............... .......... PROBLEMS OF NEW FACULTY MEMBERS IN NORTH CENTERAL ASSOCIATION COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES OF LESS THAN 3,000 ENROLLMENT Thesis Ior TIN Degree oI Ed. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Harlan Richardson McCall 1961 '7 Fl L—Itéiés' I This is to certify that the thesis entitled PROBLE‘IS OF I77.-'-.r FACULTY IETIBERS IT‘I IIORTI—I CEI‘ITRAL ASSOCIATION COLLEGES AW) LIT‘III.IEP£I TIES 0F LESS THAN 3,000 ETIROLLTENT presented by Harlan Richardson ficCall has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for ~ ~/ I7 ' I degree in____“ I Doctor of Education I" . J 1’!" 1’/“ / ( 4"\.- IL L. C L! 1‘ “ v "'1- Majo professor I Date February 2, 1961 0-169 LIBRARY Michigan State University I ABSTRACT PROBLEMS OF NEW FACULTY MEMBERS IN NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES OF LESS THAN 3, 000 ENROLLMENT by Harlan Richardson McCall The purpose of this study was to conduct a survey of new faculty members in North Central Association institutions of less than 3, 000 enrollment to determine their perception of problems they encountered in these institutions in order that suggestions might be made to college and university administrators concerning orientation and in-service programs. To study this problem information was gathered from 1145 first- and third-year faculty members in 144 North Central Association institutions by means of a four-page questionnaire. On this question- naire were listed fifty problems found by preliminary examination to be most likely among the critical problems which new faculty members would identify. Problems Were of a personal, institutional, and instructional character. Participants were asked to check each problem for its persistence and degree of difficulty. A second section of the questionnaire asked participants to evalu- ate the effectiveness of twenty-five administrative practices which might be used in helping them resolve their problems, and to indicate if they were used in the institutions in which they were serving. The eight problems causing the greatest degree of difficulty, determined by a weighted scale technique, were found to be the following: Acquiring adequate secretarial help; Finding suitable living quarters; Understanding college policies regarding promotions and salary increases; Lack of teaching aids; Acquiring adequate office space; Harlan Richardson McCall Knowingfwhat other departments of the college expect of my depart~ ment; Using effective discussion techniques in class; DevelOping effective lecture s ._ The above eight problerrrskdeclared as critical, were further ”0. “We” - “WWW” ____. .--.---._ . u . r analyzed to discoyer significant differences in their degree of difficulty . .,.. as related to therpersonal‘characteristics‘ of tsex,_r_age, “level of“ —--—*-.~~__ .k—a 4-- ,-vprepamtiomgandpprevigous experience of the participants and the insti-M w“ .tmfactors of si_z_e,flna_ture of control,“(an_d‘l_evel_of_a_pproval by the North Central Association ofnth'eh‘i‘nstitutions in which the respondents A were serving. The: test was used for examining differences. Sex, age, and previous experience of the participants were found to have some bearing on the degree of difficulty which new faculty mem- bers experienced with the critical problems they had identified; level of preparation did not. All institutional factors tested were found to yield significant differences in the degree of difficulty reported by new faculty members for at least one critical problem out of the eight. The persistence of all fifty problems was studied by examining the differences between persistence of problems for first— and third- year members of the faculty. W‘problems were found to be persisting at approximately the same level for third-year as for first- year faculty members; personal and institutional problems were found to be persisting at a slightly lower level for the third-year than for the first-year faculty member. Some of the implications for improvement of orientation and in- service practices based upon findings of this study included: 1. New faculty members should not be assigned immediately to faculty committees . Harlan Richardson McCall 2. More attention should be paid to the housing of new faculty members, particularly for men and those in publicly controlled institutions . . 3. In-service programs for the improvement of instruction should be intensified, especially for the young new faculty member. 4. Those without previous college experience should be given some assistance in developing lectures and improving techniques for promoting class discussions. I 5.’ Administrators and heads of departments in large institutions should help promote a better understanding among new faculty members of what other departments of the college expect of the department in which they are serving. 6. Administrative plans for promotion and salary increases need to be clearly outlined and communicated to new faculty members. PROBLEMS OF NEW FACULTY MEMBERS IN NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES OF LESS THAN 3, 000 ENROLLMENT BY Harlan Richardson McCall A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCA TION College of Education Department of Administrative and Educational Services 1961 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to eXpress his sincere thanks to the many professional and personal associates who have provided inspiration, guidance, and assistance in making this study possible. The author is esPecially indebted to Dr. Karl Hereford, chairman of the Guidance Committee, for his counsel and guidance and to Dr- John X. Jamrich, a member of the Guidance Committee and the North Central Association Sub-Committee on In-Service Education of Teachers of the Commission on Research and Service. He is appreciative of the assistance given by other members of his doctoral committee, Dr- Fred Vescolani and Dr. John Useem. - He is in- debted to John Paterson for his suggestions relative to the analysis of the critical problems. The writer is appreciative of the support given this study by both the NorthCentral Association and the Center for the Study of Higher Education at Michigan State University. Members of the NCA In-Service Education Sub-Committee were particularly helpful in the refinement of the questionnaire. Finally, the writer wishes to express appreciation to his wife, Marie, for the inspiration, encouragement, and assistance she has given throughout this study. *********** ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER Page I. INTRODUCTION .................. 1 Three Primary Areas of Investigation ..... 2 Few Previous Studies . . . . . . . ....... 3 Investigation of Instructional Problems 7 Investigation of Other Problems ........ 8 Induction and In-Service Studies ........ 10 Use of Antecedents ............... 13 Purposes of the Study .............. 14 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 15 Definition of Terms ............... 15 Limitations of Study. .............. 16 Overview of Study ................ 17 II. DESIGN OF THE STUDY. . . ........... 19 Classification of Participating Institutions . . . l9 Questionnaires to Institutional Administrators. 21 Responses by Four out of Five Administrators. 21 Use of Half of Institutions in Sample . . . . . . 22 “Construction of Questionnaire for Faculty Members . . . . ............... 23 Sixty-six Per Cent Response from Two Mailings ................... 26 Method of Analysis of Data ........... 28 Summary . ..... . ....... . . . . . . 36 III. PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL CHARACTER- ISTICS OF NEW FACULTY MEMBERS IN SELECTED NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION COLLEGESAND UNIVERSITIES . . . . . . . . 38 Personal Characteristics of ReSpondents . . . 38 Professional Preparation of Respondents . . . 40 Highest Degrees from Many Institutions . . . . 42 Previous Teaching Experience of Re8pondents. 43 Assignments Mostly in Major Fields ...... 43 Varied Reasons for Choosing Institutions . . . 45 Aspirations of New Faculty Members ..... 46 Summary . ................... 47 TABLE OF CONTENTS -- Continued CHAPTER Page IV. PROBLEMS PERCEIVED BY NEW FACULTY MEMBERS .................... 49 One Personal Problem Perceived Frequently. . 49 Institutional Problems in Top Ten ........ 53 Instructional Problems in Top Ten ....... 54 Most Critical Problems Perceived ....... 55 Consistency in Late and Total Returns ..... 56 Persistence of Certain Problems ........ 56 Additional Comments by ReSpondents ...... 63 Summary ..................... 63 V. INSTITUTIONAL AND PERSONAL DIFFERENCES IN IDENTIFICATION OF CRITICAL PROBLEMS 65 Introduction ................... 65 Finding Suitable Living Quarters ........ 65 Knowing What Other Departments of the College Expect of My Department ........... 69 Acquiring Adequate Office Space ........ 70 Acquiring Adequate Secretarial Help . ..... 72 Understanding College Policies Regarding Promotions and Salary Increases ...... 74 Lack of Teaching Aids . ............. 76 Developing Effective Lectures .......... 78 Using Effective Discussion Techniques ..... 80 Summary ..................... 82 VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .......... 86 Summary ..... . ............... 86 Conclusions ................... 89 Suggestions for Further Study .......... 93 VII. IMPLICATIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES ................... 97 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................ 101 iv TABLE 2. 2. 2. 3. 3. 3. .1 3 5 LIST OF TA BLES Classification of North‘Central Association Colleges and Universities by Size, Control, and 'Level of Approval by NCA . ............. Number and Per Cent of Administrators in Each AGroup of NCA Institutions Submitting Information for Study ....................... Number of Institutions Drawn at Random from the Total Eligible NCA Institutions and the'Number of Drawings Necessary to Secure . . . ...... . . Number and Per Cent of Re3ponses to New Faculty Member Questionnaires Separated by Classification of Institution ..................... Number of Responses Received from New Faculty Members in NCA Institutions Concerning the Prob- lem of Finding Suitable Living Quarters When Distributed by Institutional and Personal Character- istics ......................... Combinations of Personal and Institutional Factors ‘Characterizing the Thirty-seven Groups of Individuals Having Ten or More ReSpondents . . . . Sex of New Faculty Members in Selected NCA Colleges and Universities . . ............ Marital Status of New Faculty Members in Selected NCA Colleges and Universities . . . . . . . . . . Age of New Faculty Members in Selected NCA Colleges and Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . Highest Degree Held by New Faculty Members in Selected'NCA Colleges and Universities . . . Ten Universities Ranking Highest in Furnishing New Faculty Members to Selected NCA Colleges and Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 20 22 23 27 30 33 39 4O 40 41 42 LIST OF TABLES -- Continued TABLE 3.6 Page Previous Professional Experience of New Faculty in Selected NCA Colleges and Universities . . . . . . Initial Teaching Assignments of New Faculty Members in Selected NCA Colleges and Universi- ties as Compared to Their Major in Highest Degree Level at Which New Faculty Members in Selected NCA Colleges and Universities Taught During Their Initial Year in These Institutions .......... Rank of New Faculty Members in Selected NCA Colleges and Universities .............. Primary Reasons Why New Faculty Members in Selected NCA Colleges and Universities Came to These Institutions ........... . ...... Aspirations of New Faculty Members in Selected NCA Colleges and Universities . .......... Ranks of Problems Perceived by New Faculty Members in Selected NCA Colleges and Universities According to the Per Cent Indicating Some Difficulty and by Degree of Difficulty ............. Per Cent of First- and Third-Year Faculty Members Who Have Had Difficulty with Problems and Indicate They Still Persist ................... Summary of Direction of Significant Differences in Degree of Difficulty for Each of the Eight Critical Problems Identified by New Faculty Members for Each of Seven Variables ............... Results of Tests of Significance Related to Personal Characteristics of ReSpondents for Finding Suitable Living Quarters .................... Results of Tests of Significance Associated with Institutional Factors for Finding Suitable Living Quarters ........................ vi 43 44 45 45 46 47 50 58 66 67 68 LIST OF TABLES -- Continued TABLE 5. 4 .10 .11 .12 .13 .14 Results of Tests of Significance Related to Personal Characteristics of ReSpondents for Knowing What Other Departments of the College Expect of My Department 0000000000000 o o o o o o c o O Results of Tests of Significance Associated with Page 69 Institutional Factors for Knowing What Other Depart- ments of the College Expect of My Department . . . Results of Tests of Significance Related to Personal Characteristics of Respondents for Acquiring Adequate Office Space ................ Results of Tests of Significance Associated with Institutional Factors for Acquiring Adequate Office Spa.ce.. ........ Results of Tests of Significance Related to Personal Characteristics of Respondents for Acquiring Adequate Secretarial Help . . . . . . . ....... Results of Tests of Significance Associated with Institutional Factors for Acquiring Adequate Secre- tarial Help . . . ............ . ...... Results of Tests of Significance Related to Personal Characteristics of ReSpondents for Understanding College Policies Regarding Promotion and Salary Increases . . . .............. . . . . . Results of Tests of Significance Associated with Institutional Factors for Understanding College Policies Regarding Promotions and Salary Increases Results of Tests of Significance Related to Personal Characteristics of Respondents for Lack of Teach- ing Aids .......... . . ..... . . . Results of Tests of Significance Associated with Institutional Factors for Lack of Teaching Aids. . . Results of Tests of Significance Related to Personal ' Characteristics of ReSpondents for Developing Effective Lectures . . . . .......... . . . . 7O 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 78 LIST OF TABLES -- Continued TABLE 5.15 6.1 9.4 9.5 9.6 Results of Tests of Significance Associated with Institutional Factors for Developing Effective Lectures ....................... ' Page 79 Results of Tests of Significance Related to Personal - Characteristics of Respondents for Using Effective Discussion Techniques ...... . ........ I Results of Tests of Significance Associated with Institutional Factors for Using Effective Discussion 81 Techniques ...................... Comparison of Areas in Which Significant Differenc in Degree of Difficulty for Each Critical Problem Were Found in Stages One and Three ........ Helpfulness and Use of Administrative Procedures to Assist New Faculty Members in Solving Their Problems as Evaluated by New Faculty Members in Selected NCA Colleges and Universities ...... - Stage One Raw Data; Results of Significance by t Test on Degree of Difficulty of Housing Problem as Related to Personal Characteristics ........ Stage Two Raw Data; Results of Significance by _t_ Test on Degree of Difficulty of Housing Problem as Related to Personal Characteristics ........ Stage One Raw Data; Results of Significance by _t_ Test on‘Degree of Difficulty of Housing Problem as Related to Institutional Factors ...... . . . . . Stage Two Raw Data; Results of Significance by t_ Test on Degree of Difficulty of Housing Problem as Related to Institutional Factors . . . ........ Stage One Raw Data; Results of Significance by t Test on Degree of Difficulty of Interdepartmenta—l Understanding Problem as Related to Personal Characteristics ................... Stage Two Raw Data; Results of Significance by t Test on Degree of Difficulty of Interdepartmental- Understanding Problem as Related to Personal Characteristics ................... viii 81 BS 94 117 121 122 124 125 127 128 TABLE 9.7 9.8 9.9 9.10 9.11 9.12 9.13 9.14 9.15 LIST OF TABLES -~ Continued Stage One Raw Data; Results of Significance by t Test on Degree of Difficulty of Interdepartmenta—i Understanding Problem as Related to Institutional Factors ........................ Stage Two Raw Data; Results of Significance by t Test on Degree of Difficulty of Interdepartmental- Understanding Problem as Related to Institutional Factors ........................ Stage One Raw Data; Results of Significance by t_ Test on Degree of Difficulty of Office Space Prob- lem as Related to Personal Characteristics ..... Stage Two Raw Data; Results of Significance by 3 Test on Degree of Difficulty of Office Space Prob~ lem as Related to Personal Characteristics ..... Stage One Raw Data; Results of Significance by _t_ Test on Degree of Difficulty of Office Space Prob-- lem as Related to Institutional Factors ....... Stage Two Raw Data; Results of Significance by _t_ Test on Degree of Difficulty of Office Space Prob- lem as Related to Institutional Factors ....... Stage One Raw Data; Results of Significance by _t_ Test on Degree of Difficulty of Secretarial Help Problem as Related to Personal Characteristics . . Stage Two Raw Data; Results of Significance by 3 Test on Degree of Difficulty of Secretarial Help Problem as Related to Personal Characteristics . . Stage One Raw Data; Results of Significance by 1 Test on Degree of Difficulty of Secretarial Help Problem as Related to Institutional Factors ..... Stage Two Raw Data; Results of Significance by 3 Test on Degree of Difficulty of Secretarial Help Problem as Related to Institutional Factors ..... ix Page 131 133 134 139 140 142 143 LIST OF TABLES -- Continued TABLE 9.17 9.21 9.26 Page Stage One Raw Data; Results of Significance by t Test on Degree of Difficulty of Understanding Promotions Problem as Related to Personal Characteristics .................... 145 Stage Two Raw Data: Results of Significance by t Test 011 Degree of Difficulty of Understanding PFomom tions Problem as Related to Personal Characterism tics .......................... 146 Stage One Raw Data; Results of Significance by t Test on Degree of Difficalty of Understanding '— Promotions Problem as Related to Institutional Factors ....................... . 148 Stage Two Raw Data; Results of Significance by t Test on'Degree of Difficulty of Understanding _ Promotions Problem as Related to Institutional Factors ....................... . 149 Stage One Raw Data; Results of Significance by L Test on Degree of Difficulty of Teaching Aids Prob-= lem as Related to Personal Characteristics ..... 151 Stage Two Raw Data; Results of Significance by t Test on Degree of Difficulty of Teaching Aids Problem as Related to Personal Characteristics . . 152 Stage One Raw Data; Results of Significance by _t_ Test on Degree of Difficulty of Teaching Aids Prob- lem as Related to Institutional Factors ...... . 154 Stage Two Raw Data; Results of Significance by _t_ Test on Degree of Difficulty of Teaching Aids Prob- lem as Related to Institutional Factors . . . . . . . 155 Stage One Raw Data; Results of Significance by _t_ Test on Degree of Difficulty of Effective Lectures Problem as Related to Personal Characteristics . . 