible theories to explain why faculty perceive themselves differently than how they may actually be: (a) the faculty participants are unaware of their actual teaching styles, (b) they may be aware but are identifying with what they would like to be rather than what they actually are, and (c) they are under administrative or student pressure to become more constructionist and are therefore identifying on the basis of that pressure.
It is possible that many of the faculty in this study were unaware of their own teaching styles. Less than half of the participants accurately identified themselves, and of the sixteen who did not match their identification with their Inventory results, seven placed themselves in the wrong class, meaning they thought they were instructionist but were constructionist, or vice versa. What this may mean is that because identity as a teacher is socially constructed, an explanation for the incongruence may be that many of us are unaware of our own identifies, both as people and as teachers. The postmodern view of identity posits that there is fluidity in the construction of identity. If there is fluidity in the construction of identify, we might argue that there is also fluidity in the awareness of identity and that many of us are actually unaware of Who am I? or, if aware, cannot accurately categorize that awareness. More specifically, they may be unaware of their own ideas and values around and toward teaching. As Kagan (1992) points out, many teachers are unaware of their own beliefs about teaching, cannot always express these beliefs if they are consciously aware of them, or are afraid to publicly state them. One of the participants, Terry from Group A, came to me a few months after his interview and told me how the interview had really helped him solidify his ideas about teaching and about his teaching philosophy. There were other participants who had not intellectualized their ideas about teaching. For example, Kimberly, from Group C, had a very difficult time articulating a teaching philosophy, even though Kimberly had been the recipient of the University's highest teaching award. She equated philosophy with goals, but when asked to expand, she replied, "I don't know if I can come up with anything else."
As stated in chapter 3, I am in a unique position as a researcher. I have had direct contact with many of the subjects before the research began (See Table 21). I was a student in courses where two of the faculty members were instructors. This experience allowed for a unique perspective in that I was able to form my own opinions about the faculty member as a teacher before this research began.
Claire from Group C, self-identified as a Facilitator. Interestingly, she scored as a Facilitator as well. As a professor of education, Claire had been exposed to enough of the developments and trends of the field to be aware of the questions and what the questions are asking, which may have influenced her answers. Claire does truly view herself as a Facilitator, but as a facilitator of knowledge and intellectual thinking, not a Facilitator in terms of teaching methodology. Her classes were very much instructionist, and she had a difficult time allowing students to lead or engage in discussion among themselves. Additionally, her methods were primarily lecture, with an occasional use of video or audio, and with an occasional use of question and answer methodology. Her teaching philosophy may be that of constructionist, but her teaching style is much closer to instructionist. As Kagan (1992) points out, beliefs cannot necessarily be determined by behavior, in this case method, because many teachers use the same methodology but for different reasons. Claire's belief system may allow for her using an instructionist methodology toward a constructionist end.
The second theory to explain the finding regarding the number of faculty with inconsistent results between their own perceptions and the Grasha-Reichmann Inventory, is that the participants may be aware of their actual teaching style, but are identifying with how they would like to be in terms of teaching style rather than how they actually are. This would imply an incongruence between beliefs about teaching and actual teaching practices, and there is little research that supports this proposition. In fact, most research indicates that methods, which are essentially behaviors, are a product of belief (Pajares, 1992) . This is an avenue for further research.
The theory of modifying one's idea of teaching to suit the current climate and pressure forces would fit with Giroux's notions that one can only understand teaching practice by looking at history, politics, power, and culture (1994, p. 280), or into Cuban's (1984) theory of schooling as social control and sorting, or even into Bowles & Gintis' (1976) idea of schools reinforcing the dominant social class. In any of these cases, the forces that steer teaching practice are external to the beliefs of the teachers themselves, meaning that the external forces shape teacher beliefs (Becker & Ravitz, 1999). In fact, the idea that politics, power, and culture are guiding forces in higher education can be seen through the comments of some of the participants in terms of their views of incorporating instructional technology. Sarah, a member of Group B points this out when speaking to the idea that technology may replace professors.
Oh that is nonsense--if you ever have used--I've heard that so many times too, you know and that's nonsense. You never can replace-- I mean and you've heard this 100 times-- technology cannot replace the professor or the instructor, but the instructor that does not use technology will be replaced by those who can use, and I do believe in that entirely because if you don't use technology, I mean, come on, you will simply be totally outdated.
George, from Group C, also believes that forces beyond his control will eventually require him to incorporate instructional technology. George is speaking to why he believes other faculty incorporate instructional technology.
So as long as you use it as a tool to help instead of a replacement, that's what concerns me, that some people are doing it for its own sake and that it is definitely better than what humans can do. Yeah, I'll get round to it, I'll have to in the end.
Although he does not indicate exactly why he believes he will have to incorporate, the implication is that he will be required to do it. Robert, Group A, also expresses a similar notion of pressure, although he believes that the pressure does not yet exist.
It [instructional technology] is still viewed as just a nice thing to do, and until technology becomes a necessary thing for learning, I think it is necessary to help students learn, we're not going to see the number of people latching on to it.