A factor analysis of the 46 motivating (Appendix A) and inhibiting items (Appendix B) from the survey rendered four distinct and independent scales listed below with Alpha coefficients. It is important to note that all 46 items loaded into the four scales without any outliers or overlapping across scales.
Scale 1 was labeled “Intrinsic Motives” with an Alpha coefficient of .9123. The
following factors were grouped into this scale: • Intellectual challenge,
• Opportunity to diversify program offerings, • Opportunity to develop new ideas,
• Overall job satisfaction,
• Opportunity to improve my teaching, • Greater course flexibility for students, • Personal motivation to use technology,
• Ability to reach new audiences that cannot attend classes on campus, • Opportunity for scholarly pursuit,
• Opportunity to use personal research as a teaching tool.
Scale 2 was labeled “Personal Needs” with an Alpha coefficient of .8956. The
following items were categorized as “Personal Needs”: • Release time,
• Credit toward promotion and tenure, • Merit pay,
• Monetary support for participation (e.g., stipend, overload), • Visibility for jobs at other institutions/organizations,
• Lack of credit toward tenure and promotion, • Grants for materials/expenses,
• Reduced teaching load,
• Professional prestige and status, • Job security,
• Career exploration,
• Graduate training received.
Scale 3 was labeled “Inhibitors” with an Alpha coefficient of .8878. The
following items were grouped into “Inhibitors”: • Lack of release time,
• Lack of support and encouragement from institution’s administrators, • Lack of merit pay,
• Lack of support and encouragement from departmental colleagues, • Lack of monetary support for participation (e.g., stipend, overload), • Lack of support and encouragement from dean or chair,
• Lack of grants for materials/expenses,
• Lack of technical support provided by the institution, • Lack of salary increase,
• Lack of distance education training provided by the institution, • Lack of professional prestige,
• Concern about faculty workload,
• Negative comments made by colleagues about distance education teach- ing experiences,
• Concern about quality of courses, • Concern about quality of students.
Scale 4 was labeled “Extrinsic Motives” with an Alpha coefficient of .8440.
The following items were categorized as “Extrinsic Motives”: • Expectation by university that faculty participate, • Requirement by department,
• Support and encouragement from departmental colleagues, • Distance education training provided by the institution, • Support and encouragement from institution’s administrators, • Technical support provided by the institution,
• Lack of technical background.
The natural development of these four scales was interesting, especially in the order in which they loaded. The strongest scale related to factors that were interpreted as intrinsic factors — those that come from within the individual and benefit the program or students (e.g., “improve teaching,” “greater flexibility for the students”). The second scale includes factors that are related to personal needs or gains for participation and cannot be interpreted as benefiting the program or students. The third scale contained all but two of the 17 inhibiting items (i.e., “lack of credit toward tenure and promotion” which loaded on Scale 2, and “lack of technical background” which loaded on Scale 4). The fourth and final scale included all factors relating to university administrative support and encouragement, or issues totally extrinsic to the faculty, programs and students.
Using the scales as a template, the ratings by both the faculty (participating and non-participating in DE course delivery) and administrators of the 29 motivat- ing items were re-reviewed. The participating faculty rated highest (top seven) only items that loaded into Scale 1 (intrinsic motives). The non-participating faculty rated six out of the top seven items that loaded into Scale 1, but also rated second highest an item that loaded into Scale 4 (extrinsic motives). What is more interesting is that the administrators, while rating highly two items from Scale 1, rated three items from Scale 2 (personal needs [e.g., related to monetary support, credit toward promotion and tenure, and release time]) as highly motivating for faculty. It would appear that the administrators who responded to this survey believed that faculty are more motivated by things they could “get” by participating in distance education efforts (e.g., more money, personal credit, and reduced teaching load) than factors that might be more beneficial to the program and students (e.g., developing or diversifying ideas, improving teaching, and flexibility for students).
The means of each of the four scales and each set of items (motivating and inhibiting) were analyzed using an ANOVA to test for significant differences between the levels of faculty participation in distance education (participate,
not participate). Significant differences were found for nine motivating (M) items and one inhibiting (I) item. Overall, faculty who participated in DE rated intrinsic motives higher, while non-participating faculty rated personal needs, inhibitors, and extrinsic motives higher. The same analysis was conducted for administrators’ means. Significant differences were found for twelve motivat- ing items, two inhibiting items, and personal needs.
Using the mean scores for faculty responses only, an ANOVA was calculated for differences by gender, age, position level, and tenure status in the individual item lists (motivating = M, inhibiting = I) and/or the four scales. While there were some differences found for each variable set, a Chi-square post-hoc analysis showed that the differences were not statistically significant. However, there were some findings that should be noted. Differences in responses were found for women, faculty under the age of 30 years, faculty at the assistant professor or instructor level, and non-tenured faculty. Women seemed to be more motivated by extrinsic factors having to do with administrative support and encouragement for participation. The scope and design of this study could not explain this finding. Differences that were found for three faculty groups fitting the “junior faculty” definition (e.g., age, position level, and tenure status) are not surprising. These three faculty groups are closely related and have the most to gain or lose from participating in DE, including the possibility of a negative effect on promotion and tenure at institutions that have promotion and tenure practices, or a positive impact on career exploration and job opportu- nities. In research-extensive universities, junior faculty are pressured to get grants, conduct research, and publish results. The process of preparing for and teaching a DE course can be very time-consuming, possibly taking away from precious research time. The time concern is more for the first-time teaching of a course than for subsequent offerings, but a concern nonetheless. Therefore, junior faculty members, who may be more adept at using technology and excited about distance education, may be dissuaded from participating due to competing demands.
This study showed that faculty who are participating in one DE program were much more likely to be motivated to participate by intrinsic motivators (i.e., overall job satisfaction), rather than personal needs (i.e., release time) or extrinsic motives (i.e., encouraged by department chair). Interestingly, the non-participating faculty members also indicated that they would be more motivated by intrinsic motivators over all other factors, with the additional factor of technical support having some import. Finally, although the adminis- trators in this study did not seem to understand what motivates faculty to
participate in distance education, they were very sure about what would inhibit participation.
Administrators must understand what motivates and inhibits faculty participa- tion in distance education in order to maximize efforts to support such initiatives, yet this study suggests that administrators may not understand what motivates faculty to participate. This lack of understanding of motivating factors could negatively affect DE program development. It may skew compensation and incentive efforts toward the extrinsic scale (i.e., expectation by university) rather than concentrating on what really motivates faculty (i.e., opportunity to develop new ideas or reach new audiences).
These findings support those previously reported by Lonsdale (1993) and Dillon (1989) who found that faculty are influenced more by intrinsic rewards for participating in DE rather than other factors. Ironically, these findings also manifest a practice in higher education to focus on extrinsic motivations — an observation confirmed by Taylor and White (1991) and Wolcott and Haderlie (1996). We can further illuminate this practice by looking at DE program faculty and compensation policies nationwide.