157 Stage Two Raw Data; Results of Significance by 1 Test on Degree of Difficulty of Effective Lectures Problem as Related to Personal Characteristics . . 158 LIST OF TABLES -- Continued TABLE 9.27 Stage One Raw Data; Results of Significance by t Test on Degree of Difficulty of Effective Lectures Problem as Related to Institutional Factors ..... Stage Two Raw Data; Results of Significance by _i_:_ Test on Degree of Difficulty of Effective Lectures Problem as Related to Institutional Factors ..... Stage One Raw Data; Results of Significance by 3 Test on Degree of Difficulty of Effective Discussions Problem as Related to Personal Characteristics Stage Two Raw Data; Results of Significance by t_ Test on Degree of Difficulty of Effective Discussions Problem as Related to Personal Characteristics Stage One Raw Data; Results of Significance by t Test on Degree of Difficulty of Effective Discussions Problem as Related to Institutional Factors . . . . . Stage Two Raw Data; Results of Significance by _t_ Test on Degree of Difficulty of Effective Discussions Problem as Related to Institutional Factors ..... xi Page 160 161 163 164 166 167 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A-—Letter to College Presidents ........ APPENDIX B--College President Questionnaire ...... APPENDIX C--Open-Ended Questionnaire to New Faculty . APPENDIX D--New Faculty Member Questionnaire . . . . APPENDIX E--Write-In Answers to Questionnaire . . . APPENDIX F—-The Adequacy of Administrative Pro- cedures as Perceived by New Faculty Members ....... APPENDICES G THROUGH LL-AStages One and Two Raw Data and Results of Significance at Five Per Cent Level by t Tests on Degree of Difficulty of Each of the Critical Problems as Related to the Seven Variables .‘ . . . APPENDIX MM--NCA Colleges and Universities Partici- pating in Study . . ........... xii Page 108 109 110 111 115 116 121 169 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION College and universities throughout the United States each year are welcoming to their staffs many new faculty members. These newly appointed faculty members may feel keenly the problems they face as they attempt to adjust to their new positions, yet to analyze these problems is not an easy task. There have been few studies in which attempts have been made to do so. Administrators, often assuming that they know what these problems are, have set up various types of in-service education programs which frequently have not proved effective. . How new faculty members react to administrative programs intended to assist them depends upon whether or not these programs as perceived by them are based upon their needs and in keeping with their values. . Robert E. Bills states, "People behave in a manner consistent with their beliefs about reality. These beliefs, or per- ceptions, are influenced by several factors including: needs, values, physiological condition, threat, opportunity, and concepts of self and other people. At the instant of action we are presented with choices. What we do when we behave is dependent upon the basic drive—-the need to maintain or to enhance self-organization. "1 1Robert E. Bills, About People and Teaching (Bulletin No. 2, Bureau of School Services; Lexington, Ky.: University of Kentucky, December 1955), p. 29. How successful faculty members will be in making self-adjust- ments as they enter new educational institutions, then, depends upon the treatment in the in-service programs of the problems which they believe to be important and upon the adoption of administrative devices which they believe will be beneficial in helping them resolve their problems. That in-service programs might be initiated which could materially help the adjustment of new faculty members seems obvious. With this in mind and because of concern at the lack of information available about the new teachers' perception of the problems they face, the North Central Association Subcommittee on In-Service Education of Teachers of the Commission on Research and Service and personnel from the Center for the Study of Higher Education at Michigan State University have cooperated in this study. Three Primary Areas of Investigation The present study is limited to three areas: (1’) The identification of problems of new faculty members in North Central colleges and universities, as perceived by them . (2) Discovery of these new faculty members' reactions to the administrative practices designed to assist them in resolv- ing their problems. (3) As a result of findings, to formulate suggestions of in- service education for new faculty in North Central Association colleges and universities. To throw further light on the main problems, the following related sub-problems were investigated in selected NCAZ colleges 7‘Throughout this dissertation the initials NCA are used to refer to the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools. and univer sitie s: (1) (2) (3) ' (4) (5) (6) (7) The personal and professional characteristics of the new faculty members . Problems of a personal nature which new faculty members have identified most frequently, those which have caused the greatest degree of difficulty, and those which have persisted. Problems of an instructional nature which new faculty members have identified most frequently, those problems which have caused the greatest degree of difficulty, and those which have persisted. Significant differences in perception by new faculty members of critical problems related to personal factors of sex, age, level of preparation, or previous professional experience. Significant differences in perception by new faculty members of critical problems related to institutional factors of size, nature of control, and level of instruction for which institutions are accredited by the NCA. The effectiveness, as perceived by new faculty members, of practices used extensively by college administrators to help them resolve their problems. The estimated effectiveness, as rated by new faculty members, of practices not extensively used by college administrators to help them resolve their problems. Few Previous Studie s Considerable material has been written by college and university administrators concerning problems of new faculty members, but very few studies have been conducted to find out just what these problems are. and univer sities: I1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) The personal and professional characteristics of the new faculty member s . Problems of a personal nature which new faculty members have identified most frequently, those which have caused the greatest degree of difficulty, and those which have persisted. Problems of an instructional nature which new faculty members have identified most frequently, those problems which have caused the greatest degree of difficulty, and those which have persisted. Significant differences in perception by new faculty members of critical problems related to personal factors of sex, age, level of preparation, or previous professional experience. Significant differences in perception by new faculty members of critical problems related to institutional factors of size, nature of control, and level of instruction for which institutions are accredited by the NCA. The effectiveness, as perceived by new faculty members, of practices used extensively by college administrators to help them resolve their problems. The estimated effectiveness, as rated by new faculty members, of practices not extensively used by college administrators to help them resolve their problems. Few Previous Studies Considerable material has been written by college and university administrators concerning problems of new faculty members, but very few studies have been conducted to find out just what these problems are. Likewise, little has been done to investigate how new faculty members evaluate the means used by college administrators to help them resolve their problems. How neglected these areas of investigation have been may be inferred from the fact that the "In-Service Education" section of the 1960 edition of Encyclopedia of Educational Research3 does not contain one reference to studies concerning the in-service education of faculty members at the college level, nor is there any reference to problems of new college faculty members. However, this same publication cites many references concerning in-service programs for elementary and secondary teachers as well as studies of problems faced by new teachers at these levels. While not many studies have been conducted to find out from new faculty members in colleges and universities what their problems are, administrators in institutions of higher education have been conscious that there were problems--persona1, institutional, and instructional-- which their faculty members faced. Some have recognized these problems and done little about them; others have deve10ped programs specifically aimed to help solve some of the problems the administrators ' identified. - In the next few paragraphs will be found points of view expressed by several educators who have been particularly concerned about the improvement of in-service programs at the higher education level. A. A., McPheeters pointed out that two of the three most important reasons for poor instruction at the higher education level are “lack of understanding of the general purposes of the liberal arts college and the specific aims of the institution at which one is employed” and ”the 3Chester W. Harris and Marie R. Liba, editors, Encyclopedia of Educational Research (Third'Edition; The American Educational Research Association; New York: The Macmillan-Co. , 1960), pp. 702-10.. failure of the university to accept the responsibility for training college teachers.”4 To improve teaching efficiency at the college level, McPheeters stated that the following must be done: 1. Early selection and counseling of prospects for college teaching. 2. Study of criteria for appointment and promotion of faculty personnel. . 3. Development of a program for training of college teachers. 4. Establishing in-service programs and activities. It is with the last of these four suggestions that this study is particu- larly concerned. Even though it has been eight years since McPheeters made the above statement, much needs to be done before the in-service programs now in effect in our colleges and universities can be most effective. « Ruth Eckert, in pointing out some of the neglected aspects in the preparation of college teachers, says, ”Young instructors must be con- vinced that the teaching function is valued highly, and the convincing will take more than verbal assurance. They must see that superior teaching 1 does help the individual teacher to advance in the academic hierarchy and in the esteem of his fellows. They must also be afforded oppor- tunities for further learning in the form of faculty study groups, consul- tative services, workshops, sabbatical leaves, and the like. "5 Thirty years ago Floyd W. Reeves reported on a study made among forty institutions, including liberal arts colleges, state teacher colleges, and junior colleges, to ascertain the current methods being used in the in-service training of college teachers at that time. 4A. A. McPheeters, "Toward Improving College Instruction, " Association of American Colleges Bulletin, XXXVIII (December, 1952), pp. 564-73. 5Ruth Eckert, ”Some Neglected Aspects in the Preparation of College Teachers, " Journal of General Education, 111 (January, 1949), pp. 137-44. He wrote, "One cannot participate in surveys of institutions of higher learning without realizing that a new emphasis is being given to the improvement of the quality of instruction at the college level. Until recently administrators have generally assumed that scholarship in a given field is adequate qualification for teaching in that field. The error of this assumption has. asserted itself most emphatically in recent years, with the result that many institutions are beginning to focus attention upon methods and administrative measures designed to ‘ produce better teachers. "6 Even though many college leaders have recognized the need for producing better college teachers by an improved in-service education program, recent literature indicates that colleges have done little in providing improved programs. Typical of recent reports concerning the progress of in-service programs is one by George R. Taylor in which he said, "Like most colleges Amherst long proceeded on the assumption that the teachers it hired knew how to teach--or at least would soon learn how to do so by a process of trial and error. Our method before 1954 was roughly comparable to teaching a child to swim by throwing him into deep water and letting him manage as best he could. In that year we inaugurated a program designed to afford some direct aid and guidance to the new members of our teaching staff. "7 ’ .6Floyd W. Reeves, "Survey of Current Methods in the In-Service Training of College Teachers, " The Training of College Teachers, Proceedings of the Institute for Administrative Officers of Higher Institutions, ed. William S. Gray (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930), 11,. Chapt. XIII, pp. 133—46. 7George R. Taylor, "Faculty Orientation at Amherst, " Faculty Preparation and Orientation, Proceedings of a Regional Conference Sponsored by the New England Board of Higher Education, ed. John W. Gustad (Winchester, Mass.:' New England Board of Higher Education, 1960), p. 93. F. J. Kelly pointed out some significant conclusions to be drawn from the U. S. Office of Education study of 1948 regarding situations that make college teaching unsatisfactory or satisfactory. 8 He concluded that non-teaching duties do not seem to enter significantly into feelings of dissatisfaction with jobs. Of the working conditions not satisfactory to faculty personnel, office space ranked first. E. M. Lewis posed the question: "What can be done to make the beginning college teacher's philosophy more healthy from the first?"9 His suggestions included: (1) More optimistic view of profession by experienced faculty. (2) Treatment of newcomers as equals, welcoming them into faculty organizations. (3) Conferences regarding teaching and praise by superiors of young teachers should help them "to swim. " (4) Assignment of new teachers to teach in subjects best prepared to teach. Investigation of Instructional Problems One of the earliest studies in which an attempt was made to have recently hired faculty members in institutions of higher education identify their problems of an instructional nature was one conducted by Harold M. Byram. 1° College teachers hired within a ten-year period, numbering 485 from thirty-nine states, supplied information regarding this point in reacting to forty listed instructional problems. 3F. J. Kelly, "How Do Faculty Members Like Their Jobs 7" Higher Education (May 1, 1949), pp. 193-96. 9E. M. Lewis, ”The Beginning College Teacher, ” Journal of Higher Education (January, 1947), pp. 41-42. 10Harold M. Byram, Some Problems in the Provision of Professional Education for College Teachers, Teachers College Contributions to Education No. 576 (New York: Bureau of Publications, Columbia University, 1933), p. 54. The five problems which ranked highest in percentage of new faculty members indicating that they had some difficulty with the problems were these: 1. Deciding upon method of instruction to use in teaching the subject. .. Grading or marking students. . Selecting the subject matter for courses to be taught. . Determining the aims and purposes of the course. . Deciding upon methods to be used in testing students on the subject. U‘lrISUON All of the above were found to be causing some difficulty for more than 80 per cent of the reSpondents. The five problems ranked highest according to difficulty in the Byram study were these: 1. Developing in students the ability to do straight thinking. 2. Adapting instruction to differences found in personnel of the class. . .Aiding students in establishing efficient study habits. . Diagnosing pupils' difficulties in studies. 5. Developing or setting up standards of student scholarship and achievement. *1» These five problems were marked as being especially difficult by more than 45 per cent of the respondents. Investigation of Other Problems Two studies which have particular significance to the problems of investigation in this study were conducted early in the past decade by Rex C. Kidd11 and Robert O. Striplinglz of the University of Florida. llRex C. Kidd, ”The Improvement of the Pre-Service Education of Undergraduate College Teachers, " (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 1951), p. 262. l‘I'R. O. Stripling, “Problems of New Members of the College Faculty, " Clearingg House (February, 1953), pp. 355-61. Kidd investigated eleven problems or sources of problems causing the most difficulty in the first year of college teaching. Personnel in seven colleges and universities were used in the study, with question- naires being returned from 586. He found that 50.4 percent considered the greatest source of problems as "Difficulties due to the background of training and experience with which students come to college. "13 ' Other problem areas indicated by more than 25 per cent of those in the Kidd study were these: evaluation of student performances; stimulating student thinking; getting students to relate material taught to current problems or situations; and organization and presentation of subjects within the ability range of students. 14 The Stripling study dealt with fifty selected personal, social, and professional problems faced by new faculty members. His study was based on a sample of eighty- six college faculty members who had been employed by seventy-nine institutions of higher education within the preceding three years. , Stripling determined the per cent of the group surveyed who had difficulty with each of these fifty problems and the degree of difficulty they experienced with each. He found the following three problems were not only causing the greatest degree of difficulty but that they were among those problems causing some difficulty to more than 50 per cent of those in the sample: 1.» Understanding policies relating to grading standards (69. 8 per cent reporting some degree of difficulty). 2. Understanding institutional legislative organization (69. 7 per cent reporting some degree of difficulty). ”Kidd, p. 136. MKidd made this investigation as part of a broader study concerned with the improvement of the pre-service education of undergraduate college teachers. Since questionnaires were sent by Kidd to all teachers, some of those receiving questionnaires may have been teaching for years. These experienced faculty members' ideas about problems they faced as new faculty members may be considerably different than they might have been had they been asked these same questions during their initial years of experience. 10 3. Understanding faculty-trustee relationships (59.4 per cent reporting some degree of difficulty). The problem rated most frequently as giving some degree of difficulty to new faculty members was "Learning administrative routine of college or university. " It was rated as giving some degree of difficulty by 74. 