View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

My, How You Have Changed, PETE: An Updated Demographic Profile of U.S. Teacher Education Faculty

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: My, How You Have Changed, PETE: An Updated Demographic Profile of U.S. Teacher Education Faculty
Language: English
Authors: Graber, Kim C., Woods, Amelia Mays, Killian, Chad M., Richards, K. Andrew R., Rhoades, Jesse L.
Source: Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. Jul 2020 39(3):384-395.
Availability: Human Kinetics, Inc. 1607 North Market Street, Champaign, IL 61820. Tel: 800-474-4457; Fax: 217-351-1549; e-mail: info@hkusa.com; Web site: http://journals.humankinetics.com/journal/jtpe
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 12
Publication Date: 2020
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Physical Education, Physical Education Teachers, Gender Differences, Teacher Education Programs, College Faculty, Educational Change, Teacher Attitudes, Institutional Characteristics, Teacher Surveys, Productivity, Teaching Experience, Teacher Salaries, Teacher Qualifications, Research, Faculty Workload, Teacher Characteristics, Faculty Publishing, Teacher Selection, Teacher Educators, Profiles
DOI: 10.1123/jtpe.2018-0311
ISSN: 0273-5024
Abstract: Purpose: The landscape of physical education has shifted in the 30 years since Metzler and Freedman's seminal study examining the demographics of physical education teacher education faculty. Changes in the structure of physical education and academia justify an updated investigation, with particular emphasis on the gender and institutional affiliation of faculty. Methods: An expanded and validated version of Metzler and Freedman's survey was e-mailed to 908 physical education teacher education faculty from 505 U.S. institutions. A response rate of 46.21% was achieved. The data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics to examine differences based on gender and institutional affiliation. Results: Gender salary disparities have decreased, whereas teaching experience and qualifications of faculty have increased. Corresponding increases in research productivity were notably evident. Discussion/Conclusion: Faculty members remain predominately European American, publication output has increased, more institutions are hiring nontenure-track faculty, and perceptions of support for physical education are lower than in 1985.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2020
Accession Number: EJ1257165
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwG3evmbbtd27Ko_noLg4go5AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDLDwE2S3nwqBm155mQIBEICBm-92NO65oKvlqIVr8XOPh6vXabNdtQBkS-iDjYrgu6LvDhw1nY_086L3l59YF21KQQ552gH_obmrfpx3Yt8n4Mxj1AA2bmwHDKFf1oKcN59v0IuywDmyaS_u5Cs-66WyDYq1SCWr-xT5yFjTmsB5EaRXC4LByK7AwH0z8ij90NwUINkQEqivQjWV-Evye_l415FHc4glHXToKvb9
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0144505018;0do01jul.20;2020Jul13.04:42;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0144505018-1">My, How You Have Changed, PETE: An Updated Demographic Profile of U.S. Teacher Education Faculty </title> <p>Purpose: The landscape of physical education has shifted in the 30 years since Metzler and Freedman's seminal study examining the demographics of physical education teacher education faculty. Changes in the structure of physical education and academia justify an updated investigation, with particular emphasis on the gender and institutional affiliation of faculty. Methods: An expanded and validated version of Metzler and Freedman's survey was e-mailed to 908 physical education teacher education faculty from 505 U.S. institutions. A response rate of 46.21% was achieved. The data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics to examine differences based on gender and institutional affiliation. Results: Gender salary disparities have decreased, whereas teaching experience and qualifications of faculty have increased. Corresponding increases in research productivity were notably evident. Discussion/Conclusion: Faculty members remain predominately European American, publication output has increased, more institutions are hiring nontenure-track faculty, and perceptions of support for physical education are lower than in 1985.</p> <p>Keywords: higher education; physical education; socialization</p> <p>Spurred by the publication of <emph>A Nation at Risk</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref1">44</reflink>]), teacher education programs within the United States experienced considerable scrutiny in the 1980s and 1990s. The concern that American youth were receiving a substandard education, perhaps as a consequence of ill-prepared and ineffective teachers, fueled reform efforts related to the development and content of teacher education programs. One of the most significant critiques was levied by the Holmes Group ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref2">24</reflink>]) in a report that challenged the landscape of teacher education in postsecondary institutions. This and other critiques forced teacher education programs to reconsider how they prepared future teachers. Some programs implemented professional development schools, where teacher educators and teachers worked collaboratively with preservice teachers ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref3">4</reflink>]), whereas others moved toward a 5-year program in which graduates also earned a master's degree.</p> <p>In addition to initiating reform efforts, these critiques led to the development of research agendas focused on understanding the content and effectiveness of teacher education. In physical education teacher education (PETE), scholars concentrated on topics such as knowledge emphasized during teacher education ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref4">47</reflink>]), the socialization of preservice teachers ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref5">31</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref6">32</reflink>]), the design of effective programs ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref7">19</reflink>]), and the roles and functions of teacher educators ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref8">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref9">33</reflink>]). Research during this time also provided new information related to the demographics and work preferences of teacher educators in physical education ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref10">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref11">42</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref12">62</reflink>]).</p> <p>Teacher educators at that time were predominantly European American ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref13">62</reflink>]), middle-aged ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref14">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref15">42</reflink>]), and had taught physical education in school environments prior to transitioning into higher education ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref16">62</reflink>]). Metzler and Freedman's ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref17">42</reflink>]) seminal investigation revealed that the majority of PETE faculty members were female (56.00%), and 46.10 was the average age. At that time, 51.00% of PETE faculty held a doctorate degree, 67.00% had achieved tenure, and the average work week was 50.30 hr. Faculty reported publishing fewer than four refereed articles <emph>over the course of their careers</emph> and reported annual salaries of approximately $23,000.</p> <p>Despite Lawson's ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref18">33</reflink>]) plea for the examination of teacher educators nearly two decades ago, the study of PETE faculty members received limited attention in the literature during the late 1990s and early 2000s ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref19">39</reflink>]). More recently, there has been a resurgence of interest in examining the preparation and socialization of PETE faculty members ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref20">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref21">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref22">41</reflink>]). Much of this scholarship has been grounded in occupational socialization theory, which seeks to understand individuals' recruitment into PETE faculty roles, the effectiveness in doctoral programs in preparing future faculty members, and the lives and careers of PETE faculty members in the sociopolitical, neoliberal environments of contemporary universities ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref23">48</reflink>]).</p> <p>Socialization into the role of a PETE faculty member begins with an <emph>anticipatory phase</emph> that includes all of the experiences leading to an individual's decision to enter the profession ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref24">37</reflink>]). The <emph>graduate education phase</emph> commences when individuals enter into a doctoral program in preparation for faculty careers. Relationships developed with faculty members and other doctoral students are viewed as important socialization experiences in which doctoral students learn about and develop preferences for activities associated with the teaching, research, and service components of the faculty role ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref25">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>When individuals complete their terminal degrees and transition into academia, they begin the <emph>faculty socialization phase</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref26">41</reflink>]). While most faculty members in higher education have completed doctoral degrees, there is a growing trend in universities to hire nontenure-track instructors and lecturers to assume teaching and service responsibilities ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref27">30</reflink>]). Tenure-track faculty careers are conceptualized as a career-long process that can be divided into early, middle, and late career phases that roughly align with the phases of tenure and promotion ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref28">54</reflink>]). Faculty socialization experiences are influenced heavily by the institutional context in which one works and are framed by larger social and political issues related to the public perception of higher education, along with perceptions of physical education as a marginalized discipline in schools ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref29">29</reflink>]). Contention between physical education and other subdisciplines within kinesiology also influences the experiences of PETE faculty members ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref30">53</reflink>]), as do challenges driven by enrollment declines in PETE nationally ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref31">3</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although interest in examining the perspectives and practices of PETE faculty members has increased, an updated demographic profile has not been presented since Metzler and Freedman's ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref32">42</reflink>]) seminal study. This represents a gap in the literature because the context of physical education and PETE has changed drastically since the mid-1980s. Physical education has, for example, been identified as a key contributor in the public health agenda ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref33">40</reflink>]), and schoolwide physical activity programs have broadened what it means to be a physical education professional ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref34">59</reflink>]). Pedagogical models have also been developed, refined, and field tested, and they are adopted more widely in PETE program curricula than they were in the past ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref35">49</reflink>]).