Introduction
The role of a university is to foster intellectual growth and critical thinking and to prepare students for their future careers. The success of this mission largely depends on the quality of teaching provided by faculty members. However, do universities tend to prefer subordinate teachers over champion teachers? In this blog post, we will delve into the reasons behind this preference, its impact on education quality, and possible solutions to encourage universities to prioritize champion teachers.
Empirical research has demonstrated that students taught by champion teachers tend to achieve higher academic success and are more likely to develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills (Darling-Hammond, 2017; Hattie, 2009). These educators employ student-centered teaching practices that engage learners and foster the development of essential cognitive abilities that will serve them well beyond their academic careers (Bain, 2004).
Furthermore, universities prioritizing teaching excellence often enjoy higher retention rates, as students are likelier to remain enrolled in institutions that provide a stimulating and supportive learning environment (Tinto, 1993). Institutions that invest in teaching quality and innovation also tend to have better reputations, attracting top students and faculty members who contribute to a vibrant academic community (Astin, 1993). Moreover, these universities often boast more successful alumni, as graduates who have benefited from the guidance of champion teachers are better prepared to navigate the challenges of their professional and personal lives (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).
To better understand this issue, it is essential to establish clear definitions of "champion teachers" and "subordinate teachers." Champion teachers excel in their respective fields, demonstrate exceptional teaching skills, and actively engage and inspire their students (Hattie, 2009). These teachers are known for creating stimulating learning environments that encourage critical thinking, creativity, and deep understanding of the subject matter (Darling-Hammond, 2017). These teachers also push the department and schools forward in public perception to bring awareness of their programs and research through self-directed marketing and social media campaigns. In contrast, subordinate teachers adhere strictly to the administration's directives and prioritize compliance over innovation in their teaching methods (Giroux, 2014). Such educators may be more concerned with adhering to predetermined curricula and institutional norms rather than fostering intellectual curiosity and adaptability in their students (Sahlberg, 2011).
Reasons behind the preference
Several factors may contribute to universities preferring subordinate teachers over champion teachers. One key reason is administrative control (Berdahl, 1990). Universities may find it easier to manage and exert authority over teachers who comply with their rules and policies without questioning (Giroux, 2014). Such compliance may streamline bureaucratic processes and reduce the likelihood of conflicts or disagreements between faculty and administration (Bok, 2003).
Financial motivations are another contributing factor. Due to their expertise and demonstrated excellence in teaching, Champion teachers may demand higher salaries and additional resources for their courses (Ehrenberg, 2004). In contrast, subordinate teachers might be more cost-effective for universities prioritizing budgetary constraints over educational quality (Labaree, 2017). As a result, universities may opt to hire or promote teachers who are less likely to demand substantial financial investments. Thus, universities tend to endorse this teacher archetype to continue perpetuating financial habitus and discourage faculty from raising the market price for applicants.
Lastly, maintaining the status quo can also drive the preference for subordinate teachers. Universities may resist change for fear of disrupting established systems, traditions, or hierarchies (Christensen & Eyring, 2011). Emphasizing compliance and conformity may be perceived as a way to preserve institutional stability and avoid potential challenges associated with implementing innovative teaching methods or curricular reforms (Kezar & Eckel, 2002).
Keeping the Status quo
Pierre Bourdieu, a renowned French sociologist, introduced the theoretical concepts of habitus, capital, and field, which can be applied to understand the underlying dynamics of institutionalism.
Bourdieu's concept of habitus refers to the deeply ingrained dispositions, beliefs, and practices that individuals acquire through socialization in a particular social group or environment (Bourdieu, 1977). In the context of universities, both champion and subordinate teachers possess different habitus based on their personal and professional experiences. Subordinate teachers might embody a habitus that values conformity, and adhering to established norms and practices, while champion teachers may possess a habitus that emphasizes innovation, creativity, and critical thinking. Universities, as institutions, may have a predominant habitus that influences their preference for one type of teacher over the other.