4 per cent. On forty-eight of the fifty problems at least 25 per cent reported some degree of difficulty. Stripling also asked these eighty-six faculty members who had been in their present positions for three years or less to list orientation practices which they felt were helpful or would have been helpful to them in adjusting to their new positions. Suggestions included the following: before appointment--a visit to campus and supply of printed material; after acceptance--a personal letter of welcome, further printed material, summer newsletter, local newspaper, campus newspaper, and help with housing; upon reporting for duty--appointment of a Sponsor for each new faculty family, introduction to faculty families and to community, assistance in professional adjustments through such techniques as orientation conferences, light teaching load, assigning new faculty member to old, faculty- student reception, and personal conferences. 15 Induction . and In- Servic e Studie s Morris S. Wallace in reporting on the induction procedures for new teachers gives the frequency of techniques used, when used, and when newly appointed teachers think these techniques would be most helpful. More than twenty—five problems were reported by more than 50 per cent of the teachers studied. Conclusions reached were these: 1. There are many facets to the successful induction of a new teacher into the school and community. 15Robert O. Stripling, ”Orientation Practices for New College Faculty Members, " AAUP Bulletin, XL (1954-55), pp. 555-62. ll 2. New teachers experience serious difficulty in learning and understanding the philosophy, objectives, and procedures of the school. 3.. Few schools provide adequate administrative and supervisory help. 4. Absence of helpful induction results in low morale. 5.1 Individual induction methods are more effective than group. 16 John R. Shannon reports a study made among seventy-one faculty members at Indiana State Teachers College, fifty-seven of whom indicated that they thought instruction of college faculty members could be im- proved. In—service techniques for improving instruction were suggested by fifty-three. Most common suggestions and the number mentioning each were: 1. Individual personal conferences ........... 23 2. Classroom visitations ................ 20 3. Faculty meetings . . . ............... 13 4. Students' ratings . . . . . . . . .......... 6 5. Demonstration teaching . . . . . .......... 5 6. Sabbatical leaves with pay . . . . ....... . . . 4 7. Faculty projects . . . . . . . . .......... 317 At the present time Norbert J. Tracy, S.J.., a graduate student at the University of Minnesota and research associate of Marquette University, is conducting a study of orientation of new faculty members in selected liberal arts colleges of the North Central Association. For the Tracy study the deans of 97 per cent of the 345 accredited liberal arts programs in the NCA completed a questionnaire in the summer of 1959 dealing with the kinds of orientation procedures used at their colleges to assist incoming faculty. From among the 336 insti- tutions participating in the study, a stratified random sample of sixteen colleges was selected and visited by Father Tracy during the early part 16Morris 5.! Wallace, "New Teachers' Evaluation of Induction Techniques, ” North Central Association Quarterly, XXV (April, 1951), pp. 381-82. lI'JohniR. Shannon, "Supervision of College Teaching, " Journal of Higher Education, XIV (October, 1943), pp. 355-58. 12 of 1960 for follow-up interviews with over 100 faculty members, almost as many senior faculty members, and half as many department heads, to have them evaluate orientation procedures at their institutions and to assess the problems of incoming faculty. Among thirteen listed orientation practices in the Tracy study those reported by administrators to be most common were as follows: 1. "Open door" policy for private conferences with chief administrator s . 2. Assistance in securing housing. 3. Visit to the campus for interviews prior to signing a contract. 4. Social affairs (college-wide or departmental) to assist new faculty members in meeting staff. 5. Tour of campus facilities (before or after signing a contract). Those administrative procedures least in use were: 1. Light teaching load during first term to allow for adequate orientation. 2. Special meeting(s) for new faculty during the fall term. 3. Each new teacher assigned a faculty member (other than the department chairman) to serve as host and counselor. ‘8 According to Tracy's interviews the size of the college affects to some degree the kinds of information that newcomers desire. Those in colleges having less than 100 full-time faculty members seem to be much more interested in student personnel services and discipline procedures and in the extent of faculty participation in policy making, while those new to institutions having more than 100 full-time faculty members indicate a greater degree of interest in faculty load and faculty personnel policies and welfare benefits. In a recent study concerning the orientation of new faculty members being carried out by a subcommittee of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, the most frequently used in-service 18Norbert J. Tracy, S. J. , personal letter including outline of paper, "What Incoming Faculty Members Wish to Learn About Their Institutions, " presented at Summer Departmental meeting of the Association for Higher Education, N. E.A. , Los Angeles, June 27, 1960. 13 activity reported by the administrators was the regular departmental or divisional meeting. The second most frequently mentioned activity was a series of seminars on college teaching such as those at Ball ‘ State or Southern Oregon College or the annual Faculty Conference on Improving College Teaching at Grambling (La.) State College. Other in-service activities reported by administrators were these: 1. Course committees for multiple-section courses. 2. Staff meetings for planning and evaluation. 3. A "What's New" series of seminars in all departments. 4. Meetings with a ”Pre-service" staff to orient new staff, plan studies, clarify problems, etc. 5. Curriculum committee assignment for new staff members in his area. 6. Discussion of grading and marking, promotion policy, etc. 7. Academic Affairs Council workshOps. 8. Faculty counseling program. 9. Discussion on graduate school procedures. 10. Work in eXperimental education laboratory. 11. Meetings with administrative officers to consider policies and problems .19 Use of Antecedents Some limited studies concerning the perception of new faculty members of their problems as reviewed above have been undertaken, but no very extensive study has been made recently to discover the nature of these problems. Such a study needed to be made to assist administrators in developing more effective in-service programs. Results of previous studies were found to be helpful in the develop- ment of the instrument of investigation used in this study. Problems found to be most prevalent in previous studies were made a part of the questionnaire. . Further, these studies revealed the most common 1‘’American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Orienting New Faculty, AACTE Bulletin, XII, No. 13 (January 29, 1960), p. 5. l4 administrative practices now used in the in-service programs for new faculty. This information was also used in developing one section of the questionnaire . Purposes of the Study The primary purpose of this study was three-fold: (1) to conduct a survey of new faculty members concerning their perception of problems; (2) to determine the helpfulness of administrative practices in resolving their problems; (3) as a result, to suggest orientation and in-serviceIprograms which might be developed by administrators. Information collected in conducting this study also helped to find answers to such questions as the following: 1. What relationship is there between the prevalence of specific critical problems faced by new faculty members and such personal characteristics as sex, age, level of preparation, and previous professional experiences ? 2. What relationship is there between the prevalence of specific critical problems faced by new faculty members and such institutional factors as size, type of control, and level of instruction for which the institutions have been accredited by North Central Association? 3. What possible values do these new faculty members see in administrative procedures which are not being used in help- ing them solve their problems? 4. Which problems of new faculty members, if any, tend to dissipate themselves within a three-year period? Which problems, if any, tend to persist at a higher level among third-year teachers then among first-year teachers ? 15 Hypothe s e s The following hypotheses concerning NCA institutions of less than 3, 000 enrollment were investigated: 1. There are certain problems which new faculty members per- ceive as being more critical than other problems. Sub-Hypothesis: A. Some problems of a personal nature, some of an institutional nature, and some of an instructional nature are included in the problems perceived as being most critical. 2. New faculty members who have served three years in NCA institutions view their problems of a personal, institutional, and instructional nature as persisting to a much lesser degree than do those who have served just one year in these same institutions. 3. There are no significant differences in the degree of difficulty on critical problems perceived by new faculty members regardless of such personal factors as sex, age, level of preparation, or previous professional experience. 4. There are no significant differences in the degree of difficulty on critical problems perceived by new faculty members regardless of such institutional factors as size, nature of control, or level of instruction for which institutions are accredited by NCA . Definition of Terms Specific operational terms used in this study were defined as follows: 16 Faculty M ember s Faculty members included those employed full-time who spent more than half their time on the teaching staff. If some full-time members of the staff performed administrative functions which took less than half their time and spent more than half-time teaching, they were to be included as faculty members. Not to be included as faculty members were full-time administrative personnel, graduate assistants, visiting instructors, or research personnel. - New Faculty Members New faculty members were defined as those who were new to the particular institutions under study, including those new to the profession and those with previous teaching experience who were employed to begin teaching in these institutions between September, 1957 and September, 1959. North Central Colleges and Universities The institutions generally referred to as North Central Associ- ation colleges and universities in this study are those institutions of higher education accredited by the NCA, other than junior colleges, having enrollments of less than 3, 000. - Colleges and universities on the accredited list in the North Central Association Quarterly of July, 1959 were those used as a basis for extracting the sample for this study. Limitations of the Study This study was limited to responses from first— and third-year faculty members in 144 institutions of the NCA having less than 3, 000 enrollment, with responses from those in 137 institutions being used for most of the study. 17 Other limitations of the study were these: 1. Although an Opportunity was given for the listing of problems of a personal, institutional, or instructional nature other than those on the questionnaire, in a large measure the question- naire elicited structured responses. This was indicated by the fact that very few reSpondents listed any problems that they felt gave them only ”slight" difficulty. The problems added were those that were mostly of "great” difficulty; a few problems of "moderate" difficulty were added. Had these problems given "great" difficulty rating been included in the original list, they might have been rated by others as causing "moderate" or "slight" difficulty. 2. Only those faculty members who had been employed within the past three years and remained with these institutions were used in the study. No attempt was made to follow up those who had left these institutions. 1 Had this been done, results might have been somewhat altered. 3. No attempt was made to secure information from college and university administrators regarding the procedures that they used for helping new faculty members adjust to any problems they faced. ~ Certain procedures were, however, evaluated by I the new faculty members as they perceived their use in the institutions. It was evident that some new faculty members in the same institution were not aware of all administrative practices being used in their institution to help new faculty members with their problems. Some indicated use of certain practices which others failed to indicate were being used. Overview of Study The study had three primary phases: (1) the survey; (2) the interpretation of the survey results; and (3) proposed administrative implications . 18 For convenience in reporting these three phases of the study, Chapter 11 contains the source of the data and methodology; Chapter III, the personal and professional characteristics of the new faculty members in the study; Chapter IV, the problems perceived by new faculty members in the NCA colleges and universities; Chapter V, the institutional and personal differences in the identification of critical problems; Chapter VI, summary and conclusions; and Chapter VII, implications for adminis- trative practices; Appendix F, the evaluation of administrative procedure as perceived by new faculty members. CHAPTER II DESIGN OF THE STUDY In order to make a comprehensive study of the problems set forth in Chapter I and to test the hypotheses stated in that chapter, the questionnaire technique seemed to be the best way to secure the necessary information from the many college and university administrators and the many faculty members involved. Such a technique has been used by investigators in previous studies of this nature. I Byram, Kidd, Stripling, and Tracy, whose studies were reported in Chapter I, all relied heavily upon the questionnaire for gathering data. Good, Barr, and Scates state, "The questionnaire procedure normally comes into use where one cannot readily see personally all of the people from whom he desires responses. "1 Classification of Participating Institutions For the purposes of this study NorthCentral colleges and univer- sities as listed in the July, 1959 North Central Association Quarterlyz were classified according to enrollment, nature of control, and level of approval by the NCA. lCarter V. Good, A. A. Barr, and Douglas E. Scates, The Methodologg of Educational Research (New York: D. Appleton- Century Company, 1941), p. 325. 2"List of Accredited Institutions of Higher Education, July 1, 1959, " The North Central Association Quarterly, XXXIV (July, 1959), pp. 16-28. 19 20 Information regarding the level of approval for each institution was obtained directly from the listings of the colleges and universities in the North Central Association Quarterly. Institutions approved by North Central for graduate programs leading to either the Master's or Doctor's degree are referred to in this study under one classification, as institutions approved for graduate study. The nature of control and the enrollment figures for determining the classification of institutions were taken from Higher Education, Education Directory of 1959-1960.3 Institutions were classified as to nature of control as being either private or public. Institutions of less than 3, 000 enrollment were classified as being small if their enroll- ments were less than 1, 000, and large if 1, 000 or more. In Table 2. 1 will be found the number of institutions of the NCA classified according to the above criteria and a letter of identification assigned to each group. Table 2. 1. --Classification of North Central Association Colleges and Universities by Size, Control, and Level of Approval by NCA. Group Nature Level of Total North Identification of Approval by Central Letter Size Control NCA Institutions A Less than 1, 000 Private Undergraduate 135 B 1, 000 to 3, 000 Private Undergraduate 36 C Less than 1, 000 Private Graduate 11 D 1, 000 to 3, 000 Private Graduate 21 E Less than 1, 000 Public Undergraduate 14 F 1, 000 to 3, 000 Public Undergraduate 31 G Less than 1, 000 Public Graduate 2 H 1, 000 to 3, 000 Public Graduate 21 Total of all NCA Institutions Eligible for Study 271 3U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Education Directory, 1959-1960, Part 3, Higher Education (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1959), pp. 55-180. 21 Questionnaires to Institutional Administrators On April 15, 1960 a letter approved by the Commission on Research and Service of the NCA was sent to the principal administrator of each of the NCA institutions whose faculty members were eligible to partici- pate in the study. *A total of 271 letters was mailed over the signature of Paul W. Harnly, chairman of the Subcommittee on In-Service Education of Teachers of the Commission on Research and Service. For the com- plete form of the letter and the questionnaire see Appendices A and B, respectively. Each administrator was asked to furnish the names of faculty members in his institution who, new to the institution since the fall of 1957, were still on the staff. Each was requested to list only those who were full-time members of the staff who spent more than half their time as members of the teaching staff. Additional information requested from each administrator included the total number of faculty members in the fall of 1957, in the fall of 1958, and in the fall of 1959 and the correspond- ing number of new faculty members for each of these three years. Responses by Four Out of Five Administrators By May 23, 1960, 213 of the 271 institutions of the NCA having enrollments of less than 3, 000 or 79 per cent, had furnished the infor- mation requested concerning the new members of the faculty on their campuses. , From these institutional listings questionnaires were mailed to the new faculty members in the sample institutions. In Table 2. 2 will be found the number'and per cent of adminis- trators in each group of institutions who responded to the request for information prior to the deadline for mailing out questionnaires to those to be used in the sample. 22 Table 2. 2. --Number and Per Cent of Administrators in Each Group of N. C. A. Institutions Submitting Information for Study. Group Total North Number Per Cent Identification Central Submitting Submitting Letter Institutions Information Information A 135 ' 107 79 B 36 29 81 C 11 8 73 D 21 16 76 E 14 11 79 F 31 25 8 1 G 2 2 100 H 21 15 71 Totals 271 213 79 The number of responses to a single request was considered adequate. Parten states, "A certain prOportion of nonrespondents can- not be prevented. . . . the returns from mail questionnaires are usually quite small. ”4 Since the information being gathered from the administrators was not opinion, but factual information concerning the number of their faculty and the names of the new faculty members of the past three years, it is doubted that nonrespondents biased the results of the study materially. Further, it is noted that no group of institutions had less than 71 per cent of respondents. Use of Half of Institutions in Sample From each of the eight classes of institutions (see Table 2. 