</p> <p>The realities of life in academia have also changed considerably since the mid-1980s. Although differences exist across institutional contexts ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref36">17</reflink>]), many universities have increased faculty research and grant procurement expectations as a precursor for promotion and tenure ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref37">6</reflink>]). Doctoral-granting institutions typically require higher levels of research productivity than bachelor's- and master's-granting colleges and universities, which has implications for the time and effort faculty members spend focusing on teaching and service ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref38">9</reflink>]). Challenges are exacerbated when individuals work in environments that do not align with their work preferences ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref39">45</reflink>]). Such would be the case when a faculty member primarily motivated by research works at a bachelor's-level institution or when someone who wants to dedicate significant effort to teaching works at an institution with high expectations for scholarship.</p> <p>The contemporary nature of faculty work can place some individuals at risk for role stress. Specifically, they may feel overloaded with the number and types of tasks they are asked to perform ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref40">35</reflink>]), like when expectations for research conflict with teaching and service obligations ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref41">38</reflink>]) and when ambiguity exists in expectations for tenure and promotion ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref42">45</reflink>]). Some of the stressors experienced by faculty members vary by gender ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref43">13</reflink>]), particularly because females often experience stress associated with balancing family and work roles ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref44">26</reflink>]). Female faculty members may also experience individual and institutional oppression whereby they are explicitly and implicitly devaluated in academic environments that favor the perspectives of and afford disproportionate power to males ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref45">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>Changes in the goals and structures of physical education, PETE, and higher education more generally have implications for the work of PETE faculty members and those who are drawn to the profession. Better understanding the demographic characteristics of teacher educators can help to shed light on those responsible for educating future teachers. In response to calls for additional research on teacher education faculty (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref46">39</reflink>]) and to the dated nature of the demographic profile presented by Metzler and Freedman [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref47">42</reflink>], the purpose of this study was to develop a comprehensive and updated profile of PETE faculty members working at institutions of higher education in the United States. In approaching this study, we were particularly interested in comparing potential differences in faculty members' experiences by gender and institution type. Research questions included the following: What are the demographic characteristics of PETE faculty working at U.S. colleges and universities? and How do the demographic profiles of PETE faculty members compare based on gender and institution type (i.e., bachelor's, master's, doctoral)?</p> <hd id="AN0144505018-2">Methods</hd> <p>This study is part of a larger investigation examining the demographics and role preferences of physical education teacher educators in the United States. The following sections discuss the identification and recruitment of participants, research instrumentation, and data analysis plan. This study was approved by the institutional review board at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.</p> <hd id="AN0144505018-3">Participant Identification and Recruitment</hd> <p>The participants were identified using an existing database that was updated immediately prior to the initiation of this study. Specifically, the most recent edition of the<emph> Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref48">25</reflink>]) and the <emph>UnivSource</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref49">56</reflink>]) and <emph>Education Degree</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref50">14</reflink>]) websites were used to identify the names of 4,664 U.S. institutions of higher education. Colleges and universities classified as doctoral, master's, and bachelor's institutions were included in the database. An overview of the Carnegie classifications of institutions is included in Table 1. Institutional websites were reviewed to identify colleges and universities that offered teacher certification in physical education. Faculty members associated with these programs were identified, and contact information was input into the database. When contact information was not available or it was unclear which individuals qualified as PETE faculty, program departments were contacted. In total, 908 faculty from 505 institutions were identified as potential PETE faculty members.</p> <p>Table 1 Carnegie Classification Definitions</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th>Basic classification</th><th align="left">Criteria</th><th align="left">Designations</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Doctoral universities</td><td>Institutions that awarded at least 20 research/scholarship doctoral degrees during update year (excludes professional practice doctoral degrees, such as the JD, DPT, MD, etc.)</td><td>R1: Highest research activityR2: Higher research activityR3: Moderate research activity</td></tr><tr><td>Master's colleges and universities</td><td>Institutions that awarded at least 50 master's degrees and fewer than 20 doctoral degrees during update year</td><td>M1: Larger programsM2: Medium programsM3: Smaller programs</td></tr><tr><td>Baccalaureate colleges</td><td>Institutions where at least 50% of all degrees were baccalaureate or higher and fewer than 50 master's degrees or 20 doctoral degrees were awarded during update year</td><td>Baccalaureate: Arts and SciencesBaccalaureate: Diverse fields</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note</emph>. These classifications represent the institutions that fit the criteria for this study. A complete list of Carnegie classifications and methodology can be found by visiting <ulink href="http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/">http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/</ulink>.</p> <p>Following the development of the database, PETE faculty members were sent an e-mail explaining the study and inviting them to follow a URL link to an online survey. Once they clicked on the URL link, they were directed to an overview of informed consent, followed by the survey. Up to three follow-up emails were forwarded to participants who did not respond, followed by a paper copy through U.S. mail with an accompanying prepaid return envelope. As some institutional websites had not been updated to reflect faculty resignations, relocations, or retirements, some e-mails were returned as undeliverable, and it was determined that 101 of the PETE faculty members who had initially received surveys were no longer eligible for participation. Therefore, the final participant pool included 807 PETE faculty members.</p> <p>A total of 454 individuals returned surveys for an initial response rate of 56.26%. However, 108 of these respondents indicated that they had not taught PETE courses in the last 3 years. Thus, they did not meet the inclusion criteria. Removal of these responses reduced the overall response pool to 699 PETE faculty members, with 346 participating in the study (49.50% response rate). Upon further review, 23 of the respondents had opened the survey, but had not provided any answers to the questions. These responses were deleted, bringing the final sample to 323 participants (46.21% response rate). These faculty members represented 230 of the 505 U.S. institutions of higher education in the database (45.50%) and were split across doctoral (<emph>n</emph> = 120; 37.10%), master's (<emph>n</emph> = 145; 44.90%), and bachelor's (<emph>n</emph> = 58; 18.00%) institutions.</p> <hd id="AN0144505018-4">Research Instrumentation</hd> <p>This study utilized Graber, Erwin, Woods, Rhoades, and Zhu's ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref51">21</reflink>]) PETE faculty survey, which was developed based on Metzler and Freedman's ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref52">42</reflink>]) initial survey of PETE faculty members. During the survey development process, content representativeness was examined through a three-step process that involved identifying and discussing survey questions used in the Metzler and Freedman's ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref53">42</reflink>]) study with Metzler, reviewing and updating the survey questions, and receiving feedback from a panel of six content area experts. Through this process, several additional questions were added to the original survey. Test–retest reliability and subscale internal structure were also examined and found to be acceptable (see [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref54">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>The survey developed by Graber et al. ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref55">21</reflink>]) includes 164 questions across six sections. This study focused on the sections of the survey related to participant characteristics, education and experience, and perceptions of the current culture of PETE. The <emph>participant characteristics</emph> section included demographic questions, such as gender, race/ethnicity, age, and salary. The <emph>education and experience</emph> section included questions about education and current and previous work experiences, such as doctoral degree specialization and years of experience as a faculty member in higher education. Finally, the <emph>perceptions of the current culture</emph> section asked participants to rate their perceptions of PETE given the current climate in their institution, the state in which they were employed, and the nation on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from <emph>severely cut back/eliminated</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref56">1</reflink>) to <emph>stronger than ever</emph> (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref57">5</reflink>).</p> <hd id="AN0144505018-5">Data Analysis</hd> <p>The data were analyzed using SPSS (version 23.0; IBM, Chicago, IL). The data analysis process began with standard procedures for data cleaning and screening, as recommended in the literature ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref58">52</reflink>]). Based on this process, it was determined that the data met the basic assumptions required for descriptive and inferential statistics. Scores on the dependent variable approximated an interval level of measurement and were normally distributed, the observations were independent, and the variance was reasonably homogeneous. Descriptive statistics and frequencies were then calculated for all variables, and bivariate correlations were calculated among select variables.</p> <p>The primary data analyses included a series of χ<sups>2</sups> tests, one-way analysis of variances (ANOVAs), and 3 × 2 (Institution Type × Gender) two-way ANOVAs to examine differences in study variables based on participants' gender and institutional affiliation (i.e., bachelor's, master's, or doctoral institution). Cramer's <emph>V</emph> is presented as an estimate of effective size for χ<sups>2</sups> tests, η<sups>2</sups> is presented as an estimate of effect size for one-way ANOVAs, and partial η<sups>2</sups> is presented as an estimate of effect size in two-way ANOVAs ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref59">58</reflink>]). For the two-way ANOVAs, interactions between gender and institution type were examined, in addition to the main effects. In the presence of a significant interaction effect, follow-up tests for simple effects were conducted using independent-samples <emph>t</emph> tests. Cohen's <emph>d</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref60">11</reflink>]) is used as a measure of effect size for all <emph>t</emph> tests. Because the institutional review board protocol emphasized that participants did not need to respond to questions they felt uncomfortable answering, some participants did not answer every question. The sample size for each individual test statistic is provided to aid interpretation.