As an industrial/organizational psychologist, work is always on my mind. Naturally, I am interested in understanding ways to make work better for others, but I also regularly apply research and theory to my own job. One long-standing approach to building better jobs is to make them more interesting for employees. Work that is interesting is inherently more motivating, more satisfying, and reduces turnover (Parker et al., 2017 for a summary).
The leading theory in job design is Job Characteristics Theory (JCT) (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Specifically, JCT outlines that jobs facilitating 1) skill variety, 2) task identity, 3) task significance, 4) autonomy, and 5) feedback will be the most motivating and interesting. Importantly, building classes that contain these elements for both students and instructors can lead to benefits for all.
Below, I outline details about the five components and ideas for both students and instructors. As with all course design choices, these ideas are not required for success; you are welcome to choose what feels authentic to your style.
1. Skill Variety
Skill variety refers to jobs that require the use of several different skills or abilities. An example of a job that is low in skill variety is that of a typical manufacturing line. The same motion is used over and over again to perform the work. In a class, an example might be only having students submit a discussion board post for every assignment.
For students:
- Allow for variety in the way students learn the information (e.g., reading, watching videos, discussing with peers).
- Create a variety of activities and/or assessments such as an oral presentation, case study analysis, paper, or quiz. Where flexibility of how a project is completed can be given, encourage students to try something new or try a new technology to implement their idea.
- Bloom’s taxonomy is also helpful here for allowing a variety of assessments and knowledge demonstration.
For instructors:
- Consider what skills you currently would like to further develop and use your course to build accountability. For example, maybe there is a new software you’d like to learn. Have students also learn it in a course and you can work through skill development together.
- Keep teaching fresh for yourself by incorporating different case studies, materials, videos, or guest speakers (when it makes sense!).
2. Task Identity
Task identity focuses on the ability to execute an entire project from start to finish. If a project requires each student to contribute something different and then put the pieces together, the project may be low on task identity as the individual members did not contribute to the entire process of the project.
For students:
- Scaffolding naturally fits under task identity. Slowly build up knowledge and skills until students are able to fully engage in process or project from start to finish.
- Occasionally zooming out and discussing how the topic fits within the entire semester, area of study, or career path can help students appreciate how what they are working on is part of a larger whole.
For instructors:
- Reflect on your decision latitude to design your course from start to finish.
- If you teach a course that fits within a large sequence, meeting with instructors to ensure the sequence makes sense. You are not beholden to conform to other’s choices, but building cohesion can benefit all involved.
- If you have a TA for your course, considering ways to get them involved in whole processes (e.g., designing an assessment in addition to grading it).
3. Task Significance
Task significance facilitates finding meaning in one’s work. Specifically, task significance is high when a job has a clear impact on others. Teaching is inherently a job with high task significance, which is perhaps why many of us are drawn to it.
For students:
- Connect class information to how it helps benefit others.
- Create opportunities for students to interact with guest speakers, community members, or others who may benefit from their knowledge. A final project that supports a community group, for example, may be developed. Service learning is great here.
For instructors:
- To help ensure you are having an impact, regularly and systematically collect information from students (e.g., surveys).
- Track learning by measuring knowledge at the beginning and at the end of the semester. Inevitably so much growth occurs! Having evidence helps you see your impact, but also helps students appreciate how much they have grown too.
- Create an inbox folder so save any and all positive emails you receive about your work.
- Consider ways in which you can support new colleagues after you have settled into your position and have tips to share.
4. Autonomy
Autonomy is about the various ways in which individuals have a say in how, when, and where their work is completed. In the classroom, low autonomy might be a discussion board on a specific topic, under a specific word requirement that has to be completed in a short window of time.
For students:
- Allow choices when it comes to topics, formats, or types of projects, as much as is reasonable.
- Develop opportunities for students to become an expert within a specific area and then be responsible for sharing that expertise with peers.
For instructors:
- Reflect on the various ways in which you have control over how to design and implement courses, select your courses, select the time you teach, and when you work on your class. For many instructors, autonomy is relatively high.
- Develop your courses in a way that fit into the rest of your job duties. For example, remembering to execute the ability to schedule final paper due dates for a week that is different from conference deadlines.
- Balance your autonomy with student autonomy. You can allow as much choice as you like, but make it make sense for you too.
5. Feedback
A high level of feedback is present when an individual is provided information about their performance in a clear and timely manner. Courses with multiple assessments throughout the semester that are scored with comments provide significant feedback.
For students:
- Provide a rubric and include rubric comments to make it clear where students are doing well and where they still need work.
- Provide summary-level feedback to the entire class.
- Remind students to regularly access their grades and to review their feedback.
For instructors:
- Provide ways for students to provide feedback to you throughout the semester through surveys, discussion, etc.
- On end of semester evaluations, include open-ended questions directing them to share what went well about the course and what they would recommend changing next time. Framing questions this way can lead to more constructive feedback for you, rather than criticize.
- Use assignments as feedback about how the material is landing with students. Re-visit topics or adjust as needed.
Conclusion
JCT provides five distinct areas instructors can focus on to evaluate opportunities to make their courses and their own work engaging and interesting. Adjusting these five levers can make the “job” of student as well as the job of instructor motivating and satisfying.
Of course, no theory is without limitations. One note is that individuals who have a high need for growth tend to benefit from this type of job design more than individuals who are not as concerned with growth. The original theory generally neglects social components, though more recent work has corrected that oversight (Humphrey et al., 2007; Oldham & Hackman, 2010). Finally, the limits of too much enrichment are not known. It is possible that maximizing all five components may produce a course that is more stressful than interesting. To combat any potential over-enrichment, instructors are advised to balance motivating course design with structure, routine, and clear expectations.
Overall, job design provides five clear areas to consider enhancing in your course design, both to the benefit of your job as instructor, and the ‘job’ of students as learners.
Sarina Maneotis, PhD is currently a teaching assistant professor at Kansas State University where she oversees K-State’s applied Master’s in Industrial and Organizational Psychology (MIOP) program. Prior to joining K-State in 2020, she worked in industry, advising on a variety of safety, leadership, and human resource data analysis projects. She earned her undergraduate degree in psychology at Colorado State University and her PhD in Industrial/Organizational Psychology at Pennsylvania State University. Her research focuses broadly on intersections of employee performance, wellbeing, and motivation. She is passionate about developing teaching practices that help students hone skills for translating research findings for organizational purposes and use scientific inquiry within the real-world parameters of organizations. She recently received K-State’s 2023 Global Campus Excellence in Online Teaching Award in recognition for her teaching practices.
References
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational behavior and human performance, 16(2), 250-279.
Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1332-1356.
Oldham, G. R., & Hackman, J. R. (2010). Not what it was and not what it will be: the future of job design research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 463-479.
Parker, S. K., Morgeson, F. P., & Johns, G. (2017). One hundred years of work design research: Looking back and looking forward. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 403-420.
