{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04248679788766203, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03888622179548728, 'mean_word_length': 5.656549520766773, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Examining Faculty Motivation to Participate in Faculty Development

INTRODUCTIONInstitutions of higher education are placing a greater emphasis on quality teaching and student learning than ever before (AACandU, 2002; Chism, 2008; Lieberman, 2005; Lowenthal, 2008). Faculty now find themselves in a world where they are expected to be expert researchers as well as expert teachers (Boyer, 1990; Chism, 2008). However, very few faculty receive any type of teacher training prior to entering the academy (Boyer, 1990; Stevens, 1998). Even though faculty are prepared as scholars, not teachers (AACandU, 2002), it has been assumed that a terminal degree is a license to teach (Stevens, 1988). This mismatch between the lack of teaching preparation and the day-to-day expectations to be an exceptional teacher puts faculty and administrators at odds with each other. Institutions of higher education, however, have begun to turn to faculty development as a possible way to improve teaching and learning (Kolbo and Turnage, 2002). Unfortunately, though, faculty participation in faculty development is inconsistent (Gardiner, 2005). Thus, the purpose of this study was to explore faculty's motivation to participate in faculty development- specifically, by looking at faculty preferred formats, incentives, and distracters to participate in faculty development.BACKGROUNDFaculty development research suggests that development efforts are needed and can improve teaching and learning in multiple ways at the college level (Fletcher and Patrick, 1998; Sorcinelli, 2006; Wright, 1999). In addition, faculty development has the ability to not only enhance teaching skill, but also reduce faculty burnout (Huston and Weaver, 2007; Mintz, 1999; Roche, 2001), improve the recruitment of women and minorities in unrepresented programs (Laursen and Rocque, 2009), and enhance collaborative learning amongst faculty (Cole, Barker, Kolodner, Williamson, Wright, and Kern, 2004; Hill, Soo La, and Lagueux, 2007; Knight, Carrese, and Wright, 2007).Despite some of the aforementioned possible benefits of participating in faculty development, most faculty think they excel in the classroom and, therefore, do not need to participate in face-to-face development workshops (Chism and Szabo, 1996; Maxwell and Kazlauskas, 1987; Murray, 2000; Travis, Hursh, Lankewicz, and Tang, 1995). For instance, fifty percent of faculty believe they are in the top 10% of teachers; ninety percent believe they are in the top half of teachers (Blackburn, 1995). Administrators struggle with finding ways to attract faculty to faculty development activities as well as identifying the right mix of faculty development services to improve faculty teaching and ultimately student learning (Menges, 1997). Face-to-face workshops are efficient both in terms of time and resources, but are not necessarily the most effective way to help faculty improve teaching quality (Holmgren, 2005; Menges, 1980).While faculty developers have begun offering faculty development workshops online to address some possible barriers, such as time conflicts and attracting both full and part-time faculty (Lowenthal, 2008; Shea, Sherer, and Kristensen, 2002; Vrasidas and Glass, 2004; Wood et al., 1998), there has not been enough research conducted to determine whether this new approach is attracting any new faculty or improving teaching and learning. At the same time, faculty developers are trying to clarify the factors that influence faculty participation in faculty development (Holmgren, 2005). Some faculty attend faculty development activities to improve the quality of their instruction (Bess, 1982); others attend faculty development to strengthen their portfolio as they move through the tenure process (Huston and Weaver, 2007), while others have little interest in participating in faculty development if they are not coerced by department chairs (Lucas, 2002).In addition to varying incentives that provide impetus for participation in faculty development, research suggests that teaching and learning, as well as faculty development, are contextual (Eddy, 2007; Elen, Lindbloom-Ylanne, and Clement, 2007). …