</p> <hd id="AN0144505018-6">Results</hd> <p>Aggregate participant information is included in Table 2. The data are displayed by gender in Table 3, and the Carnegie classification is displayed in Table 4. In total, 188 females (58.2%) and 135 males (41.8%) responded to the survey. This reflects a slight increase in the percentage of female faculty members (56%) reported by Metzler and Freedman ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref61">42</reflink>]). The majority of the 323 participants identified as European American (<emph>n</emph> = 285; 88.20%). Other racial/ethnic affiliations included African American (<emph>n</emph> = 13; 4.00%), Asian (<emph>n</emph> = 10; 3.10%), Hispanic (<emph>n</emph> = 4; 1.20%), Native American (<emph>n</emph> = 3; 0.90%), and other (<emph>n</emph> = 8; 2.50%).</p> <p>Table 2 Demographic Information in Aggregate</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th>Category</th><th align="left">Subcategory</th><th>Participants (%)</th><th><italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Gender</td><td>Male</td><td>135 (41.80)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>188 (58.20)</td><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Institution type</td><td>Bachelor's institution</td><td>58 (18.00)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Master's institution</td><td>145 (44.90)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Doctoral institution</td><td>120 (37.20)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Age (years)</td><td /><td /><td>50.90 (10.82)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Race/ethnicity</td><td>European American</td><td>285 (88.20)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>African American</td><td>13 (4.00)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Asian</td><td>10 (3.10)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Hispanic</td><td>4 (1.20)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Native American</td><td>3 (0.90)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>8 (2.50)</td><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Highest degree</td><td>Master's</td><td>47 (14.60)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Doctorate</td><td>276 (85.40)</td><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Teach experience</td><td>Prior experience</td><td>292 (90.40)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>No experience</td><td>31 (9.60)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Years teach exp</td><td /><td /><td>7.16 (6.40)</td></tr><tr><td>Faculty experience</td><td /><td /><td>17.75 (10.78)</td></tr><tr><td>Current experience</td><td /><td /><td>12.99 (9.76)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Courses taught</td><td>Total courses</td><td /><td>7.64 (3.43)</td></tr><tr><td>Undergraduate</td><td /><td>6.63 (3.60)</td></tr><tr><td>Graduate</td><td /><td>1.00 (1.58)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Contract status</td><td>Full time</td><td>316 (97.80)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Part time</td><td>7 (2.20)</td><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Faculty rank</td><td>Instructors/lecturers</td><td>30 (9.30)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Assistant professors</td><td>91 (28.20)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Associate professors</td><td>106 (32.80)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Full professors</td><td>96 (29.70)</td><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Tenure status</td><td>Nontenure track</td><td>52 (16.10)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Tenure track untenured</td><td>82 (25.40)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Tenured</td><td>189 (58.50)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Salary</td><td /><td /><td>$65.9k (17.6k)</td></tr><tr><td>Publications</td><td /><td /><td>6.25 (9.26)</td></tr><tr><td>External grants</td><td /><td /><td>0.59 (1.33)</td></tr><tr><td>Internal grants</td><td /><td /><td>1.29 (3.08)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note. N</emph> = 323 total participants. Teach experience refers to prior experience in teaching physical education in a school environment; years teach exp refers to years of teaching physical education in a school environment; faculty experience refers to total years of working in higher education; current experience refers to years of working at the current university; courses taught refers to total courses taught within an academic year.</p> <p>Table 3 Demographic Information Based on Gender</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Category</th><th align="left" rowspan="2">Subcategory</th><th colspan="2">Males (<italic>n</italic> = 135)</th><th colspan="2">Females (<italic>n</italic> = 188)</th></tr><tr><th>Participants (%)</th><th><italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</th><th>Participants (%)</th><th><italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Institution type</td><td>Bachelor's institution</td><td>20 (14.80)</td><td /><td>38 (20.20)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Master's institution</td><td>61 (45.20)</td><td /><td>84 (44.70)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Doctoral institution</td><td>54 (40.00)</td><td /><td>66 (35.10)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Age (years)</td><td /><td /><td>50.90 (10.52)</td><td /><td>50.94 (11.06)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Race/ethnicity</td><td>European American</td><td>117 (86.70)</td><td /><td>168 (89.40)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>African American</td><td>7 (5.20)</td><td /><td>6 (3.20)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Asian</td><td>4 (3.00)</td><td /><td>6 (3.20)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Hispanic</td><td>3 (2.20)</td><td /><td>1 (0.50)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Native American</td><td>2 (1.50)</td><td /><td>1 (0.50)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>2 (1.50)</td><td /><td>6 (3.20)</td><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Highest degree</td><td>Master's</td><td>15 (11.10)</td><td /><td>32 (17.00)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Doctorate</td><td>120 (88.90)</td><td /><td>156 (83.00)</td><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Teach experience</td><td>Prior experience</td><td>121 (89.60)</td><td /><td>171 (91.00)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>No experience</td><td>14 (10.40)</td><td /><td>17 (9.00)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Years teach exp</td><td /><td /><td>6.33 (5.86)</td><td /><td>7.76 (6.71)</td></tr><tr><td>Faculty experience</td><td /><td /><td>17.80 (10.96)</td><td /><td>17.71 (10.68)</td></tr><tr><td>Current experience</td><td /><td /><td>13.55 (10.08)</td><td /><td>12.59 (9.52)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Courses taught</td><td>Total courses</td><td /><td>7.10 (3.07)</td><td /><td>8.02 (3.63)</td></tr><tr><td>Undergraduate</td><td /><td>6.11 (3.19)</td><td /><td>7.01 (3.83)</td></tr><tr><td>Graduate</td><td /><td>0.99 (1.31)</td><td /><td>1.01 (1.75)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Contract status</td><td>Full time</td><td>131 (97.00)</td><td /><td>185 (98.40)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Part time</td><td>4 (3.00)</td><td /><td>3 (1.60)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Salary</td><td /><td /><td>$67.7k (18.7k)</td><td /><td>$64.6k (16.8k)</td></tr><tr><td>Total pubs</td><td /><td /><td>8.10 (11.64)</td><td /><td>4.94 (6.84)</td></tr><tr><td>Research pubs</td><td /><td /><td>4.48 (9.37)</td><td /><td>1.85 (3.61)</td></tr><tr><td>Professional pubs</td><td /><td /><td>2.39 (3.42)</td><td /><td>2.07 (3.18)</td></tr><tr><td>External grants</td><td /><td /><td>0.54 (1.34)</td><td /><td>0.63 (1.33)</td></tr><tr><td>Internal grants</td><td /><td /><td>1.33 (3.02)</td><td /><td>1.26 (3.14)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note</emph>. Teach experience refers to prior experience in teaching physical education in a school environment; years teach exp refers to years of teaching physical education in a school environment; faculty experience refers to total years of working in higher education; current experience refers to years of working at the current university; pubs refers to publications; courses taught refers to total courses taught within an academic year.</p> <p>Table 4 Demographic Information Based on Institutional Classification</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Category</th><th align="left" rowspan="2">Subcategory</th><th colspan="2">Bachelor's (<italic>n</italic> = 58)</th><th colspan="2">Master's (<italic>n</italic> = 145)</th><th colspan="2">Doctoral (<italic>n</italic> = 120)</th></tr><tr><th>Participants (%)</th><th><italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</th><th>Participants (%)</th><th><italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</th><th>Participants (%)</th><th><italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Gender</td><td>Male</td><td>20 (34.50)</td><td /><td>61 (42.10)</td><td /><td>54 (45.00)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>38 (65.50)</td><td /><td>84 (57.90)</td><td /><td>66 (55.00)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Age (years)</td><td /><td /><td>50.75 (11.56)</td><td /><td>51.93 (9.52)</td><td /><td>49.78 (11.91)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Race/ethnicity</td><td>European American</td><td>49 (84.50)</td><td /><td>133 (91.70)</td><td /><td>103 (85.80)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>African American</td><td>2 (3.40)</td><td /><td>6 (4.10)</td><td /><td>5 (4.20)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Asian</td><td>2 (3.40)</td><td /><td>2 (1.40)</td><td /><td>6 (5.00)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Hispanic</td><td>0 (0.00)</td><td /><td>2 (1.40)</td><td /><td>2 (1.70)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Native American</td><td>3 (5.20)</td><td /><td>0 (0.00)</td><td /><td>0 (0.00)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>2 (3.40)</td><td /><td>2 (1.40)</td><td /><td>4 (3.30)</td><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Highest degree</td><td>Master's</td><td>20 (34.50)</td><td /><td>18 (12.40)</td><td /><td>9 (7.50)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Doctorate</td><td>38 (65.50)</td><td /><td>127 (87.60)</td><td /><td>111 (92.50)</td><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Teach experience</td><td>Prior experience</td><td>50 (86.20)</td><td /><td>134 (92.40)</td><td /><td>108 (90.00)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>No experience</td><td>8 (13.80)</td><td /><td>11 (7.60)</td><td /><td>12 (10.00)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Years teach exp</td><td /><td /><td>8.03 (7.06)</td><td /><td>7.63 (6.28)</td><td /><td>6.18 (6.16)</td></tr><tr><td>Faculty experience</td><td /><td /><td>18.92 (11.26)</td><td /><td>17.72 (9.78)</td><td /><td>17.21 (11.71)</td></tr><tr><td>Current experience</td><td /><td /><td>14.81 (11.68)</td><td /><td>12.69 (8.46)</td><td /><td>12.48 (10.18)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Courses taught</td><td>Total courses</td><td /><td>8.58 (3.14)</td><td /><td>8.21 (3.58)</td><td /><td>6.50 (3.09)</td></tr><tr><td>Undergraduate</td><td /><td>8.49 (3.20)</td><td /><td>7.27 (3.57)</td><td /><td>4.99 (3.14)</td></tr><tr><td>Graduate</td><td /><td>0.09 (0.29)</td><td /><td>0.94 (1.37)</td><td /><td>1.51 (1.94)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Contract status</td><td>Full time</td><td>56 (96.60)</td><td /><td>145 (100.00)</td><td /><td>115 (95.80)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Part time</td><td>2 (3.40)</td><td /><td>0 (0.00)</td><td /><td>5 (4.20)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Salary</td><td /><td /><td>$55.4k (12.5k)</td><td /><td>$66.9k (16.3k)</td><td /><td>$69.6k (19.6k)</td></tr><tr><td>Total pubs</td><td /><td /><td>1.75 (3.00)</td><td /><td>4.76 (7.15)</td><td /><td>10.02 (11.64)</td></tr><tr><td>Research pubs</td><td /><td /><td>0.44 (2.04)</td><td /><td>1.47 (3.76)</td><td /><td>5.76 (9.34)</td></tr><tr><td>Professional pubs</td><td /><td /><td>1.08 (2.09)</td><td /><td>2.25 (3.47)</td><td /><td>2.65 (3.40)</td></tr><tr><td>External grants</td><td /><td /><td>0.31 (0.72)</td><td /><td>0.39 (0.98)</td><td /><td>0.94 (1.76)</td></tr><tr><td>Internal grants</td><td /><td /><td>0.25 (0.86)</td><td /><td>1.98 (4.19)</td><td /><td>0.95 (1.76)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note</emph>. Teach experience refers to prior experience in teaching physical education in a school environment; years teach exp refers to years of teaching physical education in a school environment; faculty experience refers to total years of working in higher education; current experience refers to years of working at the current university; pubs refers to publications; courses taught refers to total courses taught within an academic year.