Individuals accumulate different forms of capital—economic, cultural, social, and symbolic—that enable them to navigate social spaces (Bourdieu, 1986). In the case of champion teachers, their expertise, pedagogical skills, and recognition within their fields can be seen as forms of capital that they bring to the academic environment. Subordinate teachers, on the other hand, may possess capital in the form of loyalty, compliance, and adaptability to institutional norms. Universities may prefer subordinate teachers if they perceive these forms of capital as more valuable or useful for their immediate objectives, such as maintaining administrative control or cutting costs.
According to Bourdieu, a field is a social arena where individuals or institutions compete for resources and positions (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). The academic field is a complex network of power relations and competition among various stakeholders, including faculty, administrators, and students. As key players in this field, universities may strategically choose to prioritize subordinate teachers to maintain their positions of power and control or advance their interests in the face of external pressures, such as funding constraints or accreditation requirements.
Effects on education quality
Preferring subordinate teachers can significantly affect the overall quality of education (Giroux, 2014; Kezar & Eckel, 2002). When universities prioritize compliance over innovation and creativity in their teaching practices, they risk hindering students' learning experiences and limiting their exposure to diverse perspectives and teaching styles (Bain, 2004; Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005). This restrictive approach can lead to a less engaging and ineffective learning environment, ultimately affecting students' academic performance and future success (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).
An overemphasis on compliance and conformity can also stifle the development of critical thinking skills, a crucial component of higher education (Paul & Elder, 2006). By discouraging intellectual curiosity and questioning established norms, universities prioritizing subordinate teachers may inadvertently contribute to the production of passive learners who are ill-equipped to navigate complex, real-world challenges (Bok, 2006).
Additionally, the preference for subordinate teachers may negatively impact faculty morale and motivation, devaluing the importance of teaching excellence and innovative pedagogical practices (Austin & Sorcinelli, 2013). This, in turn, can contribute to a cycle of mediocrity, as talented educators may be deterred from pursuing careers in academia or feel compelled to conform to institutional expectations rather than strive for excellence (O'Meara, 2011).
Champion teachers can significantly enhance a university's social media presence through a variety of mechanisms:
1. Reputation Enhancement: Champion teachers, recognized for their pedagogical prowess and contributions to their fields, can amplify a university's reputation. Sharing their achievements and innovative teaching methods via social media platforms can augment the university's brand and attract potential students, faculty, and partners (Bennett & Ali-Choudhury, 2009).
2. Student Engagement: Students often form strong relationships with champion teachers, leading to increased engagement on social media. Anecdotes, testimonials, and student-shared experiences about these teachers can foster organic sharing, extending the university's reach and engagement (Junco, 2012).
3. Alumni Relations: Because of their impactful teaching, Champion teachers often maintain relationships with students beyond graduation. Alums are more likely to engage with social media content featuring their influential professors, boosting the university's visibility and strengthening alum ties (Farrow & Yuan, 2011).
4. Thought Leadership: Champion teachers, given their expertise, can contribute to the university's thought leadership by providing insightful and impactful content. Sharing such material on social media platforms showcases the university's academic prowess and positions it as a leader in educational innovation (Weller, 2011).
5. Community Building: Champion teachers frequently spearhead various university activities and events, ranging from research projects to community outreach programs. Highlighting these initiatives on social media can foster community, strengthening connections among students, faculty, alums, and the wider public (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010).
Therefore, championing teachers can significantly bolster a university's social media presence. Their contributions can increase visibility, promote the university's mission and values, and attract many stakeholders (Bennett & Ali-Choudhury, 2009).
Examples and case studies
Numerous case studies have illustrated the negative consequences of preferring subordinate teachers over champion university teachers (Giroux, 2014; Kezar & Eckel, 2002). For instance, institutions that have stifled academic freedom and innovation by prioritizing compliance and conformity among their faculty have experienced a decline in student satisfaction (Altbach, 2001), enrollment (Astin, 1993), and in some cases, even accreditation status (Eaton, 2012). Such universities may struggle to attract and retain highly qualified faculty members, resulting in a less dynamic and intellectually stimulating environment for students (Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006).