2), approximately half of the members in each class were selected randomly ‘Mildred Parten, Surveys, Polls, and Samples: Practical Procedures (New York: Harper 81 Brothers, 1950), p. 391. 23 by use of the table of random numbers in Edwards' Experimental Design in Psychological Research, 5 for the purposes of testing the hypotheses. The total number of colleges so selected was 137. Table 2. 3 indicates the number of institutions selected at random from each group of insti- tutions and the number of drawings from the table of random numbers necessary to secure the number of institutions required in each sample. Table 2. 3. --Number of Institutions Drawn at Random from the Total Eligible N. C.A. Institutions and the Number of Drawings Necessary to Secure. :5? Group Total North Number Number Identification Central Selected of Drawings 'Letter Institutions at Random Necessary A 135 67 4 B 36 18 3 C 11 6* 2 D 21 11 2 .E 14 7* 2 F 31 16 3 G 2 1* 1 H 21 l l 3 Totals 271 137* - *For part of the study, 144 institutions were used—-8 from class C, 11 from class E, and 2 from class G. All institutions from these three groups which responded were used since each group contained less than a total of 20 institutions. Construction of Questionnaire for Faculty Members The first draft of a questionnaire was constructed after search of the literature concerning problems of new faculty members and the administrative procedures used for helping faculty members solve their problems. Problems found to be most frequent and persistent in the 5Allen L. Edwards, Experimental Design in Psychological Research (New York: Rinehart 81 Company, 1954), pp. 378-82. 24 Stripling study, reviewed in Chapter I, were included in the check list of problems in the questionnaire. In constructing the questionnaire, principles of sound questio7n- naire construction such as those set forth by Good, Barr, and Scates6 and Harold H. Bixler7 were followed. The following procedures were used to furnish evidence that these principles were generally met by the questionnaire: (1) All answers were in some way used to study the 1‘ problems or sub-problems of investigation. (2) The clarity of the questionnaire was not only checked after a lapse of time by the writer, but the questionnaire was submitted for testing clarity to new faculty members-at Alma college before reaching its final form. Further, no questions were raised by respondents regarding the clarity of the questions. (3) ReSponses generally could be treated statistically as is evidenced in Chapters 111 through V . (4) The first page of the question- naire was purely factual. Since ”opinion" was important in this study, two sections of the questionnaire were composed of questions of this nature.8 (5) The final four-page questionnaire was a reduction from the original in order to elicit a good response. Approximately two-thirds of those in the sample responded, adding evidence to the meeting of this criteria. (6) To reduce writing, check-lists were used. ' In gathering information for the first draft of the questionnaire, it was noted that problems of new faculty members seemed to be primarily of three types: (1) problems of a personal nature; (2) those pertaining 6Good, Barr, and Scates, p. 39. 7Harold H. Bixler, Check List for Educational Research (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1928), pp. 40-44. 8If administrators are to base their orientation and in-service programs on problems of new faculty members, it is essential that these new faculty members express their opinions regarding the types of problems they face, the intensity of these problems, and the persistence of these problems. 25 to the particular institutions in which new faculty members were employed; (3) those dealing with instructional matters. For this reason the questionnaire was so constructed, listing some specific questions under each of the three general headings and allowing space in which respondents might add other problems. Information requested in the questionnaires sent to the new faculty members included the following: 1. Personal information. 2.. Their professional training and experience. 3.. Their reasons for choosing to be employed in their present institutions . 4.. Their professional aspirations. 5. Their perception of the persistence and the difficulty of problems they faced as new faculty members of a personal, institutional, or instructional nature. 6. Their perception of the degree of helpfulness of procedures used by administrators in helping new faculty members solve their problems. The original draft of the questionnaire was submitted, along with a brief outline of the proposed study to the Subcommittee on In-Service Education of Teachers of the Commission on Research and Service of the North Central Association, at a meeting held in Chicago in December, 1959. Several suggestions for revision grew out of this meeting. The questionnaire was revised in the light of these suggestions and results of an open- ended questionnaire sent to a new faculty member in each of six representative institutions of higher education belonging to the NCA in Michigan. These institutions varied in size from large to small; in control from private to public; in level of approval, some being approved for undergraduate programs and some for undergraduate and graduate programs. » Representatives from five of these six institutions responded. The exact form of the open- ended questionnaire is reproduced in Appendix C. 26 After the second major draft, the questionnaire was further refined. for content and clarity. Suggestions for alterations came from primarily these sources: three new faculty members of Alma College to whom the questionnaire was submitted; several faculty members at Michigan State University; members of the Subcommittee of In-Service Education of Teachers of NCA; members of the Commission on Research and Service of the NCA, who, following a presentation of the plan at the annual meet- ing of the association in Chicago on March 30, 1960, gave their approval to the writer to circulate the questionnaires to institutions and faculty membersin NCA colleges and universities. The final revised questionnaire, as it was submitted to those in the sample, is found in Appendix D. It contained ten specific problems of a personal nature; twenty-five of an institutional nature; fifteen of an instructional nature. It gave an opportunity for the listing of additional problems in each of the three areas. Each respondent was asked to evaluate each problem as to its presence, persistence, and degree of difficulty. The final questionnaire also listed twenty-five procedures mentioned in the literature or suggested by new faculty members as being used by administrators in helping faculty members resolve their problems. Space was provided so that respondents could add at least one other pro- cedure. The respondents were asked to do two things: to check how helpful each~ of the procedures used by administrators in their institutions had been; to estimate how helpful procedures not used by their adminis- trators might have been in helping them resolve their problems. Sixty- six Per Cent Response from Two Mailings Questionnaires were mailed between May 18 and May 23, 1960 to 1771 first- and third-year faculty members employed in 144 institutions as reported by college and university administrators. 27 The number of usable expected responses was reduced when re- turned questionnaires revealed that some of those on the original lists of eligible participants should not have been included for one reason or another. The total number of returned questionnaires that could not be used due to ineligibility of the respondents was twenty-nine, reducing to 1742 the total possible usable responses.9 To all those who had not responded to the first request, a second questionnaire was mailed on June 18. The total number in this mailing, 947, represented fifteen more than the balance expected since there were no names on fifteen of the first reSponses. Usable responses were received from 1145 faculty members, or approximately 66 per cent to whom requests had been mailed. ' In Table 2.4 is a breakdown of these responses by classification of institutions in which faculty members were serving. Table 2.4. --Number and Per Cent of Responses to New Faculty Member Questionnaires Separated by Classification of Institution. Group Total Total Per Cent Identification Que stionnaires Usable of Letter Sent Returns Return A 597 382 64 B 272 176 65 C 74 43 58 D 160 104 65 E 91 61 67 F 298 206 69 G 10 6 60 H 240 167 70 Totals 1742 1145 66 9Reasons for throwing out these 29 cases and the number for each reason follow: no college teaching assignrhent, 9; more than half-time in administrative position, 7; only teaching part time, 5; retiree, just filling in, 3; reported hired previous to Fall of 1957, 2; returning to institution, not initial full-time employment, 2; deceased, 1. 28 Late responses, those received after the second requests were mailed, were kept separate from early responses so that consistency of results could be determined. Since the responses from these two groups yielded a high coefficient of correlation, a greater percentage of response would likely have had little or no effect upon results of the study. The responses of these two groups are treated in detail in Chapter IV. Method of Analysis of Data Returned questionnaires were prepared for recording on'Inter- national Business Machines (IBM) cards by identifying the responses as coming from first- or third-year faculty members, indicating the classifi— cation of the institution from which the response was received as well as the per cent of turn-over of the faculty in that particular institution, and identifying other personal and professional information so that convenient summaries of all information on the questionnaires could be easily ascertained. The section of the questionnaire listing the problems of a personal, institutional, or instructional nature asked reSpondents to indicate those which had "never been a problem" since coming to their present insti- tution. Problems which had caused difficulty were to be evaluated as follows: persistence--“has been, not now'' or “still persists”; degree of difficulty—-"slight, ” "moderate, " or ”great. " The section of the questionnaire concerning the usefulness of administrative procedures in helping new faculty members resolve their problems asked the respondents to indicate whether or not these pro- cedures were used in their institutions and to rate their helpfulness as "none, " "slight, " "moderate, “ or "great. " In testing the hypotheses the following methods were used: 1. a. 29 The most critical problems were determined by referring to the responses on the questionnaires. The total number of responses for each problem indicated as being "great" in dif- ficulty was multiplied by three; those being "moderate" by two; those being "slight" by one; and those "never a problem" by zero. The total weighted response was divided by the total number of individuals responding to each question, the quotients received in hundredths being reported as whole numbers for convenience. The eight problems that ranked at the top in magnitude were then defined as ”critical problems. " . For testing the persistence of problems, the percentage of first- year faculty members indicating problems persisted was determined for each problem. To give an indication of the problems which seemed to dissipate and those that seemed to remain after three years, these percentages for first-year faculty members were compared with the percentages of third- year faculty members who indicated these problems persisted. . To test the hypotheses 3 and 4 regarding differences on the degree of difficulty of the critical problems as related to the seven variables of the study, a three—stage method of analysis was employed. Differences were declared significant if, and only if, they were significant at stage three. Stage one: The purpose of this stage was to discover if there were general areas of differences in the degree of difficulty related to personal or institutional factors . -Step 1. All responses, including partials, were tabulated for each of the critical problems and distributed according to personal and institutional characteristics of respondents. Example: The number of housing problem responses was dis- tributed by sex of respondents and size of the institutions in which they were employed as follows: 30 Size of Sex of Respondents Institution Male Female Small 324 127 Large 487 145 Step 2. For each of the four cells in the above table the follow- ing information was determined: sum of the difficulty ratings given the housing problem, 2X; the sum of the squares, 2X2; the mean, i; the sum of the squares of the differences, 2(X - )—()2; and the variance, 82 to determine significanc e. x. 10 (1) By personal characteristic of sex; (2) By institutional characteristic of size. The: test was then applied Step 3. Information similar to the above was placed in each of twelve cells of Table 2. 5; a table was prepared for each of the critical problems and tests were applied within each cell for personal and institutional factors. Table 2. 5. --Number of ReSponses Received from New Faculty Members in N. C.A. Institutions Concerning the Problem of Finding Suitable Living Quarters When Distributed by Institutional .and Personal Characteristics. _— Personal Characteristic s Institutional Sex Age Degree Experience Factors Non- No Male Female Young Old .Doct. Doct. College College Size Small 324 127 260 181 336 120 264 192 Large 487 145 393 233 470 170 383 257 Contr-ol Private 503 175 418 250 492 193 402 283 Public 308 97 235 164 314 96 245 166 Level of Approval Undergrad. 562 213 469 296 609 176 482 303 Graduate 249 59 184 118 197 118 165 146 loWilfred Dixon and Frank Massey, Introduction to Statistical Analysis (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. , 1957), p. 121. C. 31 Results. In the above cited example, results at this stage gave indication that sex and possibly experience might be factors in the level of concern of new faculty members for the problem of housing. However, this conclusion could not be accepted without further examination of the data. Since no attempt had been made to examine the reSponses when all of the variables were the same except for sex, this first stage was felt to be a rather superficial analysis of differences. One or more personal characteristics or institutional factors might have influenced results in more than that one case. . For example, the sex difference might not be a real difference, but a difference that is related to experience or to one of the insti- tutional factors such as control. A more sophisticated analy- sis was deemed essential, leading to the second stage. ' Stage two: a. The purpose of this stage was to discover if there were specific areas of difference regarding the degree of difficulty of critical problems related to personal or institutional factors. Step 1. All responses were matched so that all personal and institutional factors of the respondents were the same. ~Step 2. A11 IBM cards were classified according to the seven institutional and personal factors by the following code: Nature of control: 0, private; 1, public. ' Size of institution: 0, sma11--under 1, 000; l, 1arge--1, 000-3, 000. Level of approval: 0, undergraduate; 1, graduate. Age: 0, young--31 or under; 1, old-~32 or over. 'Degree: 0, non-doctorate; 1, doctorate. Sex: 0, male; 1, female. -Experience: 0, no college; 1, some college. 32 Step 3. Total number of participants with each combination of characteristics in the possible 128 combinations were found, namely: Number of participants Combinations with each combination 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 - - 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 - - 34 O 0 0 0 0 1 0 - - 3O . . . . . . . . . to 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - 4 Step 4. All of those respondents for whom one or more char- acteristics was missing were thrown out, reducing the number of participants to 1070. Chi-square tests of significance were run between the number of remaining participants and those who were dropped out for the two elements of each of the seven personal and institutional variables. The method used was taken from Edwards. 11 Results indicated no significant dif- ference at the five per cent level in the personal or institutional characteristics of those dropped and those remaining in the study; therefore, the dropping of these did not appear to bias the results . Step 5. In the 128 possible combinations of characteristics there were only thirty-seven which had at least ten respondents-- the number considered necessary to determine the degree of difficulty for each critical problem with any degree of confidence. These thirty-seven groups, which were to be used for further analysis, were characterized by the combination of factors as shown in Table 2. 6. These thirty-seven groups represented a total of 846 of the 1070 respondents. The other 224 respondents were scattered among fifty-six other combinations of character- istics. 11Allen L. Edwards, p. 86. r Page 33 cropped at bottom edge. Only page k availablei. Fijlmedasireceived. » ’ - : UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS, INC. 33 ---.‘_._ -— ML ,. Table 2. 6. —-Combinations of Personal and Institutional Factors Characterizing the Thirty-Seven Groups of Individuals Having Ten or More Respondents. * Number of Assigned Factors Participants Group Con- Experi- with this Com- Number trol Size Level Age Degree Sex ence bination of Characteristics 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 56 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 46 4 0 0 0 l 0 1 0 35 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 34 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 34 7 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 34 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 32 9 0 0 0 0 O 1 0 30 10 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 30 11 0 0 0 1 1 0 l 29 12 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 25 13 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 21 14 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 20 15 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 20 16 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 20 17 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 19 18 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 18 19 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 16 20 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 16 21 O 1 l 1 1 0 1 16 22 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 16 23 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 15 24 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 15 25 0 0 0 0 1 O 0 14 26 1 l 0 1 O 1 0 14 27 1 1 1 0 0 l 0 14 28 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 13 29 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 30 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 13 31 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 12 32 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 12 33 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 12 34 0 0 0 1 1 l 1 11 35 0 1 0 0 0 0 l 11 36 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 11 37 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 11 :“Control: 0, private; 1, public. Size: 0, small; 1, large. Level: 0, undergraduate; 1, graduate. Age: 0, young; 1, old. Degree: 0, non- ---A‘I_. 