There currently exists a challenge in higher education to improve undergraduate education. The development and more adequate preparation of future faculty, who are current graduate students, is one of several options identified as a viable strategy to address this challenge. This dissertation explored the quality of motivation as a factor affecting the preparation or socialization of future faculty at two top-tier universities. The quality of motivation is believed salient to preparation and socialization. This study focused on the motivation types of teaching-focused future faculty preparation program (FFPP) completers, their programmatic experiences, and various personal and social factors, such as gender, program, and academic discipline, as reason for motivation type. This mixed methods research study was based on the tenets of self-determination theory and revealed quantitatively, through inferential statistics, that a significant difference exists in the motivation type of participants based on gender, program, and academic discipline. Qualitative findings, from focus group interviews, were that FFPP design characteristics included elements to satisfy the innate psychological need for competence but fell short in meeting the need for relatedness. The findings offer insights into aspects that affect the quality of motivation in program participants. They also suggest that in order to more adequately prepare and socialize future faculty, consideration must be given to the importance of satisfying innate psychological needs in an effort to enhance the quality of participant motivation. Both findings support the importance of relatedness in affecting the quality of motivation. The findings of this study support the notion that certain demographic or contextual factors, as well as the satisfaction of innate psychological needs are critical to motivation quality, internalization, behavior, and socialization. The results of this study will contribute to program developers' awareness of motivation quality and its effect on behavior to enhance the design of teaching-focused future faculty preparation programs and socialization. Through the use of motivation quality, this study serves as a catalyst for the more adequate preparation of future faculty to improve undergraduate education.

Calls for reform in doctoral education are not new. However, the past decade has experienced renewed interest and discussion in preparing the future professoriate. Whereas most studies of graduate student socialization and preparation for faculty roles have focused on doctoral students or new faculty, this study examined the perceptions of senior faculty members involved in doctoral education. All senior faculty (n=4970) in biological sciences, English, mathematics, and non-clinical psychology from a stratified sample of 69 research universities nationwide were invited to participate. More than 1150 faculty completed a web-based survey. Respondents rated the importance of 18 competencies (based on a framework by Austin and McDaniels) and 24 roles during 1) the first three years of faculty work and 2) doctoral education. Additionally, participants identified persons having primary responsibility for introducing doctoral students to each competency or role. Faculty respondents rated general competencies and research roles as more important than teaching and service roles for both new faculty and doctoral students. Whereas nearly all items were rated higher in importance for faculty than students, mean difference scores showed great variability. Results also varied by discipline. In general, most respondents viewed the doctoral student advisor or all faculty members in the academic unit as having primary responsibility for introducing specific roles and competencies to doctoral students; other common responses included the student and nobody. Results of the study have important implications for doctoral education at the national, institutional, and unit levels. First, consideration of disciplinary differences in priorities for doctoral training and new faculty development programs is vital. Additionally, multiple stakeholders can impact the preparation of future faculty. Training institutions, hiring institutions, and students can play a role in narrowing the gap between doctoral student preparation and the work required of new faculty. Suggestions for future research include expanding the sample to include a broader array of academic disciplines and incorporating qualitative methods to discern reasons for disparities in the importance assigned to specific competencies and roles. Research should also explore the perceptions of senior faculty concerning the worth and feasibility of recent recommendations aimed at better preparing future faculty.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.