Conversely, universities promoting teaching excellence and prioritizing champion teachers enjoy higher student success and satisfaction (Darling-Hammond, 2017; Hattie, 2009). By fostering an environment that encourages innovation, creativity, and academic freedom, these institutions can provide students with a more engaging and practical learning experience (Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005). Furthermore, champion teachers contribute significantly to student retention, graduation rates, and long-term career success (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).
Solutions and recommendations
To shift the focus towards champion teachers, universities can adopt the following strategies:
· Reward teaching excellence through merit-based promotions, salary increases, and recognition (O'Meara, 2005). By acknowledging and valuing the contributions of exceptional educators, universities can incentivize faculty members to prioritize innovative teaching practices and student-centered learning (Fairweather, 2002).
· Provide professional development opportunities for faculty members to improve their teaching skills and stay current with pedagogical innovations (Guskey, 2000). Through workshops, conferences, and mentoring programs, universities can offer faculty members the resources and support they need to enhance their instructional practices (Beach, Sorcinelli, Austin, & Rivard, 2016). Also, allow space for champion teachers to have upward mobility and occupy different leadership positions in the institution.
· Encourage interdisciplinary collaboration and the sharing of best practices among faculty members (Kezar, 2005). By fostering a culture of cooperation and knowledge exchange, universities can help educators learn from one another and incorporate diverse perspectives into their teaching methods (Lattuca, Voigt, & Fath, 2004).
· Foster an environment that values academic freedom and intellectual diversity, allowing teachers to explore innovative teaching methods without fear of reprisal (Altbach, 2001). By creating a supportive atmosphere encouraging risk-taking and experimentation, universities can empower faculty members to challenge conventional approaches and develop new ways of engaging students in learning (Tierney, 1997).
Personal experiences
Drawing from personal experience as a former university student, I can attest to the significant impact that champion teachers can have on one's educational experience. These teachers can spark curiosity, foster critical thinking, and motivate students to excel academically (Bain, 2004; Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005). Their dedication to innovative teaching methods and student-centered approaches creates a learning environment that encourages intellectual growth and engagement (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).
Conversely, the classes led by subordinate teachers, prioritizing compliance over innovation, often resulted in disengagement and a lack of inspiration (Giroux, 2014; Kezar & Eckel, 2002). The focus on adhering to institutional norms and guidelines rather than nurturing creativity and critical thinking led to a diminished learning experience, reflecting the findings of several studies on the adverse effects of such teaching practices (Bok, 2006; Paul & Elder, 2006).
This personal account aligns with the broader literature, highlighting the importance of championing teachers in shaping students' academic experiences and outcomes. It underscores the need for universities to prioritize teaching excellence and invest in strategies that support and promote champion educators.
Conclusion
In summary, the preference for subordinate teachers can have far-reaching consequences on the quality of education, as it hinders students' learning experiences, stifles critical thinking, and perpetuates a cycle of mediocrity within academic institutions. The evidence suggests that universities prioritizing champion teachers and emphasizing teaching excellence foster positive outcomes for their students, faculty, and institutional reputation.
Champion teachers play a crucial role in fostering student success, both within and beyond the confines of the university. Institutions that recognize and support the work of these exceptional educators are more likely to achieve higher retention rates, enhance their reputations, and produce successful alums.