</p> <hd id="AN0144505018-7">Institution Type</hd> <p>Based on the <emph>Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref62">25</reflink>]), PETE faculty were employed in 230 different colleges and universities that represented 49 of the 50 U.S. states, including bachelor's (<emph>n</emph> = 58; 18.00%), master's (<emph>n</emph> = 145; 44.90%), and doctoral (<emph>n</emph> = 120; 37.10%) institutions. Relatively few, however, worked in departments that offered doctoral degrees in PETE (<emph>n</emph> = 43; 13.30%). A χ<sups>2</sups> test indicated that there was no difference in the distribution of male and female faculty members across institution types.</p> <hd id="AN0144505018-8">Years of Experience in Higher Education and Kindergarten to 12th-Grade Schools</hd> <p>The participants averaged 50.90 years of age (<emph>SD</emph> = 10.82), had been working at their current institution for 12.99 years (<emph>SD</emph> = 9.76), and had 17.75 total years of experience in academia (<emph>SD</emph> = 10.78). These faculty members were about 5 years older (<emph>M</emph> = 46.1 years) than those in Metzler and Freedman's ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref63">42</reflink>]) study, but have been working in university environments for approximately the same number of years. A 2 × 3 (Institution Type × Gender) factorial ANOVA indicated that there were no differences in total experience or years at current institution based on institution type or gender. The majority of participants (<emph>n</emph> = 292; 90.40%) taught physical education for an average of 7.16 years (<emph>SD</emph> = 6.40) in kindergarten to 12th-grade (K–12) schools before pursuing a career in the academy. This represents a slight increase in K–12 teaching experience since Metzler and Freedman's ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref64">42</reflink>]) study in which it was reported that faculty members taught in schools for an average of 5.20 years. A 2 × 3 (Institution Type × Gender) factorial ANOVA indicated that there were no differences in years of prior teaching experience based on institution type or gender.</p> <hd id="AN0144505018-9">Faculty Member Degree Status</hd> <p>Most of the participants had earned a doctoral degree (<emph>n</emph> = 276; 85.40%), with fewer reporting that their highest earned degree was a master's degree (<emph>n</emph> = 47; 14.60%). This finding reflects a large increase over Metzler and Freedman's ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref65">42</reflink>]) findings where it was reported that only 51% of PETE faculty members had doctoral degrees. Furthermore, 90% of all tenured and tenure-track faculty members (<emph>n</emph> = 264) in this study had earned a doctoral degree. A χ<sups>2</sups> test indicated that there was no difference in degree status based on gender in this study, but a second χ<sups>2</sups> test indicated significant differences in degree status based on institution type, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref66">2</reflink>) = 23.86, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <emph>V</emph> = 0.272. Specifically, faculty members holding master's degrees were overrepresented in bachelor's institutions compared with those with doctoral degrees. This finding is likely a reflection of the teaching focus of most bachelor's degree institutions where faculty members do less research and are less likely to need a doctorate.</p> <hd id="AN0144505018-10">Faculty Rank and Tenure Status</hd> <p>The participants included full professors (<emph>n</emph> = 96; 29.70%), associate professors (<emph>n</emph> = 106; 32.80%), assistant professors (<emph>n</emph> = 91; 28.20%), and instructors/lecturers (<emph>n</emph> = 30; 9.30%). A χ<sups>2</sups> test indicated that faculty rank did not differ based on gender, but a second χ<sups>2</sups> test indicated that it varied based on institution type, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref67">6</reflink>) = 13.92, <emph>p</emph> =.031, <emph>V</emph> = 0.147. Instructors/lecturers were overrepresented in doctoral institutions, and full professors were overrepresented in master's institutions. Over half of the participants (<emph>n</emph> = 189; 58.50%) had earned tenure at their respective universities. This percentage is somewhat lower than the 67.00% reported by Metzler and Freedman ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref68">42</reflink>]). Nontenured faculty members included those in tenure-track positions who had not yet earned tenure (<emph>n</emph> = 82; 25.40%), or were not in tenure-track positions (<emph>n</emph> = 52; 16.10%). Although a χ<sups>2</sups> test indicated that there were no differences in tenure status by gender, a second χ<sups>2</sups> test indicated that there was a significant difference based on institution type, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref69">4</reflink>) = 16.88, <emph>p</emph> =.002, <emph>V</emph> = 0.229. Nontenure-track faculty were underrepresented in master's institutions, and tenured faculty were overrepresented.</p> <hd id="AN0144505018-11">Faculty Members' Base Salaries</hd> <p>The participants reported an average base salary of $65,866.27 (<emph>SD</emph> = $17,640.21). This average salary is notably higher than the $23,000.00 reported by Metzler and Freedman [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref70">42</reflink>], which is $56,657.09 after adjusting for inflation. A 3 × 2 (Institution Type × Gender) factorial ANOVA indicated that there was no difference in salary based on gender, but there was a main effect for institution type, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref71">2</reflink>, 278) = 11.73, <emph>p</emph> >.001, partial η<sups>2</sups> =.078. A Tukey-adjusted post hoc test indicated that participants at bachelor's institutions (<emph>n</emph> = 50, <emph>M</emph> = $55,367.00, <emph>SD</emph> = $12,459.56) had lower salaries than those at master's (<emph>n</emph> = 132, <emph>M</emph> = $66,938.36, <emph>SD</emph> = $16,266.70) and doctoral institutions (<emph>n</emph> = 102, <emph>M</emph> = $69,625.56, <emph>SD</emph> = $19,571.67).</p> <hd id="AN0144505018-12">Course Teaching Loads</hd> <p>The participants reported teaching an average of 7.64 total courses per academic year (<emph>SD</emph> = 3.43). An average of 6.63 (<emph>SD</emph> = 3.60) of these courses were at the undergraduate level, and 1.00 (<emph>SD</emph> = 1.58) was at the graduate level. Relative to <emph>total classes</emph>, the results of a 3 × 2 (Institution Type × Gender) factorial ANOVA indicated that there was no significant difference for gender, but there was a significant main effect for institution type, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref72">2</reflink>, 301) = 10.57, <emph>p</emph> >.001, partial η<sups>2</sups> =.002. A Tukey-adjusted post hoc test indicated that faculty members at bachelor's (<emph>n</emph> = 55, <emph>M</emph> = 8.58, <emph>SD</emph> = 3.14) and master's (<emph>n</emph> = 137, <emph>M</emph> = 8.21, <emph>SD</emph> = 3.58) institutions taught significantly more than their counterparts at doctoral institutions (<emph>n</emph> = 115, <emph>M</emph> = 6.50, <emph>SD</emph> = 3.09).</p> <p>For <emph>undergraduate classes</emph>, a 3 × 2 (Institution Type × Gender) factorial ANOVA revealed that there was not a significant difference based on gender, but there was a significant main effect for institution type, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref73">2</reflink>, 301) = 23.47, <emph>p</emph> <.001, partial η<sups>2</sups> =.135. A post hoc test with a Tukey adjustment indicated that faculty members at bachelor's institutions (<emph>n</emph> = 55, <emph>M</emph> = 8.49, <emph>SD</emph> = 3.20) taught more undergraduate courses than those at master's institutions (<emph>n</emph> = 137, <emph>M</emph> = 7.27, <emph>SD</emph> = 3.57), and that both bachelor's and master's institution faculty members taught more than those at doctoral institutions (<emph>n</emph> = 115, <emph>M</emph> = 4.99, <emph>SD</emph> = 3.14).</p> <p>Finally, related to <emph>graduate courses</emph>, a 3 × 2 (Institution Type × Gender) factorial ANOVA indicated that there was no significant difference based on gender, but there was a significant main effect for institution type, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref74">2</reflink>, 301) = 25.43, <emph>p</emph> <.001, partial η<sups>2</sups> =.093. A Tukey-adjusted post hoc test indicated that faculty members at doctoral institutions (<emph>n</emph> = 115, <emph>M</emph> = 1.51, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.94) taught more graduate-level courses than those at master's institutions (<emph>n</emph> = 137, <emph>M</emph> = 0.94, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.37), and that both doctoral and master's institution faculty members taught more graduate courses than those at bachelor's institutions (<emph>n</emph> = 55, <emph>M</emph> = 0.09, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.29).</p> <hd id="AN0144505018-13">Scholarly Publication Record</hd> <p>The participants reported an average of 6.25 total publications <emph>over the last 5 years</emph> (<emph>SD</emph> = 9.26). This reflects a dramatic increase over the 5.60 total publications that faculty members in Metzler and Freedman's ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref75">42</reflink>]) study published in their <emph>entire academic career</emph>. A 3 × 2 (Institution Type × Gender) factorial ANOVA indicated that there was no difference in publications by gender, but there was a significant main effect for institution type, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref76">2</reflink>, 271) = 19.68, <emph>p</emph> >.001, partial η<sups>2</sups> =.127. A post hoc test with a Tukey adjustment indicated that participants at doctoral institutions (<emph>n</emph> = 106, <emph>M</emph> = 10.02, <emph>SD</emph> = 11.64) published more scholarly works in the last 5 years than those at master's (<emph>n</emph> = 123, <emph>M</emph> = 4.76, <emph>SD</emph> = 7.15) and bachelor's (<emph>n</emph> = 48, <emph>M</emph> = 1.75, <emph>SD</emph> = 3.00) institutions. The main effect was qualified by a significant Institution Type × Gender interaction effect, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref77">2</reflink>, 271) = 5.65, <emph>p</emph> =.004, partial η<sups>2</sups> =.040. Follow-up tests for simple effects indicated that, while there was no difference based on gender across master's and bachelor's institutions, males (<emph>n</emph> = 49, <emph>M</emph> = 13.76, <emph>SD</emph> = 15.02) reported over twice as many publications as females (<emph>n</emph> = 57, <emph>M</emph> = 6.81, <emph>SD</emph> = 6.17) at doctoral institutions, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref78">104</reflink>) = 3.19, <emph>p</emph> =.002, <emph>d</emph> = 0.63.