1 I-.__-1- 11‘__‘-_:__—-A. n —A AA-&.‘.._L-. ‘I J--L-.‘-L- 0---. 34 Step 6. Of the thirty-seven groups having more than ten re- spondents at least eight groups could be matched with eight other groups in which only one of the seven personal or insti- tutional characteristics was different. .There were eight matched-groupings which could be used to study the control variable; eight, the size variable; nine, the level of approval variable; eight, the sex variable; eleven, the experience variable; eleven, the age variable; and nine, the degree variable. Example: The eight matched-groupings for the sex factor and the number of cases responding to the housing question were as follows: 7 pm Males Group Number 1 2 3 8 6 7 10 11 Totals Number of Cases 88 56 45 3o 34 33 3o 29 345 Group Number 9 22 23 4 13 26 27 34 Totals Females Number of Cases 29 15 14 34 21 14 14 10 151 Step 7. To the eight or more matched-groupings by character- istics the -t_ test for significance was applied to determine if there were differences as to the degree of difficulty on each critical problem. I- c. . The results obtained from this process of analysis indicated whether or not any two groups which matched as to six of the personal and institutional characteristics but which differed on the seventh personal or institutional characteristic would be significantly different in the degree of difficulty on each of the critical problems. Example: For four of the eight groups matched except for sex there were found to be significant differences at the five per 35 cent level of confidence in the responses by men and women as to the degree of difficulty on the critical problem of housing, men always expressing more concern for this problem than did women. On the basis of these findings the acceptance or rejection of the original hypothesis still was not clearly evident, since, as in the above example, it was found that in four groups there were significant differences and in four there were not. - Since the hypothesis deals with the concern of all males and females in the NCA institutions in relation to the housing problem, a third stage of investigation was used in which the matched groups were combined. Stage three: a. The purpose of this stage was to attempt to draw some general conclusions regarding the nature of relationships between each of the critical problems and the seven variables. ‘ Step 1. For each of the critical problems the total mean degree of difficulty was computed for the individuals in each section of the institutional or personal factors by combining the matched- groupings from stage two. ' Step 2. The 1 test was applied for significance between these two groups whenever there was evidence of a significant dif- ference at the five per cent level in stages one or two or when by inspection there was indication of the likelihood of a signifi- cant difference at stage three. . . Results. The investigator realized that the best test for signifi- cance could be accomplished by matching individuals except for one institutional or personal characteristic, and then examining the differences in degree of difficulty of these two groups. Since this could not be done, combining matched- 36 groupings seemed the next best way of attempting to draw any general conclusions relative to the hypotheses. Example: Concerning the housing problem the total number of men in the eight matched-groupings listed in the second stage was 345; women, 151. The differences in the expressed con- cern for this problem by the sexes held up through stage three, men viewing the housing problem as causing them more difficulty than did the women. Consequently, the hypothesis that there are no significant differences in the critical problems of new - faculty members regardless of sex was rejected. 4. For indication of the degree of helpfulness of administrative procedures in assisting new faculty members to solve their problems, the number of "great" responses was multiplied by three; the number of ”moderate" responses by two; the number of "slight" responses by one; and the number of "none" responses by zero. The total of the above was then divided by the total responding to each procedure, the quotients received in hundredths being reported as whole numbers for convenience. . The percentage of use of each of the procedures was also determined. The ranks of the degree of helpfulness of adminis- trative procedures as perceived by the participants were then compared with the ranks of their use. Summary The data for this study were drawn from the results of question- naires sent to 1742 first- and third-year faculty members in 144 North Central Association colleges and universities. Institutions whose faculty members were requested to fill out questionnaires were selected by a stratified random sampling process, based upon size, nature of control, 37 and level of approval of program by the NCA. The information on these questionnaires was coded for IBM machines. The methodology used involved the testing of the hypotheses by methods particularly suited to each. 4 Critical problems were discovered by a weighted scale technique. Critical problems were tested for dif- ferences in responses for each of four personal factors and three insti- tutional factors when the other six factors were held constant. The relative persistence of problems of new faculty members was determined by noting the differences in percentages of respondents indicating these problems persisted at the end of the first and third years of service. The data used were taken from a total of 1145 returned question- naires, 1119 being used for the inspection of much of the data. CHAPTER III PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW FACULTY MEMBERS IN SELECTED NORTH CENTRAL ‘ ASSOCIATION“ COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES To know how widely applicable the results of this study might be, the personal and professional characteristics of the respondents were investigated. The data obtained were compared with similar data on the national level whenever that information was available. To make comparisons, answers were sought to the following specific questions relative to those in the study: What were their personal characteristics of sex, marital status, age? How much pro- fessional preparation had they had? Where had they obtained this preparation? What professional experience was behind them? How did their initial assignments in these new institutions compare with their most recent formal education? For what reasons did they accept these positions ? Personal Characteristics of Respondents Personal characteristics revealed by respondents (see Tables 3. 1,, 3. 2, and 3. 3) indicate that approximately three-fourths of the new faculty members are men, approximately two-thirds of them are married, and their median age is approximately thirty-one years. According to the most recent Biennial Survey of Education in the United States, 1 23 per cent of the faculty in institutions of higher lU.S. , Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Biennial Survey of Education in the U. S. 1954-56, Chapter 4, Sec. 1, p. 30. 38 39 education in the United States were women as compared to 25 per cent of the respondents in this study (see Table 3. 1). Further, newly em- ployed full-time teachers in colleges and universities of the United States in 1954-55 consisted of 24. 1 per cent women.Z Although no exactly comparable data were available on the national level concerning the proportion of new faculty women to the total new faculty, it seems reasonable to assume that the female-male ratio of new faculty is approximately the same as that ratio for the present staff, since administrators tend to replace women by women and men by men. If we accept this assumption, the respondents have about the same sex ratio as new faculty members throughout higher education institutions in the United States. The median age of the 1119 respondents at the time of accepting positions in the institutions in which they were serving was found to be 31.4 years. The 27-29-year-old class in the three-year interval frequency distribution (see Table 3. 3) contains the highest per cent of new faculty members, 22 per cent. Further examination of this table reveals that more than three-quarters of those in the sample were between 21 and 38 years of age when they accepted these new positions. Only 16 per cent were 42 years old or over. Table 3.1. --Sex of New Faculty Members in Selected N. C. A. Colleges and Universities. Sex Number of New Faculty Per Cent Male 822 74 ~Female 284 25 Not indicated 13 1 Totals 1119 100 2Ray C. (Maul, "A Look at the College Teacher Supply and Demand Problem, " College and University, XXXI (Spring, 1956), p. 273. 40 Table 3. 2. --Marital Status of New Faculty Members in Selected N. C.A. Colleges and Universities. Marital Status Number of New Faculty Per Cent Single 355 32 Married 737 66 Not indicated 27 2 Totals 1119 100 Table 3. 3. --Age of New Faculty Members in Selected N. C. A. Colleges and Universities. _A_._ge Group Number Per Cent Age Group Number Per Cent 21-23 54 5 45-47 48 4 24-26 162 14 48-50 36 3 27-29 247 22 51-53 24 2 30-32 151 14 54-56 10 1 33-35 122 11 57-59 12 1 36-38 97 9 60 and 39-41 65 6 over 13 1 42-44 47 4 No infor. 31 3 Median - 31.4 Totals 1119 100 Professional Preparation of ReSpondents New faculty members in NCA institutions of less than 3, 000 enrollment may have a slightly higher level of training than do those being inducted into institutions of higher education throughout the United States. Identical data are not available on a national level, but some related data are. 41 According to a recent research report from the National Edu- cation Association, 3 23. 8 per cent of new full-time faculty members in 936 of 1076 colleges and universities in the United States in 1958-59 held earned doctor's degrees, as compared to 27 per cent of those being hired to do full-time teaching in NCA colleges and universities (see Table 3.4). The NEA report, however, did not consider as "new" faculty those transferring from one institution to another in consecutive years, although it stated that many of those reported as being "new" may have had previous teaching experience. ' Approximately one-fifth of those being inducted into service in 1958-59, according to the NEA study, had less than a master's degree, 5. 9 per cent being hired as full-time instructors directly after completing their bachelor's degree. Only 10 per cent of those in the North Central Association institutions had less than a master's degree. Table 3. 4. --Highest Degrees Held by New Faculty Members in Selected N. C.A. Colleges and Universities. Highest Degree Number Per Cent None indicated 1 0 Bachelor's 114 10 Master' 3 707 63 Doctor' 3 297 27 Totals 1119 100 3National Education Association, Research Division, Teacher Supply and Demand in Universities, Colleges and Junior Colleges, 1957-58 and 1958-59, Research Report 1959-R10 (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, June, 1959),. pp. 11-18. 42 Highest Degrees from Many Institutions Of the 1119 new faculty members in the sample, 1092 reported receiving their highest degrees from institutions in the United States, 24 from institutions in countries outside the United States, with three not indicating the institutions granting them their highest degrees. The 232 institutions in the United States from which highest degrees were earned were located in forty-three of the fifty states. As might be expected, most of the institutions, 151 in all, were in North Central Association states. Only one of the institutions ranking in the tOp ten of those furnishing the greatest number of graduates to the sample institutions was outside the NCA area (see Table 3. 5). This was Columbia University, which tied for the eighth rank with Ohio State Univer sity. Table 3. 5. --Ten Universities Ranking Highest in Furnishing New Faculty Members to Selected N. C.A. Colleges and Universities. ‘ Number of Rank Institutions Granting Highest Degrees Graduates 1 University of Wisconsin 53 2 University of Michigan 47 3 University of Illinois 43 4 State University of Iowa 36 5 University of Minnesota 32 6 University of Chicago 30 7 Indiana University 29 8. 5 Columbia University 26 8. 5 Ohio State University . 26 10 University of Kansas 24 Highest degrees were earned in ten foreign countries and the Philippines by twenty-four of those in the survey. Most frequently listed foreign institutions were in Germany and Italy. 43 Previous Teaching Experiences of Respondents InTable 3. 6 will be found a summary of the previous professional experiences of the reSpondents. It will be noted that more of these new faculty members have had experience teaching at the high school level (41 per cent) before coming to their present institutions. Many of those who had previous college experience also reported having either high school, elementary, or other full-time teaching experience. Table 3.6. --Previous Professional Experience of New Faculty in Selected N. C.A. Colleges and Universities. E: Type of No Some Experience Grand . Teaching Experience 1-3 yrs. 4-10 yrs. " Over 10 ‘ Total Totals years No. % No. ~% No. % No. % No. % No. % College 659 59 229 20 157 14 74 7 460 41 119 100 High School 642 57 229 20 181 16 67 6 477 43* 119 100 Elementary 929 83 101 9 58 5 31 3 190 17 119 100 Other Full-time 045 93 55 5 14 1 5 o 74 7* 119 100 * Totals in separate columns not equal to this total number due to rounding by whole numbers. Examination of random samples of the seven per cent who reported "other full-time teaching" indicated this experience was most often found to be private teaching, special programs for nurses or technolo- gists, or in teaching assignments connected with the armed services. Assignments Mostly in Major Fields It will be noted (see Table 3. 7) that while initial teaching assign- ments tend to place most new faculty members in fields in which they have majored in their highest degree work, 12 per cent of those in the study were not so employed. . No attempt was made by the matching of 44 majors in earlier degree work and the subject field assignments to analyze completely the data concerning the 12 per cent. It was noted, however, that many of those not teaching in the major field of their highest degree had majors at lower degree levels in these fields. Table 3. 7. --Initial Teaching Assignments of New Faculty Members in Selected N. C.A. Colleges and Universities as Compared to Their Major in Highest Degree. Assignment Relationship to Major Number Per Cent Teaching only in major field 775 69 Teaching in major and at least one other field 185 17 Not teaching in major 135 12 No response 24 2 Totals 1119 100 Almost nine of ten new faculty members in the selected institutions were teaching only undergraduate courses (see Table 3. 8), with approxi- mately half being employed in the institutions as instructors and one- third of them as assistant professors (see Table 3. 9). In the thirty-two ”other" rank in Table 3. 8, nine indicated no specific rank was used in their institution, and seven came in as assistant instructors or faculty assistants. Many of these new faculty members, 306 in all, or 27. 3 per cent, reported that they had received promotions since coming to the institu- tion. The most common promotion was from instructor to assistant professor, 100 falling in this group. Practically all of these promotions were to third-year faculty members. 45 Table 3. 8. --Level at Which New Faculty Members in Selected N. C. A. Colleges and Universities Taught During Their Initial Year in These Institutions . Level of Assignment Number PerCent Undergraduate courses only 986 88 Undergraduate and graduate courses 110 10 Graduate courses only 15 1 - No response 8 1 Totals 1119 100 Table 3. 9. --Rank of New Faculty Members in Selected N. C.A. .Colleges and Universities. Rank at Initial Employment Number Per Cent Instructor 527 47 Assistant Professor 373 33 Associate Professor 124 11 Professor 51 5 Other 32 3 Not reporting 12 1 Totals 1119 100 Varied Reasons for- Choosing Institutions Even though 36 per cent of the new faculty indicated they chose to accept positions in these institutions because of the type of teaching assignment (see Table 3. 10), 159 volunteered other reasons than those provided on the questionnaire. 4A total of 30 of the volunteered-responses indicated ”salary" as the primary reason, 8 of these in combination with teaching assignment. The complete list of additional answers is found in Appendix E. 46 Table 3. 10. --Primary Reasons Why New Faculty Members in Selected N. C.A. Colleges and Universities Came to These Institutions. ; Answers to "What do you consider as the primary reason you came to this Per Cent institution? " Number (Based on 1119) Just the type assignment I wanted 408 36 Opportunity afforded for advancement 224 20 Location 177 16 Religious affiliation 155 14 Alma Mater 56 5 Size of institution 41 4 - Friendly w/college administrator 30 3 Other reasons (written in) 159 14 No answer 10 1 Totals 1260* -- Some individuals, 141 in all, gave two answers instead of one. Both answers were counted; consequently, this total is in excess of 1119. Aspirations of New Faculty Members It is evident from the data in Table 3. 11 that most of the new faculty members in this study are doing the thing they want to do, while .some 8 per cent aSpire to be college administrators, and 7 per cent to do mostly research instead of teaching. Among the "other'' responses to the question ”What do you hope to be doing 15 years from now?" those mentioned most frequently and the number of times listed were: other profession, business, or industry, by 19; teaching and research, 19; different teaching assignments, 16. -Other miscellaneous answers to this question are listed in Appendix E. It is possible that those new faculty members who aspire to positions different from those they are holding today perceive their problems to be somewhat different than those who hope to be holding "similar position to present" 15 years from now. .The analysis of the returned questionnaires 47 Table 3. 11. --ASpirations of New Faculty Members in Selected N. C.A. Colleges and Universities. Answers to “What do you hOpe to be doirig_15 years from now?" ‘ Number Per Cent Similar position to present 669 60 College administration work 85 8 Spending most of time in research 77 7 Be retired 7O 6 Spending most of time in writing 41 4 College personnel work 28 3 Other (written in) 125 11 No response 25 2 5;: Totals 1119 100 a): Do not total 100 due to rounding by whole numbers. to determine this relationship is beyond the scope of this study, but might prove worthy of investigation. Summary In summary, the new faculty respondents in this study may be characterized as follows: 1. Their median age is 31 years, with almost a quarter of them falling in the 27-29-year-old bracket. 