In light of the evidence presented, it is clear that champion teachers play a vital role in fostering student success and promoting a high-quality educational experience. These educators facilitate students' academic achievements and nurture critical thinking, problem-solving skills, and intellectual curiosity. As such, universities must recognize the value of champion teachers and invest in strategies that support and promote their work. As the landscape of higher education continues to evolve, universities must remain committed to fostering teaching excellence and supporting champion teachers who can inspire students, advance knowledge, and contribute to the greater good. By prioritizing teaching quality and innovation, universities can not only enhance their reputations and attract top students and faculty members but also ensure that their graduates are well-equipped to navigate the challenges of their professional and personal lives. Ultimately, the success of higher education institutions hinges upon their ability to cultivate a vibrant academic community that values the contributions of all educators and provides students with the diverse and enriching learning experiences they need to thrive.
References
Altbach, P. G. (2001). Academic freedom: International realities and challenges. Higher Education, 41(1-2), 205-219.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. Jossey-Bass.
Austin, A. E., & Sorcinelli, M. D. (2013). The future of faculty development: Where are we going? New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2013(133), 85-97.
Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Harvard University Press.
Beach, A. L., Sorcinelli, M. D., Austin, A. E., & Rivard, J. K. (2016). Faculty development in the age of evidence: Current practices, future imperatives. Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Bennett, R., & Ali-Choudhury, R. (2009). Prospective students' perceptions of university brands: An empirical study. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 19(1), 85-107.
Berdahl, R. O. (1990). Academic freedom, autonomy, and accountability in British universities. Studies in Higher Education, 15(2), 169-180.
Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton University Press.
Bok, D. (2006). Our underachieving colleges: A candid look at how much students learn and why they should be learning more. Princeton University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241-258). Greenwood Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. (1992). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. University of Chicago Press.
Christensen, C. M., & Eyring, H. J. (2011). The innovative university: Changing the DNA of higher education from the inside out. Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1-44.
Eaton, J. S. (2012). An overview of U.S. accreditation. Council for Higher Education Accreditation.
Ehrenberg, R. G. (2004). Prospects in the academic labor market for economists. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18(2), 227-238.
Fairweather, J. S. (2002). The mythologies of faculty productivity: Implications for institutional policy and decision making. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 26-48.
Farrow, H., & Yuan, Y. (2011). Building stronger brands through online communities. MIS Quarterly Executive, 10(3), 67-73.
Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2005). Understanding student differences. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 57-72.
Giroux, H. A. (2014). Neoliberalism's war on higher education. Haymarket Books.
Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Corwin Press.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
Junco, R. (2012). The relationship between frequency of Facebook use, participation in Facebook activities, and student engagement. Computers & Education, 58(1), 162-171.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59-68.
Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. D. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in higher education: Universal principles or culturally responsive concepts? The Journal of Higher Education, 73(4), 435-460.
Kezar, A. (2005). Redesigning for collaboration within higher education institutions: An exploration into the developmental process. Research in Higher Education, 46(7), 831-860
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall.
Labaree, D. F. (2017). A perfect mess: The unlikely ascendancy of American higher education. University of Chicago Press.
Lattuca, L. R., Voigt, L. J., & Fath, K. Q. (2004). Does interdisciplinarity promote learning? Theoretical support and researchable questions. The Review of Higher Education, 28(1), 23-48.
O'Meara, K. A. (2005). Encouraging multiple forms of scholarship in faculty reward systems: Does it make a difference? Research in Higher Education, 46(5), 479-510.
O'Meara, K. (2011). Inside the Panopticon: Studying academic reward systems. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2011(149), 71-79.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (Vol. 2). Jossey-Bass.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2006). Critical thinking: The nature of critical thinking. The Foundation for Critical Thinking.
Rhoades, G. (2001). Managing productivity in an academic institution: Rethinking the whom, which, what, and whose of productivity. Research in Higher Education, 42(5), 619-632.
Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish lessons: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? Teachers College Press.
Schuster, J. H., & Finkelstein, M. J. (2006). The American faculty: The restructuring of academic work and careers. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Tierney, W. G. (1997). Organizational socialization in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 68(1), 1-16.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 153-184.
Weller, M. (2011). The Digital Scholar: How technology is transforming scholarly practice. Bloomsbury Academic.