</p> <p>Additional analyses were conducted to examine whether or not the type of publications (i.e., research or professional) varied according to the faculty members' gender and institutional classification over the last 5 years. Related to research publications (e.g., articles in outlets such as the <emph>Journal of Teaching in Physical Education</emph>, <emph>Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport</emph>, <emph>Quest</emph>), a 3 × 2 (Institution Type × Gender) factorial ANOVA indicated a significant main effect for institution type, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref79">2</reflink>, 270) = 19.99, <emph>p</emph> >.001, partial η<sups>2</sups> =.129. A Tukey-adjusted post hoc test for multiple comparisons confirmed that faculty members at doctoral institutions (<emph>n</emph> = 106, <emph>M</emph> = 5.76, <emph>SD</emph> = 9.34) published empirical articles more regularly than those at master's (<emph>n</emph> = 122, <emph>M</emph> = 1.47, <emph>SD</emph> = 3.76) or bachelor's (<emph>n</emph> = 48, <emph>M</emph> = 0.44, <emph>SD</emph> = 2.04) institutions. Furthermore, there was a significant main effect for gender, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref80">1</reflink>, 270) = 4.55, <emph>p</emph> =.034, partial η<sups>2</sups> =.017, with male faculty members (<emph>n</emph> = 114, <emph>M</emph> = 4.48, <emph>SD</emph> = 9.37) reporting more research publications than their female (<emph>n</emph> = 162, <emph>M</emph> = 1.85, <emph>SD</emph> = 3.61) counterparts. Both main effects were qualified by a significant Institution Type × Gender interaction effect, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref81">2</reflink>, 270) = 7.28, <emph>p</emph> =.001, partial η<sups>2</sups> =.051. Follow-up tests for simple effects revealed that, while there were no differences in research publications between males and females at bachelor's or master's institutions, male faculty members (<emph>n</emph> = 49, <emph>M</emph> = 8.88, <emph>SD</emph> = 12.49) published more than their female counterparts (<emph>n</emph> = 57, <emph>M</emph> = 3.09, <emph>SD</emph> = 3.76) at doctoral institutions, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref82">104</reflink>) = 3.33, <emph>p</emph> =.001, <emph>d</emph> = 0.65.</p> <p>Related to professional publications (e.g., <emph>Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance</emph>, <emph>Strategies</emph>), the 3 × 2 (Institution Type × Gender) factorial ANOVA indicated that there was a significant main effect for institution type, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref83">2</reflink>, 270) = 3.64, <emph>p</emph> =.027, partial η<sups>2</sups> =.026. A post hoc test for multiple comparisons with a Tukey adjustment indicated that faculty members at doctoral institutions (<emph>n</emph> = 106, <emph>M</emph> = 2.65, <emph>SD</emph> = 3.40) published significantly more professional articles than those at bachelor's institutions (<emph>n</emph> = 48, <emph>M</emph> = 1.08, <emph>SD</emph> = 2.09), but faculty members at master's institutions (<emph>n</emph> = 122, <emph>M</emph> = 2.25, <emph>SD</emph> = 3.47) were not different than either group. The main effect for gender and the Institution Type x Gender interaction effect were not significant.</p> <hd id="AN0144505018-14">Internal and External Grant Procurements</hd> <p>The participants reported securing an average of 1.29 (<emph>SD</emph> = 3.08) internal grants and 0.59 (<emph>SD</emph> = 1.33) external grants in the last 5 years. While data related to overall grant submissions (which includes unfunded applications) were not collected in this study, these findings do indicate that the majority of PETE faculty members were not successfully securing a high number of grants. The 3 × 2 (Institution Type × Gender) factorial ANOVA for <emph>internal grants</emph> indicated that there was not a main effect for gender, but there was a significant main effect for institution type, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref84">2</reflink>, 271) = 5.70, <emph>p</emph> =.004, partial η<sups>2</sups> =.040. A post hoc test with a Tukey adjustment indicated that faculty members at master's institutions (<emph>n</emph> = 123, <emph>M</emph> = 1.98, <emph>SD</emph> = 4.19) reported more internal grants than those at bachelor's institutions (<emph>n</emph> = 48, <emph>M</emph> = 0.25, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.86), but that neither group was different than those at doctoral institutions (<emph>n</emph> = 106, <emph>M</emph> = 0.95, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.76).</p> <p>In relation to <emph>external grants</emph>, a 3 × 2 (Institution Type × Gender) factorial ANOVA indicated that there was no main effect for gender, but there was a significant main effect for institution type, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref85">2</reflink>, 267) = 6.32, <emph>p</emph> =.002, partial η<sups>2</sups> =.045. The Tukey-adjusted post hoc test indicated that participants at doctoral institutions (<emph>n</emph> = 105, <emph>M</emph> = 0.94, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.76) secured more external funding than those at bachelor's (<emph>n</emph> = 48, <emph>M</emph> = 0.31, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.72) or master's (<emph>n</emph> = 120, <emph>M</emph> = 0.39, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.98) institutions.</p> <hd id="AN0144505018-15">Perceptions of the State of PETE</hd> <p>On a 5-point Likert-type scale, the participants perceived that the institutional climate related to PETE (<emph>M</emph> = 3.15, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.99) was more favorable than that present in their state (<emph>M</emph> = 2.86, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.78) or the nation (<emph>M</emph> = 2.73, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.86). A series of 3 × 2 (Institution Type × Gender) factorial ANOVAs were used to examine differences in perceptions of PETE faculty about the state of physical education at the local, state, and national levels (see Table 5). The ANOVA to examine participants' perceptions of the state of PETE given the climate at their <emph>institution</emph> indicated a significant main effect for institution type, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref86">2</reflink>, 268) = 4.48, <emph>p</emph> =.012, partial η<sups>2</sups> =.032. A Tukey-adjusted post hoc test indicated that the participants at bachelor's institutions (<emph>n</emph> = 48, <emph>M</emph> = 3.58, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.01) perceived a more favorable institutional climate for PETE than those at master's (<emph>n</emph> = 120, <emph>M</emph> = 3.05, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.94) or doctoral institutions (<emph>n</emph> = 106, <emph>M</emph> = 3.08, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.00). ANOVA analyses related to both perceptions of PETE based on the state and national climate indicated that the main effects for gender and institution type were not significant.</p> <p>Table 5 Perceptions of Institutional, State, and National Climate Relative to Physical Education</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Variable</th><th colspan="2">Aggregate (<italic>n</italic> = 274)</th><th colspan="2">Bachelor's (<italic>n</italic> = 48)</th><th colspan="2">Master's (<italic>n</italic> = 120)</th><th colspan="2">Doctoral (<italic>n</italic> = 106)</th></tr><tr><th><italic>M</italic></th><th><italic>SD</italic></th><th><italic>M</italic></th><th><italic>SD</italic></th><th><italic>M</italic></th><th><italic>SD</italic></th><th><italic>M</italic></th><th><italic>SD</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Institutional strength</td><td>3.15</td><td>0.99</td><td>3.58</td><td>1.01</td><td>3.05</td><td>0.94</td><td>3.08</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td>State strength</td><td>2.86</td><td>0.78</td><td>3.00</td><td>0.88</td><td>2.80</td><td>0.75</td><td>2.88</td><td>0.79</td></tr><tr><td>National strength</td><td>2.73</td><td>0.86</td><td>2.88</td><td>0.91</td><td>2.78</td><td>0.82</td><td>2.61</td><td>0.88</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>For comparison with Metzler and Freedman's ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref87">42</reflink>]) findings, the percentage of participants responding in each of the five Likert-scale response categories is presented in Table 6. Although 71.00% of participants in Metzler and Freedman's ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref88">42</reflink>]) study perceived that the institutional climate related to the physical education profession was either <emph>stronger than ever</emph> (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref89">5</reflink>) or <emph>status quo in recent years</emph> (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref90">4</reflink>), only 36.90% of the current participants selected these categories. Furthermore, 21.20% of the participants in this study perceived that the state climate related to physical education was either <emph>stronger than ever</emph> (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref91">5</reflink>) or <emph>status quo in recent years</emph> (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref92">4</reflink>), which is lower than the 37.00% who selected these categories in Metzler and Freedman's ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref93">42</reflink>]) study. Finally, while 38.80% of the participants in Metzler and Freedman's ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref94">42</reflink>]) study perceived the national physical education climate to be <emph>stronger than ever</emph> (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref95">5</reflink>) or <emph>status quo in recent years</emph> (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref96">4</reflink>), only 21.90% of the participants selected these categories in this study.</p> <p>Table 6 The Percentage of Participants Responding in Each of the 5 Likert-Scale Response Categories</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /><col align="center" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Response category</th><th colspan="4">Institution (%)</th><th colspan="4">State (%)</th><th colspan="4">Nation (%)</th></tr><tr><th>Agg</th><th>Bac</th><th>Mas</th><th>Doc</th><th>Agg</th><th>Bac</th><th>Mas</th><th>Doc</th><th>Agg</th><th>Bac</th><th>Mas</th><th>Doc</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Stronger than ever</td><td>9.90</td><td>18.80</td><td>7.50</td><td>8.50</td><td>1.10</td><td>2.10</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.90</td><td>0.70</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.90</td></tr><tr><td>Status quo in recent years</td><td>27.00</td><td>39.60</td><td>23.30</td><td>25.50</td><td>20.10</td><td>29.20</td><td>15.20</td><td>17.90</td><td>21.20</td><td>29.20</td><td>24.20</td><td>14.20</td></tr><tr><td>Getting better</td><td>33.20</td><td>22.90</td><td>36.70</td><td>34.00</td><td>44.50</td><td>37.50</td><td>45.00</td><td>47.20</td><td>32.10</td><td>35.40</td><td>30.80</td><td>32.10</td></tr><tr><td>In trouble, getting worse</td><td>28.50</td><td>18.80</td><td>31.70</td><td>29.00</td><td>32.80</td><td>29.20</td><td>35.00</td><td>32.10</td><td>42.70</td><td>29.20</td><td>44.20</td><td>47.20</td></tr><tr><td>Severely cut back or eliminated</td><td>1.50</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.80</td><td>2.80</td><td>1.50</td><td>2.10</td><td>1.70</td><td>0.90</td><td>3.30</td><td>6.30</td><td>0.80</td><td>4.70</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note</emph>. Participants were asked to rank their perceptions of physical education teacher education given the current climate at their institution, in their state, and in the nation on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from <emph>severely cut back or eliminated</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref97">1</reflink>) to <emph>stronger than ever</emph> (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref98">5</reflink>). Agg = aggregate; Bac = bachelor's institutions; Mas = master's institutions; Doc = doctoral institutions.</p> <hd id="AN0144505018-16">Discussion</hd> <p>More than three decades have passed since Metzler and Freedman's seminal investigation of PETE faculty demographics. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to replicate and expand the findings reported in that study by examining differences in faculty demographics based on gender and institution type. Generally, the findings reported in this study are different than those reported by Metzler and Freedman in several important ways. Faculty members in the current investigation, for example, had higher salaries (even after adjusting for inflation), were older, and taught in schools for approximately one more year before transitioning into higher education. They also published substantially more, but were less likely to be tenured and reported less favorable outlooks relative to the state of physical education. The results of this study yield important recommendations for employment and occupational socialization ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref99">48</reflink>]) of PETE faculty.