2.4 Approximately three-quarters are male. 3.- Approximately two-thirds are married. 4. Only 10 per cent have less than a master's degree, with 27 per cent holding doctorates. 5.. They earned their highest degrees from institutions in 43 different states and‘10 foreign countries. 6. Three out of five have had no previous college teaching experience. 48 7. Their professional assigmnents in 86 per cent of the cases are in fields which include their highest degree major. 8. Most of them are employed at below associate professor level and teach only undergraduates. 9. Most plan to stay in college teaching. iAlthough in most areas no exact comparable figures are available on the national level for new college teachers, the somewhat similar limited data as revealed in this chapter points to the likelihood that these new faculty members are not very different from new faculty members in similar institutions of higher education throughout the country today. Most likely the problems they perceive as being critical are typical of the critical problems faced by new faculty members in these other institutions. The findings in this study might, therefore, have much meaning to college administrators dealing with the adjustment of newly appointed staff members who are outside the NCA area as well as tho 3 e within . CHAPTER IV PROBLEMS PERCEIVED BY NEW FACULTY MEMBERS What are the problems of a personal, an institutional, or instruc- tional nature with which the greatest per cent of new faculty members in these NCA colleges and universities are having difficulty? What prob- lems do these new faculty members rate as causing the greatest degree of difficulty? In Table 4. 1 will be found the complete listing of the 50 problems to which new faculty members responded, giving the per cent who in- dicated some degree of difficulty with each problem, the rank of these problems by per cent having difficulty, the average degree of difficulty of these problems, and the rank of each problem by degree of difficulty. One Personal Problem Perceived Frequently The one personal problem reported far more frequently and with more intensity than any other personal problem is the one of Finding suitable livingquarters, item A-l, Table 4. 1. While 46 per cent of reSpondents admitted to having some difficulty with this problem, ranking it as fourth among the 50 problems in this respect, this problem ranked md in degree of difficulty. .No other problem of a personal nature ranked above 29th in per cent having difficulty or above 22. 5 in degree of difficulty. Of the thirty-two additional problems of a personal nature which were listed by the respondents, seven of them were primarily social in character, four dealt with finding satisfactory cultural outlets for 49 50 Table 4. 1. --Ranks of Problems Perceived by New Faculty Members in Selected N. C. A. Colleges and Universities According to the Per Cent Indicating Some Difficulty and by Degree of Difficulty. Description of Problems B-15 Acquiring adequate secretarial B-9 B-19 C-14 B-ll B-13 help .‘ ......................... Lack of teaching aids ........... Understanding college policies regarding promotions and salary increases ..................... Finding suitable living quarters Learning curriculum require- ments ......................... Developing effective lectures . . . . Increasing my effectiveness in student counseling techniques . . . Using effective discussion tech niques in class ................. Knowing what other departments of the college expect of my depart- ment ......................... . Fulfilling expectations regarding total amount of responsibilities . . Obtaining and maintaining student interest ....................... Understanding faculty committee structure ................ ,- . . . .. Knowing what other departments of the college teach ............ Understanding policies regarding probationary status and dropping of students .................... Developing satisfactory tests and examinations .............. Gearing instruction to level of those in my classes . . ........ . . Knowing the institutional pro- cedure to be followed for curricu- lum revision .......... . ....... Understanding policies regarding grading standards . ......... . . . Indicating Some Difficulty Per Cent Rank 50 1. 5 50 1. 5 48 3 46 4 45 6 45 6 45 6 44 8 42 10 42 10 42 10 40 12 39 14. 5 39 14. 5 39 14. 5 38 17 36 18 Degree of Difficulty Ave rage* Rank 104 1 90 4 E 92 3 98 2 64 11 67 66 9 69 7 72 6 58 19. 5 59 17.5 64 11 64 ll 63 13 62 14. 5 59 17.5 60 16 62 14. 5 * I a See explanation of method of figuring at end of table. Continued 51 Table 4.1 -- Continued Indicating Some Degree of Description of Problems Difficulty Difficulty Per Cent Rank Average Rank B-14 Acquiring adequate office space. 35 20 76 5 B-23 Understanding institution's legis- 1ative organization ............. 35 20 58 19. 5 C-1 Learning the availability of in- structional material ............ 35 20 53 26 C-2 Learning routine for acquiring new instructional and library materials ..................... 33 22. 5 47 32. 5 C-9 Coordinating instruction in my classes with instruction in other college departments ............ 33 22. 5 54 22. 5 C-ll Required to teach classes for which not prepared ............. 32 24 54 22. 5 B-l Understanding institutional objectives ..................... 31 26 53 26 B-17 Understanding policies regarding fringe benefits ................. 31 26 51 28 B-24 Understanding faculty-trustee relationships .................. 31 26 5 3 26 A-3 Establishing satisfactory social relations with faculty families . . . 29 29 48 30. 5 B-3 Understanding my responsibilities for counseling students ......... 29 29 43 36 C-8 Coordinating instruction in my classes with other classes in my department .................... 29 29 48 30. 5 B-22 Fulfilling expectations regarding student counseling .............. 28 31 43 36 A-10 Finding satisfying recreational outlets for self or family ........ 27 33. 5 54 22. 5 B-5 Keeping and making out official records and reports ............ Z7 33. 5 38 38 B-20 Understanding policies regarding research ...................... 27 33.5 49 29 B-21 Fulfilling expectations regarding research activities ............. 27 33. 5 54 22. 5 A-4 Establishing satisfactory social relations in the community ...... 26 36. 5 47 32. 5 C- 15 Obtaining help in the improvement of my instruction ............... 26 36. 5 43 36 Continued 52 Table 4. 1 -- Continued J Indicating Some Degree of Description of Problems Difficulty Difficulty Per Cent Rank Average Rank B-2 Understanding my responsibilities for registering students ......... 25 38 36 40 C-12 Too many ”extra class" responsi- bilities on faculty committees . . . . 24 39 44 34 A-2 Becoming acquainted with other faculty members ......... . . . . . . 22 41 37 39 B-8 Learning details of any student assistantship program .......... 22 41 34 41 C-13 Becoming acquainted with pupils in my classes . . .' ............... 22 41 32 42 A-7 Working with college adminis- tration .. ... .................. . 18 43 30 43 A-5 Working with department co- workers . ......... . . ........... 17 45 27 44. 5 A-6 Working with personnel from other departments .............. 17 45 26 46. 5 B-18 Understanding policies regarding textbook adOptions .............. 17 45 26 46. 5 B-12 Having little opportunity to work on college committees .......... 16 47 27 44. 5 B-6 Becoming acquainted with college calendar ....................... 15 48 21 48. 5 A-9 Knowing about health services in the community .................. 14 49 21 48. 5 A-8 Working with counseling personnel 10 50 16 50 *Average degrees of difficulty were determined by multiplying the total "great" reSponses by three; ”moderate” responses by two; "slight" responses by one; and ”never" responses by zero. . The total of these was then divided by the number responding to each question, the quotient received being reported in hundredths as whole numbers for convenience. self and/or family, and three with salary. Problems of a social nature varied from ”Finding friends of similar age and interests” to ”Too great a demand for conventional socializing when we have our own 53 interests. " In every case these social problems were reported as "persistent"; in every case but one they were indicated as being "great" in magnitude . ' Institutional Problems in Top Ten When the fifty problems were ranked according to the per cent having some degree of difficulty with them, the top ten included the following five problems of an institutional nature (see Table 4. 1): Item B-15, Acquiring adequate secretarial help, which was giving some degree of difficulty to 50 per cent of the respondents, tied for the first rank. Item B-16, Understanding college policies regarding promotions and salary increases, 48 per cent indicating some degree of dif- ficulty, ranked third. Item B-7, Learning curriculum requirements, 45 per cent indi- cating some degree of difficulty, tied for rank six. Items B-10 and B-25, Knowing what other departments of the college expect of my department and Fulfilling expectations regarding total amount of responsibilities, 42 per cent indicating some degree of difficulty with each of these problems, tied for rank 10. Three of the above problems, items B-15, B-l6, and B-lO, are also found among the top ten of the fifty problems causing the greatest degree of difficulty. One other institutional problem, item B-14, -Acquiring adequate office space, ranks fifth in degree of difficulty. Most of the institutional problems listed by the respondents which were not on the original questionnaire were stated as persisting and great in magnitude. Of the twenty-seven different additional problems of an institutional nature listed, twenty-four were rated as "persisting" and twenty-two were rated as causing "great" difficulty. >No additional problem was listed as being of "slight" difficulty. 54 It is interesting to note that only four of the problems of an insti- tutional nature that were added by the 1119 participants were mentioned by more than one person; these were mentioned by two each. They were"'Communication between college administrator and faculty, " rated by one as of "moderate" difficulty, another "great"; "Coordination in the department, " rated by both as "persistent" and "great"; ”Too heavy a teaching load to do research, " rated by both as "persistent" and "great"; and "Research not encouraged, " rated as "persistent" and "great. " Instructional Problems in Top Ten Tying for the first rank in per cent of respondents indicating some degree of difficulty with each of the fifty problems was item C-4, Lack of teaching aids (see Table 4. 1). It was troublesome to 50 per cent of the new faculty members. Respondents also perceived this problem as being fourth in degree of difficulty. Other instructional problems ranking in the top ten of those giving some degree of difficulty were these: Items C-5 and C- 10, Developing effective lectures and Increasing my effectiveness in student counseling techniques, each being rated by 45 per cent of the respondents as giving them some degree of difficulty and tying for sixth rank. ‘Item C-6, ~ Using effective discussion techniques in class, rated by 44 per cent as giving some difficulty and ranking eighth. Item C-7, Obtaining and maintaining student interest, rated by 42 per cent as giving some difficulty and tying for tenth rank. Of the twenty additional instructional problems added to the list by the respondents, four were mentioned by more than one person. "Too heavy a teaching load, " which had been listed by two respondents under the institutional problems as related to lack of time to do research, 55 was listed in this section of the questionnaire by thirteen respondents, ten rating it as "great" and ”persisting, " while the other three merely listed it as a problem and indicated no rating for persistence or degree of difficulty. Other problems in this section listed by more than one respondent were "Too many extra-class responsibilities other than committees, ” four rating it as a "persistent” and "great" problem and four rating it as "persistent" and ”moderate"; three listed problems relative to the low level of preparation of students, one of these indicating the problem was ”persistent" and ”great" while the other two merely listed it as a prob- lem with no rating of its persistence or level of difficulty; "Curriculum revision (improvements)," was listed by two, both indicating it as a "persistent" problem, one rating it of "moderate" difficulty and the other of "great" difficulty. Most Critical Problems Perceived As explained in Chapter II, critical problems were defined as being those ranking in the t0p eight of the fifty problems in degree of difficulty as perceived by these new members of the teaching staff. The critical problems thus revealed in this study in order of rank (see Table 4. 1) were these: 1. Item B-15, Acquiring adequate secretarial help. 2. Item A-l, Finding suitable living quarters. 3. Item B—16, Understanding college policies regarding promotions and salary increases . 4. Item C-3, Lack of teaching aids. 5. Item B-14, Acquiring adequate office space. 6. Item B—10, . Knowing what other departments of the college expect of my department . 56 7. Item C~6, Using effective discussion techniques in class. 8. Item C-5, Developing effective lectures. One of the above, item A-l, is found among the personal problems respondents were asked to rate, while four (numbers 1, 3, 5, and 6) were among the institutional problems, and the remaining three were instruc- tional in nature. ‘ It is apparent, then, that we can accept the hypothesis that there are certain problems which new faculty members perceive as being more critical than other problems, and that among these most / critical problems will be found those of a personal, an institutional, and an instructional nature. All of the above problems are examined more thoroughly in Chapter V. Consistency in Late and Total Returns Responses from the 209 questionnaires which were returned after the second request had been mailed out were compared with the total 1119 returns in order to test the consistency of results. Not only did the top six critical problems rate in the same order in the two groups, but the coefficient of correlation of all fifty problems based upon their ranks according to the degree of difficulty of each problem was a +. 97.1 Such consistency seems to warrant the conclusion that even had more responses been received the results of this study would not have been materially altered. Persistence of Certain Problems One personal problem, A-lO, Finding satisfactory recreational outlets for self or family, was indicated as persisting by more than 80 1Spearman rank-difference method of figuring coefficient of correlation was used. 57 per cent of those who had experienced some difficulty with this problem since coming to their present institutions (see Table 4. 2). 'As indicated earlier (see Table 4.1), this problem seemed to cause difficulty to only. 27 per cent of the total respondents, yet those who reported this problem‘ evidently had considerable difficulty in resolving it to their satisfaction. ' Six institutional problems were also rated as persisting by more than 80 per cent of those who had experienced difficulty with them. In this group are found two of the top ten problems indicated most fre- quently as causing difficulty. They are problems B-15, Acquiring adequate secretarial help, and B-16, Understanding college policies regarding promotions and salary increases, reported as persisting by 83 and 82 per cent, reSpectively. Also in this group are the two top- ranking problems in persistence, B-21, Fulfilling expectations regarding research activities, at 90 per cent, and B-24, Understanding faculty- trustee relationships, at 88 per cent. Other institutional problems persisting at or above the 80 per cent level were these: B-12, Having little Opportunity to work on college committees, at 80 per cent; B-20, Understanding policies regarding research, at 85 per cent. Three instructional problems persisting above the 80 per cent level were these: C-3, Lack of teaching aids, 85 per cent; C-9,. Coordinating instruction in my classes with instruction in other college departments, 84 per cent; ,_7 and C-12, Too many ”extra class" responsibilities on faculty committees, 82 per cent. While the per cent of new faculty members finishing their third year in‘NCA colleges and universities indicating persistence of personal problems is somewhat less than the per cent finishing their first year, the difference is not great (see Table 4. 2). ~Persistence of all personal problems for all participants in the study was 62. 5 per cent, with 64. 7 per cent of first-year teachers indicating persistence and 58. 9 per cent of third—year teachers. Personal problems noticeably different in 58 poscficoo Nam N‘m Nm mm mm mmfi0.0...OOOCOIOCOOOOOOOIOOOOO0.0...mahogvh was mphooou Hmfloflmo «so magma cam maaoovm .m cm co co on: mm mmN . . ouduodfim moufiEEoo 4318.3 mcwpsdumuopcD .w om mo wm OHH cm 05.” O0.0.I.0.OOOOOOOOCOOOOImHGQvSHm wGflHQmGSOU .HoH moflumflnwmaommou >5 wcfloamumuopcb .m wN ON QM m0 MM No cocoa-oooooooooooooooomugmwgum wgfihmuwmflwmh Mom moflfififlmcommou >8 mcfipsmumuopcb .N we mo co mm; be MNN . . . . . . doc/30030 Hmsoflgflmaw mcflpsdumuopcb .H Hmsoflfiuflmcm :m o.wm 04m >440 ¢m® m.N© Ema .maofiounm Hmc0muonm Ho 1309. ow 00 FW MN.” vw NwNo....o.oooooooo,ooonce-oo-ooo>HwnEdHHoHfimm HON muofiSo Hmcoflmouoou msgmmflmm msfipsfih .oH CV mH FM CV Fm mm o.econ...coo-o...ecu-cocoonoouaouoooo.NWHH IGDEEoo 93 5 moot/pom Afimwa udonm wag/95m .0 mo mm we om m» E. . . . . . . . .. . HosGOmuoa manomcdoo €53 922.8? .m MN. He 2. on me mmH . . . . . . . . Gofiudnummcwgmum omozoo 5:3 mcfluog .N do mo mp we we mmfimucog $3256 .2230 Eonm HoGHSmuom gums? wcwxuog .e mo pm H» we we ONH . . . . . . . mnoxnocsvuoo unofiunmmop £33 magno? .m we 00 w“ NNH ON. madcocoon-cocooaooooooooooRWHEUEEOUQAHfiHHMB mcoflmfiou 330m >Houomwmqum wcfimflnmumm . :9. Nu. 0N. mm. mmH hm. NMN......................moflfladwkwuadummfiuws? msofimfiou 380m huofioflmfimm mswamflndumm .m 4m was no mo oo me;................................939805 3:533 .350 at“? poucfimfisvom msflbooom .N mm om om Hm“ mm mpg . . . . . . . . . . . . muounmsw maria @3336 wswpswh .H HMGOmuonH .< 360 pom .oZ €30 Rona oZ “sou Mom .02 mEoHnounm knownpuwafi udownumfih 2308 .33qu 35 >22. 3365 98 mEmBoum 53, 51655 cum 9:5 9:5 33282 316mm 3.4%-??? was swarm 40 Boo 3&1 .N .4. 033. 59 woscflcoo co hm ON. owfi NF HEN ............................G03.NNwG.meO 0337.