Search for: All records

The Role of Teaching Self-Efficacy in Electrical and Computer Engineering Faculty Teaching Satisfaction We request this abstract as a Research Paper. Electrical and computer engineering (ECpE) faculty are under increasing pressure to teach more undergraduate students, generate more funding, produce scholarship, and mentor more graduate students. Moreover, reduced budgets for universities result in an inability to replace faculty, minimal annual raises, and fewer teaching assistants, all of which affect faculty well-being at work. Well-being for faculty in general has been shown to relate to retention and faculty job performance. The present study focuses on one element of faculty well-being, namely faculty’s satisfaction with their teaching roles. Our first purpose was to examine if, in line with previous research, environmental supports (e.g., support of the university, department, colleagues, chair) contribute to ECSE faculty’s teaching satisfaction. The second purpose of the study was to anchor the study using self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2000). SDT posits that satisfaction of three basic psychological needs would add additional predictive power beyond work environment supports to impact faculty well-being. The need measured in this paper was perceived competence specific to teaching (i.e., the need to perceive oneself as efficacious in teaching). Hierarchical regression models were estimated to answer the two research questions, namely (1) does environmental support significantly predict teaching satisfaction and (2) does teaching self-efficacy make a significant contribution to predicting teaching satisfaction beyond the predictive power of each environmental support variable? Four analyses were conducted with each environmental support variable entered in step one (university, department, colleague, chair) and with teaching self-efficacy added in step two of the regression analyses. In step one of all four analyses, the environmental supports separately each significantly predicted teaching satisfaction: (a) university support accounted for 26% of the variance in teaching satisfaction, (b) departmental support accounted for 59% of the variance in teaching satisfaction, (c) colleague support accounted for 23% of the variance in teaching satisfaction, and (d) chair support accounted for 28% of the variance in teaching satisfaction. In step two of all four analyses, adding teaching self-efficacy to this model significantly predicted additional variance in teaching satisfaction beyond each environmental support. After university support, it contributed an additional 21% of variance in teaching satisfaction. After departmental support, it contributed an additional 6% of the variance in teaching satisfaction. After colleague support, it contributed an additional 20% of variation in teaching satisfaction. After chair support, it accounted for an additional 9% of variation in teaching satisfaction. These results lead to the conclusion that these four environmental supports and teaching self-efficacy collectively made a large contribution (together explaining 43% to 65% of the variance) to the prediction of faculty teaching satisfaction. These effects are large enough for administrators to target these factors as they seek to increase ECpE faculty satisfaction with teaching, potentially leading to better teaching performance and retention. Consistent with SDT, these findings suggest that leadership would do well to prioritize efforts to support teaching self-efficacy within their departments as a means to enhance faculty well-being.