</p> <p>Despite Lawson's ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref100">33</reflink>]) call in the early 1990s, little research has been conducted relative to PETE faculty socialization, particularly with reference to variables such as gender ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref101">43</reflink>]) and institutional context ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref102">9</reflink>]), which have been shown to influence faculty members' socialization experiences in higher education. In reference to gender, whereas male faculty members outnumber females in higher education more generally ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref103">51</reflink>]), female faculty members in PETE continue to outnumber their male counterparts. Congruent with trends in higher education ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref104">51</reflink>]), most of the participants identified as European American. This is concerning because the profession, and higher education at large, has not maintained pace with societal trends and is not reflective of the rapidly changing demographics in the United States ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref105">2</reflink>]). If PETE is unable to attract diverse teacher educators, it will certainly be challenged to attract diverse future teachers to the profession, and K–12 students will encounter a physical education profession that does not mirror society at large. Therefore, future investigations must address why this occurs, and greater efforts must be made immediately to attract a more diverse group of individuals into the professoriate.</p> <p>In relation to scholarly productivity, increases in faculty publication rates since the Metzler and Freedman study mirror increased expectations for scholarly output in higher education across all types of universities ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref106">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref107">28</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref108">45</reflink>]). It also reflects the growing body of knowledge since the 1980s that is related to student learning, teaching, teachers, and teacher education within the physical education community ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref109">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>Discussion of grant procurements is, however, limited by the lack of data collected relative to the number of grants submitted. As a result, it is not possible to comment on PETE faculty members' overall involvement in grant activities. Nevertheless, the findings from this study do indicate that PETE faculty members are not successfully securing many grants. This may be related to the faculty not receiving training or socialization in grant procurement during their doctoral education. Future research should consider faculty members' involvement in grant activities from a more holistic perspective that includes the number of grants submitted and perhaps the amount of time spent writing grants so as to differentiate grant activities from other forms of scholarship.</p> <p>Reported differences in scholarly productivity between male and female faculty members at doctoral institutions are somewhat disconcerting and reflective of the continued gender disparity between male and female academics that has been noted in higher education ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref110">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref111">26</reflink>]). It also hints at potential issues related to female faculty members' voices being underrepresented in the research literature, given that the majority of publications come from faculty members at doctoral institutions ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref112">43</reflink>]). While additional research is needed to understand this trend, research related to faculty socialization in higher education indicates that female faculty members take on a disproportionate amount of service responsibilities in their institutions ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref113">22</reflink>]). Female faculty members often assume roles and responsibilities that are viewed as being unattractive, and they are more likely to be viewed as good stewards or team players ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref114">5</reflink>]). Shouldering these responsibilities may result in less available time for engaging in research and writing, and is compounded by findings indicating that female faculty members are more likely to experience stress related to balancing work and family responsibilities ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref115">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>The analyses examining institution type highlight important differences in faculty socialization across doctoral, master's, and bachelor's institutions relative to expectations for performance. Specifically, faculty members at doctoral institutions not only have higher salaries ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref116">1</reflink>]), but also have more responsibilities related to publishing, pursuing grants, and teaching graduate-level courses ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref117">9</reflink>]). These expectations are, however, balanced by fewer responsibilities related to teaching undergraduate courses and total teaching loads. While these differences are anticipated, given that research expectations increase across institution type ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref118">17</reflink>]), they provide an important reminder that faculty members should seek to find positions in which institutional expectations align with personal expectations for role performance ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref119">45</reflink>]). Faculty members who invest too much time in teaching at doctoral institutions are more likely to experience trouble progressing toward tenure, and those who pursue high levels of research at bachelor's institutions may be more likely to experience overload and burnout ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref120">28</reflink>]). Master's institutions may present some of the greatest challenges, as many demand research productivity with moderately high teaching loads ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref121">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>In reference to prior teaching experience and socialization in K–12 schools, the findings of this study speak to the continued predominance of faculty members who have taught in schools, which aligns with the preferences of faculty hiring committees in PETE ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref122">61</reflink>]). This preference is driven primarily by the perception that teacher educators with more teacher experience have greater credibility and are better able to understand the challenges associated with teaching in school environments ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref123">57</reflink>]). Some limited evidence from autobiographical research grounded in occupational socialization theory, however, highlights the challenges associated with unlearning practices found to be effective in school environments that do not align with higher education ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref124">10</reflink>]). Furthermore, PETE faculty members may be able to develop into successful teacher educators without prior teaching experience ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref125">46</reflink>]). Finally, teaching experience is likely more important at the beginning of one's career in PETE, as it has less influence on the practice of senior PETE scholars who have been out of schools for several years. The PETE community should heed van der Mars's ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref126">57</reflink>]) call for further investigation into the role of prior teaching experience relative to the effectiveness of teacher education instruction, particularly because the number of individuals enrolling in the PETE doctoral program seems to be increasing.</p> <p>Related to faculty salaries since the Metzler and Freedman's ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref127">42</reflink>]) investigation, increases correspond to trends in higher education more generally, whereby faculty salaries at 4-year public institutions increased from $71,079 in 1985 to $81,527 in 2014 after adjusting for inflation ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref128">50</reflink>]). The findings that PETE faculty members at doctoral and master's institutions earn more than their peers at bachelor's institutions align with reports in other academic fields, such as psychology, which have reported differences based on institution type ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref129">1</reflink>]).</p> <p>The increase in age of current PETE faculty may be a product of delayed retirement in response to the economic downturn and recession, which has led to an aging professoriate across higher education ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref130">60</reflink>]). It may be an indication that institutions of higher education are hiring fewer teacher educators in response to declining enrollment trends in undergraduate PETE programs nationally. It may also be the result of the emergence of a more neoliberal agenda in higher education, where increased accountability is becoming the norm and faculty must be increasingly entrepreneurial to survive ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref131">8</reflink>]). The emphasis on neoliberalism, which has pushed universities to adopt a business model for making financial decisions, may also relate to the increased employment of adjunct instructors and clinical faculty members who are paid less and have less career stability than tenure-track faculty members. Although normal generational trends occur in many professions, it is important to track this finding on a more regular basis.</p> <p>Relative to tenure status, the findings in this study align with the trend toward hiring more nontenure-track lecturers and instructors in more research-focused environments because they are able to cover more classes while costing universities less money ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref132">30</reflink>]). Furthermore, declines in enrollment in PETE programs, particularly in doctoral granting institutions ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref133">3</reflink>]), can make it difficult for department administrators to hire tenure-track PETE faculty members. As a result, nontenure-track instructors and lectures may be one way in which PETE programs in these institutions stay afloat. While beyond the purpose of this study, the implications of replacing tenure-track positions with instructors and lecturers merit attention in future research. There is a need to examine the experiences of nontenure-track faculty members, the perspectives and practices of department administrators who hire them, and the implications this shift has for teacher education and research in PETE.</p> <p>Finally, participants' perceptions of the current climate related to PETE also merit further discussion. Comparisons between the findings presented in this study indicate that current PETE faculty members perceive a less stable climate than those surveyed in Metzler and Freedman's ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref134">42</reflink>]) investigation. This is reflective of growing concerns related to the state of PETE, including declining enrollments and program closures ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref135">3</reflink>]), along with the numerous challenges teacher educators encounter with declining enrollments ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref136">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref137">55</reflink>]). These trends seem to have impacted PETE programs more severely than other teacher education disciplines ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref138">7</reflink>]). This situation places an additional burden on PETE faculty members in relation to the need to become involved in recruiting and retaining students. This is a responsibility for which many may feel unprepared because it is often not a focus during socialization in doctoral programs ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref139">27</reflink>]). It also creates complexities related to the use of faculty time, as recruitment does not fit neatly into any of the three university missions related to research, teaching, and service.