“on mEoUduUmsw wcfipcmumnopcD .mm we mow hm. hm.” MN. CNN ..............................mG:mmGSOU unopduw wcfipnmmou msofimuoomxnw wcflaadh .NN Hm 00H 00 Maw." 00 mmN ooua...coo-cocoooooooooocooooowwwnnwfikffiuod Aonmomon mswpnmwou mcoflmuoomxo wcflfimadh .HN mm mo mm mi: mm «LVN .sonmomou mcmpumwou mowoflom mafipcmumuopcD .om Ho N0 mo «SH mo wow . . . . . . . .mucopdum mo mcwmmonp pad 253m Pam ICOUMQOHQ msfipumwou wowoflom mcfipcmumnopcb .oa mm mm om N0 Nm mo ooo-osooooococooooooooooooooooWGOMHAHOMUN xoonfixou maflpuwmon mowoflom wcflucmumuopcb :2 00 me me mmH cc @HN ................................mumwocoo. owafluw mcfloummou mowoflom mcfipsdumuopcb .NH mm mm; Hm 0mm Nw 0:4 . . . . . . . . . .mommmspocw kwumamm pad mcoflogoum wcfipummon mofiofloa omozoo mcflocmumnopcb .cH ow 2: mm SN mm ems 2.1.43: 3.23803 3333 $233.14 .2 :1 0: ms PA: mp wwm . . . . . . . . . . .oodmm ooflwo oumdwopm wswnwdwoxw ,JL ON: cw Maw mmH mo mmN coco.ocoo-cocooooooooooooooooomfivoHdmvgmHm wcwpmuw mcfipnmmou mofloflom wcflocmumuopGD-mH wk. mm mm mm ow ova ............................mooufigaoo omozoo so 0303 8 .fificdunommo 03”.: mat/om .NH Hm iv» mo T: om ism . . . . . . . . . cowmgon gadowuudo hOH wok/0:3 on 0» opdpoooum Hmcofidfiumsfi 9.3 wcflsocm .: MN. 3! Hm mam we 0mm . . . . . . . . . . “Goguhmmop >8 mo boomxo omofioU or: mo mucoguhmmop .530 “mg? mag/95”.“: mm; ONH wN. wwH v” ONM o.oooooooooooooooooooooooogodemeHHOU was mo manoeuummop 92.30 “was? mag/95m .9 mm om HQ No 0m NwH o...ooooooooooooooooooooooENHmOHamwgm nusmumfimmm unopdum Loam. mo mflmuop mcwaumod .w pm me mm mm: ow 0mm . . . . . . . mucogoumdvop gasowhndo 9:93.64 .N. :4 PM $4 3» mv E. .udpcofimo omofioo 8:3 pofihdddom wcflhooom .c 360 Mona .02 ”~an .umnm .02 6:60 pom .oZ meoanoum udowupuwafi nmofuumuwh 23309. 6655280 -- N .v 3an 1....- I:\ poscflcoo 60 has? upmuwh mm mmfi mm 00 mm mam mooufiEEoo >fidodm co moflfififimcommou :mmmHo mafia: >93: 008 .NH Om Mm. Haw ¢NH hm NON ...............................UMHmmmhm «on 3033 90w mommmao gods» o» @9335“ .2 mp on: Hm. cam on 3% .. modwflfioou 9339500 2535.0: CM mmoco>floommo >8 wnwmmonocm .0? S. wma hm T: vm mom . . . musoguudmop omofioo noguo a: :ofloduumcw £33 mommgo >5 cw cofloduumsw mcflumcfipnoou .o 3 NS me E 2. SN . . . . . . . .scofitmdme >8 E 33...? 3&0 5T5 momma? >8 a: “830.939: wsflmaflonoou .w Hm 2L ow mom ma. 4mm . «momma: adopsam mswawmunwmg pad waflfimunO {1 mp we; on 2N mp vom mmgo sfi modwflcaoo» Gofimmdomfip min—ovum mcme .0 do FNH on :N ow owm . . . . . . . . . . . . . monspooa o>flommmo wcfimoaocwofl .m NNI mNH ¢Nl owH MNI NHM OO0O.OIOOOOOOOOIOOOOO...000......mGOfiud 158.88 was memo» >uouodwmflmm maggot/ma 3v mm mha ow HwN mm How ....................mUmdmdfifiummuwoxomdn.m mm 34 am mm mm ova . . . . . . . . . . . . . .mamwuoudg >895: was 1303 103.3me 30G wafiuflaom you“ ocfidou waficumod .N mv Nlm mm mm." Hm mo." sconce-o...coo-ooooooooooooooooHawoflvuda Hmcofloduumcw mo >fifinmfid>m 9.3 mcficpdod .H HmsoflofinumcH .0 w .m@ mzm m .oo Noam N .wo 2.0m . . . . . . . . . . . . . mEoHnounm HmcoflgfimcH mo H.308 ma. 9: ow H: wk. wwm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . moflflwnwmcommou mo usdogm 133 mcfipummou mcoflmuoomxo mafifimash .mm mm mo Hm 02 mm mowm madamaofigou moamsuun>fidodw wcwpcdumnopcb .wm uGoU non” .02 “:60 nonm .02 «:00 Mom .02 mgofiounm uwowupuwnh Egon. uoscscoo .. N .4 3an v n..- 61 N.:. mwofi «4N. omvm w.:. 09:4 mgoanonnm HacofloduumcH mo H.308 mm OOH 0N. ON." w“ ®NN 00000000000.0000000000000000gowuosuumcw >8 mo “Gogoxroumdh on“ a“ mass 93:33.0 .2 we wOH ”0 ”PM he omN OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0000.00.mummdfio >5 5 smog“ mo 3.23 0» £030.93me wqwnmoo .wd ww w“ ON. mo ON. Owfl o00.00.0000.0000000000000...0.0mommdfiu >8 GM mania 8:3 pounwmswom mcfigooom .mH “:00 Mom .02 ”:50 Mona .oZ ”Emu Mom .02 mgofinonm HmoWIanB Hdoch—mnwm 3.30M. 323280 .. m .4 Bean. K 62 per cent of persistence from first- to third-year faculty members were 'A-2, Becoming acquainted with faculty members, decreasing by 13 per cent, and A-4, Establishing satisfactory relationships in the community, decreasing by 10 per cent. Problems of an institutional character, persisting at a somewhat higher level than personal problems, 68. 2 per cent as compared to 62. 5 per cent, were also reported as persisting slightly less frequently by third-year faculty members than by first. Two institutional problems noticeably different in per cent of persistence among first- and third- year faculty members were B-7, Learning curriculum requirements, decreasing from 52 to 37 per cent, and B-11, Knowing institutional pro- cedures to follow for curriculum revision, decreasing from 63 to 51 per cent. Most noteworthy of the findings regarding persistence of problems is the fact that instructional problems as a whole persisted at as high " a level among third-year as among first-year faculty members. - In other words, third-year teachers who felt that they had had some instructional problems since coming to their present positions did not feel that they had come any nearer solving these problems than those teachers who had only been in these institutions for one year. In fact, one instructional problem, ,Becoming acquainted with pupils in my classes, was reported as persisting at a/l4 per cent higher level by third-year than by first- year faculty members. In light of the above results of this investigation, the second hypothe- sis--new faculty members who have served three years in NCA colleges and universities perceive problems of a personal, institutional, and instructional nature as persisting to a much lesser degree than do those who have served just one year in these same institutions-4’3 rejected. Whatever the orientation and in-service programs may be accomplishing, they do not seem to be coming to grips with many major personal, 63 institutional, and instructional problems of new faculty members. For a majority of the faculty members who have experienced these problems, the problems persist through the first three years. Additional Comments by ReSpondents Many of those responding to the questionnaire made additional com- ments concerning their particular answers. Some felt that they were so well acquainted with the institutions they were serving before taking the assignment that their problems were minimized, fourteen of these having lived a year or more in the community before taking positions and eleven others returning to their Alma Mater. One priest wrote that he felt that the personal problems and many of the institutional problems were minimized due to the nature of his assignment in the Roman Catholic institution. Three sisters echoed somewhat the same opinion, some of them failing to answer parts or all of the questionnaire for that reason. Other general comments included “Little common spirit amongv faculty since no unified objectives are envisioned or attempted, " and "I needed re-education to honor system--students taking more responsi- bility. " One who did not check any problems or procedures said, "Taught too many classes, but my fault. I'd do it again. Wish there were more hours in the day, fewer committees, but who can change these things ?" Summary Two of the hypotheses have been examined in this chapter in light of the results of the responses received from the new faculty members in the sample. The information thus reported suggests the acceptance of the hypothesis that there are certain problems of a personal, 64 institutional, and instructional nature that new faculty members consider as more critical than others. However, it appears that the hypothesis-- faculty members who have served three years in NCA institutions of higher education perceive their problems as persisting much less fre- quently than do fir st-year teachers in the same institutions--must be rejected. CHAPTER V INSTITUTIONAL AND PERSONAL DIFFERENCES IN IDENTIFICATION OF CRITICAL PROBLEMS Introduction The critical problems identified by new faculty members in this study are analyzed more thoroughly in this chapter according to the three-stage plan as explained in the methodology, pages 28 to 36, Chapter II. In Table 5. 1 is presented a summary of the findings rela- tive to the institutional and personal differences in identification of the degree of difficulty of these critical problems. .Throughout this chapter will be found the pertinent data relative to the testing of hypotheses 3 and 4 as stated on page 15. . Each critical problem is treated separately, with data relative to differences associ- ated with the personal nature of reSpondents presented first, followed by data relative to differences associated with institutional character- istics. . Results of tests applied at the third stage are presented in table form within the context of the chapter; tables for stages one and two are reproduced in the Appendices. - Finding Suitable Living Quarters Personal Characteristics. In the first stage of the investigation, when personal characteristics of sex, age, degree held, and experience were tested for significance, it was evident that both sex and experience might be factors influencing the judgment of new faculty members con- cerning the difficulty of the problem of finding suitable living quarters. 65 66’ .Edumonm muddpmuw MOM <02 >9 pofipmnoom .0 ”>30 Edumoum oumfipmnwnmpcd MOM <02 >9r pox—Summon; .D non—«339 .nnm 5207.99 .nnm “imam .m momng .4 "moaowuomxo mnEommu omofloo .050?on .0 ”0283698 mcdfiodou owofioo 25?an on .2 “0353 .h “3ch .2 63 .O mmcfio> fl». msofimflronobm ofi mo mwcflsmoz mo. ommum pug“ may as ucdowfinmwm 63 0» 9.30m moocouommflu omogu >30 «.39? >ud8§m o>oo..m 0:8 ”302 ”95023 mm was 03.3 o>oo..m map a“ coma 405.3 mo . may as who? mooconomflp poadoflocw omw3uo£uo mmoduD .soflmmflmoafi UAZ modwwcanvou Sofia. .0190 m8 o>floommo wcfimb Ho . u< UAZ 0A? monduoofi 0333mm msaoflocrom 0A.». wEm chomoa mo Momq DAD HmAan mommouosw >pm1mm was mcoflogoum msflpndwop mowoflom omofloo wcwpsmumuopcb Ho . u< MAE 303 Hmwnmuouoom muddwopm mfiufipwosq‘ momma ooflmo mundwopm mdwnwswosoa mAA ucoafiummop >6 Ho «0098 monogamov Hofio owns? .wanGdM Ho . u< unmAfinm Ho . u< MAE muoffimfiw mart/E ozdfidm magenta Hot/61H HonuaoU whim nouomh HmcoflduflmzH 0068:6me xom monmofl 0% ofiummnouomumgu HNGOmuonm mEmBopm 28320 .mo~£§h~> 5.50m mo 30mm ho“ muonEOE >Sdomh .302 >9 voflflqopm mEoHnouna 11.0320 uswwm may no aomm .HOH >fifioflmwfl mo omnmmfl a.“ moocouomfifl unmodwnmwm mo Gofloonwfl mo >hmgfidmus .H .m QBMB 67 It was evident that men were generally more concerned with this problem than women. Differences were found to be significant at the five per cent level in‘small and large, private and public, and undergraduate approved institutions (Appendix G). Results of stages two (Appendix H) and three of the investigation helped to confirm that there is a sex difference associated with the level of concern for this problem. In four of the eight matched-groupings at stage two the differences were found to be significant at the five per cent level. significant difference at the one per cent level. Totals for all eight groupings, as shown in Table 5. 2, yielded a Table 5. 2. --Resu1ts of Tests of Significance Related to Personal Character- istics of Respondents for Finding Suitable Living Quarters. ‘ Ar L Y Total Number Characteristics Score of Cases Mean Variance Significance Sex: Male 390 345 1.130 1.375 M>F Female 81 151 .536 .944 At .01 Experience: No College 385 374 1. 029 1. 332 Not College 242 221 l. 095 l. 505 significant The first stage of investigation indicated that the experience factor might be significant, since those with previous college experience generally rated the housing problem as more of a problem than those who had not had college experience. In private and small colleges these dif- ferences were found to be significant at the five per cent level (Appendix G). However, this difference did not hold up through stage three of the investigation as shown in Table 5. 2. 68 At no stage of the study was there evidence that the age of or the degree held by new faculty members was a significant factor in the intensity of concern over this problem. 'Institutional Factors. There was evidence in the first stage of investigation that there might be significant differences in the difficulty of the housing problem to those in privately and publicly controlled institutions and to those serving in small and large institutions. Those in public and large institutions generally reported a higher level of concern with this problem than those in private and small institutions (Appendix I). In the first stage of studying the control factor, it was found that there were significant differences in responses on the housing question at the one per cent level in three of the eight groupings by personal characteristics, and at the five per cent level in three. These differences held up through the three stages of the study as evidenced for stage two in Appendix J and for stage three in Table 5. 3. Differences in the degree of difficulty with the housing problem between those in small and large institutions did not hold up through stage three. Those in large institutions did report greater difficulty, but the differences were not significant (Appendix J and Table 5. 3). Table 5. 3. --Results of Tests of Significance Associated with Institutional Factors for Finding Suitable Living Quarters. Total Number Factor Score of Cases Mean Variance Significance Control: Private 131 157 . 834 1. 216 Pu>Pr Public 224 184 1.212 1.395 At .01 Size: Small 238 248 . 960 1. 310 ' Not Large 196 189 1. 037 1. 302 significant 69 Knowing What Other Departments of the College Expect of My Department Personal Characteristics. Throughout the three stages of investi- gation concerning possible significant differences in the difficulty of communications between departments as related to personal character- istics of respondents, there was only one indication that such might be the case. This was found at stage two of the investigation. In one of eleven matched-groupings those with some college experience indicated they had significantly more difficulty with this problem (at the five per cent level) than did those who had not had previous college experience (Appendices K and L). 'As shown in Table 5.4 this difference did not hold up through stage three. The means for the total of the matched-groupings indicated that those without college experience generally reported more difficulty with this problem than those with experience, but the difference did not prove to be significant. At no stage of the investigation was there an indication that signifi- cant differences in this problem could be related to age, degree held, or sex of the respondents. Table 5.4. --Results of Tests of Significance Related to Personal Character- istics of Respondents for Knowing What Other Departments of the College Expect of My Department. f -__ Total Number Characteristics Score of Cases Mean Variance Significance Experience: . No College 280 368 . 761 . 967 Not College 148 208 . 712 . 992 significant Institutional Factors. Size was the only institutional factor for which there was found to be a significant difference concerning the problem of communication between departments. The difference was found to be 70 significant at the five per cent level (Table 5. 5), those in large institu- tions reporting (more difficulty with this problem than those in small institutions. (See Appendices M and N for results of stages one and two.) Table 5. 5. --Resu1ts of Tests of Significance Associated with Institutional Factors for'Knowing What Other Departments of the College Expect of My Department. ’ 1 Total Number Factor ' Score of Cases Mean; Variance Significance Size: Small 145 242 . 599 . 806 L>S Large 149 190 . 784 . 998 At . 05 Although those in privately controlled institutions and those in undergraduate approved institutions reported more difficulty with this problem than those in publicly controlled and graduate approved institu- tions, reSpectively, differences were not found to be significant. Acquiring Adequate Office Space Personal Characteristics. Although at stage three there was found to be no significant difference in the degree of difficulty with this problem as reported by men and women (Table 5. 6), . men tended to view the acquiring of adequate office space as somewhat more of a problem than women. ,This was also-evident at stage one, seven of the eight groupings at this stage yielding a higher mean of difficulty for men than for women. 'At stage one there was evidence of a significant difference at the five per cent level in the concern about this problem between males and females in the undergraduate institutions (Appendix 0). ‘At stage two significant differences at the five per cent level were found in two of the eight matched-groupings (Appendix P). 71 Table 5. 6. --Results of Tests of Significance Related to Personal “ Characteristics of Respondents for Acquiring Adequate Office Space. Total Number Characteristics Score of Cases Mean Variance Significance Sex: Male 264 341 . 774 1. 333 Not Female 102 151 . 675 1. 130 significant Degree: Non-doctorate 227 257 . 883 1. 339 Not Doctorate 92 133 . 692 l. 231 significant At stage one it also appeared that non-doctorates in graduate approved institutions experienced less difficulty with this problem than did those with doctorates. The difference was found to be significant at the five per cent level. Even though the mean difficulty for non-doctorates exceeded that for doctorates at stage three, the differences did not prove to be significant (Table 5. 6). - No significant differences associated with age or experience were evident at any stage of the investigation of this problem. Institutional Factors. At the stage one level of investigation it appeared that there might be significant differences in the difficulty with which new faculty members in various types of institutions regardedwthe office space problem. At this stage, significant differences at the five per cent level were found in at least one case out of the eight tested for the factors of size, control, and level of approval (Appendix Q). 'At stage two there was only one matched-grouping out of eleven under level of approval yielding a significant difference (Appendix R). No differences related to institutional factors were significant at the third stage (Table 5. 6). The means of the difficulty ratings given this problem by those in large and undergraduate institutions were found to exceed those of small 72 and graduate approved institutions, even though differences were not significant at the five per cent level. Table 5. 7. --Results of Tests of Significance Associated with Institutional Factors for Acquiring Adequate Office Space. m “ Total Number Factor Score of Cases Mean Variance Significance Control: Private 122 157 .777 l. 303 Not Public 145 183 . 792 l. 407 significant Size: Small 170 244 . 697 1. 101 Not Large 158 192 . 823 1. 424 significant Level: Undergraduate 209 242 . 864 l. 521 ‘ Not Graduate 101 155 . 652 1. 086 significant Acquiring Adequate Secretarial Help PersOnal Characteristics. At the first stage of investigation there was evidence that there was a significant difference in how men and women viewed the difficulty of the problem of acquiring adequate secretarial help. Men in small and large, private and public, undergraduate and graduate institutions indicated a higher level of difficulty with this prob- lem than women. .This difference was found to be significant at least at the five per cent level in each case except in the institutions approved for graduate study (Appendix S). ‘ Sex differences in the difficulty of this problem held up through stage two in two of the eight matched-groupings (Appendix T) and stage three of the study (Table 5.8). 73 Table 5. 