© by Cathleen A. Kennedy, November, 1998
Permission to reproduce may be requested from the author.

Note: This is not an empirical research paper, but rather a discussion piece for exploring an idea about differences in teacher characteristics as they relate to effective pedagogy and teacher change. The hypothesis advanced in this essay requires much more research into the literature and more actual data about teachers to become the basis for a real "position" on the subject. Teacher characteristics and beliefs play a critical role in my research about online learning, and I plan to explore further the ideas in this essay as part of that research.

There is no shortage of theories and discussion about the need for students to become engaged in the process of learning. Indeed, teachers are urged to develop classroom strategies representing developmentalist or constructivist approaches to create student-centered learning environments. Educational institutions at all levels are adopting mission statements that in one way or another embrace the concept of creating "autonomous self-directed learners." The assumption embraced by this perspective is that students are, by nature or design (e.g. prior educational experience), passive participants in the learning process, or at least need motivational activities to stimulate active learning.

This assumption about student engagement, or rather, the lack thereof, is reinforced in the hallways of faculty office buildings in many institutions of higher education. "Students are less prepared these days," "The high schools aren't doing their jobs," and "Students have no idea why they're here" are oft-repeated laments of professors dedicated to the serious business of preparing undergraduates for advanced study or for the professions.

I think they have the problem reversed--that students are trying to be active learners but it is professors themselves who demoralize and thwart student efforts. Too many professors have lost sight of what it means to be a teacher. Undergraduate institutions need to focus on finding ways to engage faculty in the learning process.

First, some definition and clarification. What is the difference between student engagement and teacher engagement in learning? Student engagement refers to students who are "on task" and intellectually participating in learning activities. This is usually enhanced when students understand why they are taking a specific course and have some context for the learning. Either the content is needed for direct application or as a framework for acquiring new knowledge in subsequent courses, or the course contributes to development of learning fundamentals such as problem-solving, critical thinking, and communications skills. Teacher engagement is a parallel process in which the teacher is consciously aware of his or her role in the learning process. When a teacher is "on task" he or she is aware of, and responding to, student experiences in the classroom.

To establish a frame of reference, I suggest the following continuum for measuring teacher engagement: Teacher engagement in the learning process ranges from nil, where the teacher is only interested in disseminating information and assessing student achievement, to infinite, where the teacher functions as a tutor to each student. In the middle are teachers who are aware of student learning, perceptions and difficulties but who have varying responses to student needs, suggesting further subdivision of this middle group. On the low end are those teachers who sense that students are having problems, but believe those students are either not working hard enough or should not be in the class. The other group of teachers wishes they could somehow help the students but can't seem to change in effective ways.

It's important to differentiate teacher engagement in the learning process from engagement in the subject matter. My point is that these are very different and often incongruous characteristics in teachers. A teacher can be highly engaged in the subject matter, enthusiastic about the discipline or field of study, anxious to encourage student interest, and still be disengaged from the process of learning. In conversations with hundreds of college students over the past ten years, it is clear to me that far too many college teachers match this model of high engagement in their subject and low engagement in learning processes. Students struggling with a course often comment, "I can tell that he's an expert, but I can't understand what he's saying" or "I've read her book over and over, and I can't seem to follow her approach." Sometimes working with a graduate teaching assistant or peer tutor, or using other textbooks completely resolves the problem and the student can complete the course successfully. The problem is not inadequate teacher expertise in the subject, nor a lack of motivation or capability of the student, but a deficiency in the ability of the teacher to communicate effectively with students. This problem arises from misunderstanding and ambiguity about the responsibilities of teachers.

Effective teachers consciously work to become fully engaged in the learning process and know they can improve their skill as teachers over time. For the most part, students are not aware of what teachers do to achieve this; hence, new college teachers must learn how to teach through experience, study, and reflection. This paper presents a model of intrinsic motivation for postsecondary teaching, then explores a hypothesis about factors that affect teacher engagement and experimentation, and concludes with suggestions for institutionalizing mechanisms to help teachers improve.

What factors mark the difference between teachers who become (or continue to be) engaged and those who do not? I begin with a model in which college teachers come to the profession from basically two perspectives: one group enters teaching because they want to help students learn a particular subject; others enter because they believe they have something important to contribute in their field of expertise. Often, a new teacher's objective or interest is a combination of both. Both perspectives value education and think it's important. But why will one teacher become more engaged in the learning process than another? I see three main factors. The first factor is the ratio of wanting to help students to risk aversion. Teachers with a high ratio are more likely to become increasingly engaged in the learning process over time. Teachers with a low ratio may want to change, but just can't do it because their aversion to risk (or fear of failure) is too great. The second factor is the ratio of wanting to help students learn a subject to wanting to make a name for themselves in the discipline. Again, the higher the ratio, the more likely the teacher will be engaged in the learning process. The third factor is the level of confidence in one's own ability to learn something outside their field of expertise. Teachers are more likely to try new things if they believe that they can learn. I'm often surprised to find competent teachers who don't think they can change (maybe this is just an excuse!).

In speaking with several community college teachers who students describe as good teachers, I find that these teachers share the following characteristics and beliefs: 1) They are somewhat shy about public speaking but their passion for helping students overcomes this shyness. Three experienced teachers told me they can't sleep the night before the semester starts because they are anxious about the first day of class. 2) They believe they are capable of learning how to teach better even when nothing they try works the first time. Some describe themselves as tenacious or driven by passion for becoming a good teacher. And, 3) they believe teaching is hard, but important, work and are willing to invest large amounts of time in improving their competence.

Most teachers I talked to agreed that universities do little to prepare students in any purposeful way to become teachers. Quite by accident, one might have the experience of taking a course from a truly great teacher, but even these great teachers rarely teach as though they were preparing future teachers for the profession. They rarely talk to their students about why they teach in certain ways. Few teachers realize that students are quite interested in learning about pedagogy and cognition. Many of the "good" teachers I spoke to felt that communicating with students about teaching practices can be useful because it lets students know that the teacher cares about student learning and provides insights into theories of learning that students can apply right away.

If we assume for the moment that my hypothesis about the three factors influencing teacher engagement in the learning process is true, we can conclude that institutions are capable of encouraging this type of teacher engagement. By fostering a desire to help students and a belief that classroom practices can be learned, an environment supporting teacher change can be established. In addition, encouraging teachers to experiment with new classroom practices without real or perceived penalties when they fail, and balancing the value of research and teaching will further improve the institutional climate for promoting change.

Institutions play a key role in improving teacher engagement in the learning process by encouraging faculty interactions, particularly mentoring. Teachers should be encouraged to observe colleagues, especially throughout an entire semester, and then discuss their observations with the teacher they were observing. This would stimulate fascinating discussions that would impact both teachers' performance. (This type of observation should be completely separated from any connection to faculty evaluation.)

In addition, teachers need opportunities to learn about cognition and pedagogy in convenient formats. Often, teachers with decades of experience have never received instruction in these areas and are interested in helping their students, but feel helpless to change. Many teachers, particularly those in community colleges and part-time teachers, are burdened with schedules that make outside study impossible. Training opportunities should be made as convenient as possible.