</p> <hd id="AN0144505018-17">Conclusion and Final Thoughts</hd> <p>The primary contribution of this study is that it presents an updated look at the demographic profile of PETE faculty members that was initially constructed by Metzler and Freedman ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref140">42</reflink>]), while simultaneously advancing knowledge in the field about gender and institutional affiliation. A main conclusion related to this contribution is that, while PETE faculty members are compensated more for their work, they are also producing more research than in the past, although disparities related to gender and institution type persist. The investigation should also be interpreted as a call to action for future research. Despite calls in the literature ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref141">33</reflink>]), relatively little research has been conducted on the work lives of PETE faculty members ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref142">39</reflink>]). Recently, however, scholars have begun to turn their attention to how PETE faculty members are recruited, educated, and socialized through their work roles (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref143">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref144">48</reflink>]). This line of research should continue with a focus on how PETE faculty members experience their work over time, which includes transitioning into faculty positions and approaching key milestones related to tenure and promotion.</p> <p>Further research is especially warranted, given that higher education faculty members have been conceptualized as disciplinary stewards ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref145">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref146">34</reflink>]). This conceptualization highlights the role that PETE faculty members play in ensuring a favorable future for physical education not only in higher education, but in K–12 schools as well. Finally, it is of critical importance that studies examining the demographics of PETE faculty occur on a more regular basis. To determine if progress has been made to diversify the professoriate, increase the number of junior faculty entering the ranks, assess the ratio of tenure-track to nontenure-track faculty, determine if faculty salaries in physical education are maintaining pace with the salaries of professionals in similar fields, evaluate publication and grant procurement trends, and assess perspectives related to the state of physical education, surveys such as the one used in the present study should be administered every 5–10 years. Just as the PETE faculty advocate for the assessment of students in K–12 schools, we must subject ourselves to periodic self-assessment and evaluation with a critical eye on a much more regular basis.</p> <p>Graber, Woods, Killian, and Richards are with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL. Rhoades is with the University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND.</p> <ref id="AN0144505018-18"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref56" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> American Psychological Association. (2017). Psychology faculty salaries for the 2016–2017 academic year: Results from the 2017 CUPA-HR survey for four-year colleges and universities. Washington, DC: Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref66" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Antony, J.S., & Taylor, E. (2004). Theories and strategies of academic career socialization: Improving paths to the professoriate for black graduate students. In D.H.Wulff & A.E.Austin (Eds.), Paths to the professoriate: Strategies for enhancing the preparation of future faculty (pp. 92–114). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref31" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Blankenship, B.T., & Templin, T.J. (2016). The decline and elimination of PETE: Implications for doctoral education. Quest,68,383–393. doi:10.1080/00336297.2016.1229201</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref3" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Boyle-Baise, M., & McIntyre, D.J. (2008). What kind of experience?: Preparing teachers in PDS or community settings. In M.Cochran-Smith, S.Feiman-Nemser, D.J.McIntyre, & K.E.Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (3rd ed., pp. 307–329). New York, NY: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref57" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bracken, S.J., Allen, J.K., & Dean, D.R. (Eds.). (2006). Gendered perspectives in faculty roles and work lives. Sterling, VA: Stylus.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref37" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Brew, A., Boud, D., Namgung, S.U., Lucas, L., & Crawdford, K. (2016). Research productivity and academics' conceptions of research. Higher Education,71,681–697. doi:10.1007/s10734-015-9930-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref138" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bulger, S., Jones, E.M., Taliaferro, A.R., & Wayda, V. (2015). If you build it, they will come (or not): Going the distance in teacher candidate recruitment. Quest,67,73–92. doi:10.1080/00336297.2014.984731</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref131" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bylsma, P.E. (2015). The teleological effect of neoliberalism on American higher education. College Student Affairs Leadership,2(2), 3. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/csal/vol2/iss2/3/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref38" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Calleson, D.C., Jordan, C., & Seifer, S.D. (2005). Community-engaged scholarship: Is faculty work in communities a true academic enterprise?Academic Medicine,80,317–321. PubMed ID: 15793012 doi:10.1097/00001888-200504000-00002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Casey, A., & Fletcher, T. (2012). Trading places: From physical education teachers to teacher educators. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,31,362–380. doi:10.1123/jtpe.31.4.362</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin,112,155–159. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Darling-Hammond, L., & Lieberman, A. (Eds.). (2012). Teacher education around the world: Changing policies and practices. New York, NY: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eagan, M.K., & Carvey, J.C. (2015). Stressing out: Connecting race, gender, and stress with faculty productivity. The Journal of Higher Education,86,923–954. doi:10.1353/jhe.2015.0034</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Education Degree. (n.d.). Physical education teacher programs. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.educationdegree.com/programs/physical-education/">http://www.educationdegree.com/programs/physical-education/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goc Karp, G., Williamson, K.M., & Shifflett, B. (1996). Physical education teacher educators' work roles in research and doctoral-granting institutions. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,15,251–265. doi:10.1123/jtpe.15.2.251</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Golde, C.M., & Walker, G.E. (Eds.). (2006). Envisioning the future of doctoral education: Preparing stewards of the discipline—Carnegie essays on the doctorate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gormley, D.K. (2003). Factors affecting job satisfaction in nursing faculty: A meta-analysis. Journal of Nursing Education,42,174–178. PubMed ID: 12710809</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graber, K.C. (1990). What they see and what they do: Perceptions and expectations held by teacher educators. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,10,49–65. doi:10.1123/jtpe.10.1.49</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graber, K.C. (1996). Influencing student beliefs: The design of a "high impact" teacher education program. Teaching and Teacher Education,12,451–466. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(95)00059-S</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graber, K.C. (2001). Research on teaching in physical education. In V.Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 491–519). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graber, K.C., Erwin, H., Woods, A.M., Rhoades, J.L., & Zhu, W. (2011). A national profile of teacher education faculty: The construction of an online survey. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science,15,245–256. doi:10.1080/1091367X.2011.594353</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guarino, C.M., & Borden, V.M.H. (2017). Faculty service loads and gender: Are women taking care of the academic family?Research in Higher Education,58,672–694. doi:10.1007/s11162-017-9454-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henderson, B.B. (2011). Publishing patterns at state comprehensive universities: The changing nature of faculty work and the quest for status. Journal of the Professoriate,5(2), 35–66.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow's teachers. East Lansing, MI: Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. (2015). The Carnegie classification of institutions of higher education, 2015 edition. Bloomington, IN: Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Judge, T.A., & Colquitt, J.A. (2004). Organizational justice and stress: The mediating role of work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology,89,395–404. PubMed ID: 15161400 doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.395</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kern, B., Richards, K.A.R., Ayers, S.F., & Killian, C.M. (2019). Recruitment in PETE: Interview results and discussion. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,38,45–52. doi:10.1123/jtpe.2018-0210</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lackritz, J.R. (2004). Exploring burnout among university faculty: Incidence, performance, and demographic issues. Teaching and Teacher Education,20,713–729. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2004.07.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laureano, J., Konukman, F., Gümüşdağ, H., Erdoğan, S., Yu, J., & Çekin, R. (2014). Effects of marginalization on school physical education programs: A literature review. Physical Culture and Sport. Studies and Research,64,29–40. doi:10.2478/pcssr-2014-0029</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laurence, D. (2013). A profile of the non-tenure-track academic workforce. ADE Bulletin,153,6–22.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lawson, H.A. (1983a). Toward a model of teacher socialization in physical education: Entry into schools, teachers' role orientations, and longevity in teaching (part 2). Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,3(1), 3–15. doi:10.1123/jtpe.3.1.3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lawson, H.A. (1983b). Toward a model of teacher socialization in physical education: The subjective warrant, recruitment, and teacher education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,2(3), 3–16. doi:10.1123/jtpe.2.3.3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lawson, H.A. (1991). Future research on physical education teacher education professors. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,10,229–248. doi:10.1123/jtpe.10.3.229</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lawson, H.A. (2016). Stewarding the discipline with cross-boundary leadership. Quest,68,91–115. doi:10.1080/00336297.2016.1151449</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lease, S.H. (1999). Occupational role stressors, coping, support, and hardiness as predictors of strain in academic faculty: An emphasis on new and female faculty. Research in Higher Education,40,285–307. doi:10.1023/A:1018747000082</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, H.M., & Curtner-Smith, M. (2011). Impact of occupational socialization on the perspectives and practices of sport pedagogy doctoral students. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,30,296–313. doi:10.1123/jtpe.30.3.296</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lortie, D.C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McBride, S.A., Munday, R.G., & Tunnell, J. (1992). Community college faculty job satisfaction and propensity to leave. Community Junior College Quarterly of Research and Practice,16,157–165.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McEvoy, E., MacPhail, A., & Heikinaro-Johansson, P. (2015). Physical education teacher educators: A 25-year scoping review of literature. Teaching and Teacher Education,51,162–181. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2015.07.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McKenzie, T., & Lounsbery, M.A.F. (2014). Physical education teacher effectiveness in a public health context. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,84,419–430. doi:10.1080/02701367.2013.844025</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Merrem, A.M., & Curtner-Smith, M.D. (2018). Occupational socialization of sport pedagogy faculty: Two German case studies. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,37,154–163. doi:10.1123/jtpe.2017-0071</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Metzler, M.W., & Freedman, M.S. (1985). Here's looking at you, PETE: A profile of physical education teacher education faculty. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,4,123–133. doi:10.1123/jtpe.4.2.123</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Monroe, K., Ozyurt, S., Wrigley, T., & Alexander, A. (2008). Gender equality in academia: Bad news from the trenches, and some possible solutions. Perspectives on Politics,6,215–233. doi:10.1017/S1537592708080572</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richards, K.A.R., & Levesque-Bristol, C. (2016). Role conflict in the academy: A faculty development perspective. The Journal of Faculty Development,30(1), 7–14.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richards, K.A.R., & Ressler, J.D. (2017). "Still finding the ground:" A self-study of a first-year physical education teacher educator. Studying Teacher Education: Journal of Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices,13,3–19. doi:10.1080/17425964.2017.1291418</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rovegno, I. (1995). Theoretical perspectives on knowledge and learning and a student teacher's pedagogical content knowledge of dividing and sequencing subject matter. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,14,284–304. doi:10.1123/jtpe.14.3.284</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Russell, J., Gaudreault, K.L., & Richards, K.A.R. (2016). Doctoral student socialization: Developing stewards of the physical education profession. Quest,68,439–456. doi:10.1080/00336297.2016.1234963</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sinelnikov, O.A., & Hastie, P. (2017). The learning of pedagogical models in physical education: The socialization perspective. In K.A.R.Richards & K.L.Gaudreault (Eds.), Teacher socialization in physical education: New perspectives (pp. 130–143). New York, NY: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snyder, T.D., de Brey, C., & Dillow, S.A. (2018). Digest of education statistics 2016 (NCES 2017-094). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snyder, T.D., & Dillow, S.A. (2015). Digest of education statistics 2013 (NCES 2015-001). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Templin, T.J., Graber, K.C., & Richards, K.A.R. (2019). Will PETE survive in the 21st century?Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,38,68–74. doi:10.1123/jtpe.2018-0015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thorton, R., & Nardi, P.M. (1975). The dynamics of role acquisition. American Journal of Sociology,68,1–16.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Title II higher education act: Pathways to teaching. Washington, DC: Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UnivSource. (n.d.). Higher education in the United States of America & Canada. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://univsource.com/">http://univsource.com/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van der Mars, H. (2011). Reflecting on the state of U.S. PETE programs..."Houston, we've had a problem."Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,30,189–208. doi:10.1123/jtpe.30.2.189</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Warner, R.M. (2012). Applied statistics: From bivariate through multivariate techniques (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Webster, C.A., Betts, M., Weaver, R.G., Vazou, S., & Russ, L. (2015). Rethinking recommendations for implementing comprehensive school physical activity programs: A partnership model. Quest,67,185–202. doi:10.1080/00336297.2015.1017588</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Will, R.W. (2009). The economy and the aging professoriate. Academic Leader,25(8), 2–3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woods, M.L., Goc Karp, G., & Judd, M.R. (2011). Search chair and physical education teacher perceptions about filling PETE positions. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,30,129–144. doi:10.1123/jtpe.30.2.129</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woods, M.L., Phillips, D.A., & Carlisle, C. (1997). Characteristics of physical education teacher educators. The Physical Educator,54,150–159.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Kim C. Graber; Amelia Mays Woods; Chad M. Killian; K. Andrew R. Richards and Jesse L. Rhoades</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib104" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref136"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref139"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref145"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref146"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1257165
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: My, How You Have Changed, PETE: An Updated Demographic Profile of U.S. Teacher Education Faculty
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Graber%2C+Kim+C%2E%22">Graber, Kim C.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Woods%2C+Amelia+Mays%22">Woods, Amelia Mays</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Killian%2C+Chad+M%2E%22">Killian, Chad M.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Richards%2C+K%2E+Andrew+R%2E%22">Richards, K. Andrew R.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rhoades%2C+Jesse+L%2E%22">Rhoades, Jesse L.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Teaching+in+Physical+Education%22"><i>Journal of Teaching in Physical Education</i></searchLink>. Jul 2020 39(3):384-395.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Human Kinetics, Inc. 1607 North Market Street, Champaign, IL 61820. Tel: 800-474-4457; Fax: 217-351-1549; e-mail: info@hkusa.com; Web site: http://journals.humankinetics.com/journal/jtpe
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 12
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Education%22">Physical Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Education+Teachers%22">Physical Education Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Differences%22">Gender Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Education+Programs%22">Teacher Education Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Change%22">Educational Change</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Institutional+Characteristics%22">Institutional Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Surveys%22">Teacher Surveys</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Productivity%22">Productivity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Experience%22">Teaching Experience</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Salaries%22">Teacher Salaries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Qualifications%22">Teacher Qualifications</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research%22">Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Workload%22">Faculty Workload</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Characteristics%22">Teacher Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Publishing%22">Faculty Publishing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Selection%22">Teacher Selection</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Educators%22">Teacher Educators</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Profiles%22">Profiles</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1123/jtpe.2018-0311
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0273-5024
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Purpose: The landscape of physical education has shifted in the 30 years since Metzler and Freedman's seminal study examining the demographics of physical education teacher education faculty. Changes in the structure of physical education and academia justify an updated investigation, with particular emphasis on the gender and institutional affiliation of faculty. Methods: An expanded and validated version of Metzler and Freedman's survey was e-mailed to 908 physical education teacher education faculty from 505 U.S. institutions. A response rate of 46.21% was achieved. The data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics to examine differences based on gender and institutional affiliation. Results: Gender salary disparities have decreased, whereas teaching experience and qualifications of faculty have increased. Corresponding increases in research productivity were notably evident. Discussion/Conclusion: Faculty members remain predominately European American, publication output has increased, more institutions are hiring nontenure-track faculty, and perceptions of support for physical education are lower than in 1985.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1257165
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1257165
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1123/jtpe.2018-0311
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 384
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Physical Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physical Education Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Education Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Faculty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Change
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Institutional Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Surveys
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Productivity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Experience
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Salaries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Qualifications
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Faculty Workload
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Faculty Publishing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Selection
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Educators
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Profiles
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: My, How You Have Changed, PETE: An Updated Demographic Profile of U.S. Teacher Education Faculty
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Graber, Kim C.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Woods, Amelia Mays
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Killian, Chad M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Richards, K. Andrew R.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rhoades, Jesse L.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 07
              Type: published
              Y: 2020
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0273-5024
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 39
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Teaching in Physical Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1