8. --Results of Tests of Significance Related to Personal Characteristics of ReSpondents for Acquiring Adequate Secretarial Help. Total Number Characteristics Score of) Cases Mean Variance Significance Sex: Male 345 340 1. 015 1. 342 M>F Female 103 146 .706 1.051 At .01 Age: Young 329 348 . . 945 l . 343 Not Old 246 224 1. 054 1. 284 significant Degree: Non-Doctorate 268 258 l. 039 1. 438 Not Doctorate 150 126 l. 190 1. 307 significant Even though there was one of the eleven matched-groupings in the second stage of the study relative to secretarial help problem where there was indication of a significant difference at the five per cent level related to sex, the older faculty members rating the difficulty greater than the younger, this difference did not hold up through stage three (Table 5. 8). -It is evident, therefore, that the level of concern of new faculty members for the acquiring of adequate secretarial help is not significantly tied to the age factor. ' At stage one of the investigation there appeared to be evidence that those with doctorates looked at this problem of acquiring adequate secretarial help as a significantly more difficult problem than did those without doctorates. In small and large, private and public, undergraduate and graduate approved institutions the mean degree of difficulty for those with doctorates exceeded that for non-doctorates. ‘In three instances the differences were found to be significant at the five per cent level (Appendix 8). .These differences did not hold up through stages two (Appendix T) or three of the study. 74 At no stage was there evidence that previous college experience was a factor in the degree of difficulty of acquiring secretarial help. Institutional Factors. There was evidence in the first two stages of the study that those in public institutions view the acquiring of adequate secretarial help as a more critical problem than do those in private institutions (Appendices U and V). While these differences were found to be significant in seven of the eight groupings at stage one and at the five per cent level in one of the matched-groupings at stage two, these dif- ferences did not hold up through stage three (Table 5. 9). Table 5. 9. --Results of Tests of Significance Associated with Institutional Factors for Acquiring Adequate Secretarial Help. Total Number Factor Score of Cases Mean Variance Significance Control: Private 141 155 .910 1.252 Not Public 187 177 1. 056 1. 395 significant Size: Small 237 246 . 963 1. 317 Not Large 193 187 1. 032 1. 239 significant Throughout the three stages of the study those in large institutions indicated more difficulty with this problem than those in small institutions; the differences were not found to be significant (Table 5. 9). ~Understanding College Policies Regarding Promotion and Salary Increases Personal Characteristics. At each stage of the study it was evident that men generally rated the understanding of college policies regarding promotion and salary increases as more of a problem than women. 75 However, at stage one there was one exception to this-~in institutions approved for graduate level study women rated this problem as slightly more difficult than men (Appendix W). In two of the eight matched- groupings at stage two men rated this problem as significantly more difficult at the five per cent level than did women (Appendix X), but these differences did not hold up for totals (Table 5. 10). Table 5. 10. --Results of Tests of Significance Related to Personal Characteristics of Respondents for Understanding College Policies Regtarding Promotion and Salary Increases. Total Number Characteristics Score of Cases Mean Variance Significance Sex: Male 310 344 . 901 1.180 Not Female 110 145 . 759 1. 073 significant Age: Young 343 354 . 969 1.186 Not Old 183 225 .813 1.126 significant There was some evidence that the young new faculty member is more apt to manifest greater concern for understanding promotion and salary policies of the institution than the older new members of the faculty at both stage one and stage two (Appendices W and X). .However, the dif- ference was found to be not significant at stage three. . There was no evidence that either degree held or previous college experience entered into the judgment of new faculty members concerning the difficulty of this problem. Institutional Factors. All institutional variables--nature of control, size, and level of approval by NCA--were tested for significance at the third stage, since there had been some indication at stages one or two (Appendices Y and Z) that each of these might prove to be significant in 76 the rating of the difficulty of the problem regarding the understanding of college policies of promotion and salaries. . Those in public and undergraduate approved institutions reported more difficulty with this problem than those in private and graduate approved institutions. . Both differences were found to be significant at the five per cent level at the third stage (Table 5. ll). . Table 5. ll. --Resu1ts of Tests of Significance Associated with‘Institutional ‘ Factors For Understanding College Policies Regarding Promotions and Salary Increases. Total Number Factor Score of: Cases Mean Variance Significance Control: Private 126 156 . 808 1. 047 Pu>Pr Public 192 182 1.066 1.358 At .05 Size: Small 205 248 . 827 l. 164 Not Large 183 190 . 963 1. 152 significant Level: ‘ Undergraduate 247 240 1. 029 l. 234 U>G Graduate 119 156 .763 1.111 'At .05 While those in large institutions tended to report more difficulty with the problem of understanding policies regarding promotions and salaries than did those in small institutions, the difference was not sig- nificant . Lack of Teachinngids Personal» Characteristics. »Men evidenced a higher level of concern than women over the lack of teaching aids. 'At stages one and two there was some indication that this difference might be significant (Appendices 77 AA and BB), but this difference did not hold through stage three and therefore the significance was rejected (Table 5.12). Table 5. 12. --Results of Tests of Significance Related to Personal Characteristics of Respondents for Lack of Teaching Aids. 4. ' 1% Total Number Characteristics Score of Cases Mean Variance Significance - Sex: Male 297 338 . 879 1. 080 Not Female 109 148 . 736 . 995 significant Age: Young 334 346 . 965 1.160 Y>O Old 179 227 .789 .964 At .05 Young new faculty members reported more difficulty with this prob- lem than did the older members, the difference being significant at the five per cent level. (Appendix BB; Table 5. 12). This difference was evident at stages two and three At stage one older faculty members in graduate institutions indicated greater difficulty with this problem than did the younger members. -Degrees held or previous college experience did not appear to be significant factors in the difficulty ratings assigned by new faculty members to the lack of teaching aids. ~ Institutional Factors. Only one of the institutional factors--level of approval by NCA--appeared as a possible significant factor in how new faculty members viewed the difficulty of the lack of teaching aids. . Those in institutions approved for undergraduate study rated this as more of a problem than those in graduate approved institutions; differences were found to be significant for two of the matched-groupings tested in stage one (Appendix CC). 'At stage three differences were not significant (Table 5.13). 78 Table 5. 13. --Results of Tests of Significance Associated with Institutional Factors for Lack of Teaching Aids. Total Number Factor Score of Cases Mean Variance Significance Level: Undergraduate 215 237 . 907 1.127 Not Graduate 113 156 . 724 . 909 significant Personal Characteristics . Developing Effective Lectur e s Two personal factors, experience and age, evidently make considerable differences in how much difficulty new faculty members have with thi‘ problem. The younger faculty member and those with no previous college teaching experience report a higher degree of difficulty with this problem than do the older, experienced members. The difference related to the experience factor was found sig- nificant at the one per cent level; the age factor, at the five per cent level at stage three (Table 5.14). Table 5.14. --Results of Tests of Significance Related to Personal Characteristics of ReSpondents for DevelOping Effective Lectures. ._'7 Total Number Characteristics Score of Cases Mean Variance Significance Age: Young 272 351 . 775 . 701 Y>O Old 145 226 .642 .693 At .05 Degree: Non-Doctorate 194 260 . 746 . 756 Not Doctorate 88 133 . 662 . 726 significant Experience: No College 288 367 .785 .732 NC>C College 108 215 .502 .606 At .01 79 Those not having doctorates reported more difficulty with this problem than those with doctorates (Table 5. l4). ~At stage one there was some evidence that the amount of education might be a significant factor, since three of the six groups tested were significant at the five per cent level (Appendix EE) . However, at stage three the difference was not found to be significant. - At no stage of this investigation was sex evident as a significant factor regarding the degree of difficulty of the problem of develOping effective lectures (Appendices EE and FF). Institutional Factor 3 . At stage one there was found to be a higher degree of difficulty in develOping effective lectures reported by those in private institutions than by those in public institutions. Among males and doctorate faculty members these differences were significant at the five per cent level; among those with no previous college experience, at the one per cent level (Appendix GG). At stage three, this difference was not significant (Table 5. 15) even though the mean difficulty rating on this problem remained higher for those in private institutions than for those in public institutions. Table 5. 15. --Results of Tests of Significance Associated with Institutional ' Factors for DevelopingEffective Lectures. Total Number Factor Score of Cases Mean Variance Significance Control: Private 110 158 . 696 . 684 Not Public 121 182 .665 .655 significant Level: Undergraduate 150 240 . 625 . 643 Not Graduate 97 155 . 626 . 721 significant 80 Neither size of institution nor level of approval by NCA proved to be significant factors in how faculty members serving in those institutions responded to the degree of difficulty they encountered with developing effective lectures. The level factor was tested at the third stage since one of the nine matched-groupings at stage two indicated the possibility of a significant difference (Appendix HH). Using Effective Discussion Techniques Personal Characteristics. At the first stage of investigation it appeared that both age and experience might be factors in the intensity with which new faculty members view the difficulty of using effective discussion techniques. The young faculty members and those with no previous college experience tended to rate the difficulty of this problem higher than those who were older and had had previous college teaching experience. ,There were significant differences at the one per cent level in the difficulty ratings given by the young and older faculty members in large, publicly controlled, and graduate institutions; at the five per cent level, in small, private, and undergraduate institutions. There was a significant difference at the five per cent level between the degree of difficulty with this instructional problem as reported by those who had had no college experience and those who had had experience in privately controlled institutions; at the one per cent level between these two groups in graduate approved institutions(Appendix-II). There was also evidence that those with no college experience viewed this as a more difficult problem than those with experience in one of the eleven matched-group- ings tested (Appendix JJ). ‘As presented in Table 5. l6, the'age characteristic did not prove to be significant at stage three, but the experience factor did. 81 Table 5.16. --Results of Tests of Significance Related to Personal Characteristics of ReSpondents for Using Effective Discussion Techniques. Total . Number Characteristics Score 1 of Cases Mean Variance Significance Age: . Young 260 345 . 754 .779 Not Old 148 225 .658 . 771 significant Experience: No College 273 366 .746 .826 NC>C College 119 211 .564 .695 At .05 Institutional Factor 5 . Both control and level factors were tested at the third stage since there was some evidence at. the first stage of investi- gation that each of these might be significant variables in the difficulty of using effective discussion techniques as reported by new faculty members. Those in private institutions generally reported more difficulty with this problem than did those in public institutions. At stage one these differ- ences were found to be significant at the one per cent level for those with no previous college experience; at the five per cent level for males and those without doctorates (Appendix KK). Differences did not prove to be significant at the third stage for either the control or level of approval factors (Table 5.17). Table 5. 17. --Results of Tests of Significance Associated with Institutional Factors for Using Effective Discussion Techniques. Total Number Factor Score of Cases Mean Variance Significance Control: Private 116 157 .739 .797 Not Public 118 177 .667 . 780 significant Level: Undergraduate 143 235 . 609 . 684 Not Graduate 98 154 . 636 . 769 significant . 82 Summary In Chapter I it was hypothesized that there are no significant dif- ferences in the critical problems perceived by new faculty members related to (1) personal characteristics such as sex, age, level of prepara- tion, or previous professional experience and (2) institutional factors suchas size, nature of control, or level of instruction for which insti- tutions are accredited by NCA. From the information presented here these two hypotheses can not be accepted. A summary of the findings regarding each of the personal and institutional factors as related to the critical problems follows. Level of preparation was the only personal characteristic in this study which'was not related to the level of concern of new faculty mem- bers for the critical problems they identified. For the eight critical problems examined in this study, new faculty with doctorates and those not possessing doctorates viewed these problems with similar intensity. Age proved to be a significant factor in the intensity of concern by new faculty members for two of the critical problems. The young indicated a greater concern than the older faculty members for two of the three instructional problems, - Lack of teaching aids and Developing effective lectures. Sex was found to be a significant factor in the intensity of concern by new faculty members for the only personal problem identified as being critical,- Finding suitable living quarters, and for one of the four insti- tutional problems, Acquiringadequate secretarial help. . In both iof these, men reported a higher degree of intensity than women. Differences were significant at the one per cent level. -In the final analysis there was no evidence of sex differences in the intensity of concern for the three instructional problems. 83 Experience proved to be a significant factor in the level of concern of new faculty members for two of the three instructional problems, but not for any of the critical personal or institutional problems. Those withu out previous college experience reported that DevelOping effective lectures and Using effective discussion techniques gave them more dif- ficulty than was reported by those with college experience. The institutional factor of size was found to be a significant factor in the level of concern by new faculty members for only one of the four instructional problems, Knowing what other departments expect of my department. Those in large institutions reported this as more of a prob- lem than those in small institutions. » Size was not found to be a significant factor in the identification of critical problems of a personal or instruc- tional nature. Nature of control was found to be a significant factor in the intens- ity of concern by new faculty members for two of the critical problems, the personal problem of housing and the institutional problem regarding the understanding of college promotion and salary policies. Those in public institutions reported greater difficulty with these problems than did those in private institutions. The difference was significant at the one per cent level on the housing problem. Differences in the intensity of the critical problems of an instructional nature as related to the nature of control of the institutions was not apparent. - Level of approval by NCA was found to be a significant factor in the level of concern by new faculty members for only one of the critical problems. Those serving in undergraduate approved institutions reported a higher level of concern for the problem regarding the understanding of college promotion and salary policies than did those serving in the graduate approved institutions. A summary of the findings regarding each of the critical problems as related to the personal and institutional variables of the study follows. 84 Finding suitable living quarters. Men and those serving in public institutions indicated a higher level of concern for this problem than did women and those serving in private institutions. Differences were sig- nificant at the one per cent level. No other personal or institutional factors were found to be significant. Knowing what other departments expect of my department. No per- sonal factor was found to be significant. One institutional factor was found to be significant, those in large institutions viewing this as more of a problem than those in small institutions. Acquiring adequate office Space. No personal or institutional factors were found to be significant. Acquiring adequate secretarial help. Men reported a considerably higher level of concern for this problem than did women. The difference was significant at the one per cent level. No other personal or institu- tional factor proved significant. Understanding college policies regarding promotions and salary increases. Two of the factors tested proved to be significant. Those serving in public and undergraduate approved institutions reported higher levels of difficulty with this problem than did those serving in private and graduate approved institutions. Lack of teaching aids. Only the age variable proved significant, the young identifying this as a problem of more intensity than the older faculty membe r s . Developing effective lectures. The young and the faculty members with no previous college teaching experience reported a higher level of concern for this problem than did the older and college experienced faculty members. There was a significant difference at the one per cent level in the degree of difficulty related to the experience factor. 85 Using effective discussion techniques. The new faculty members with no previous college teaching experience reported a higher degree of difficulty with this problem than did those with college teaching experience. The three critical problems of an instructional nature have been summarized immediately above. 'It will be noted that only two of the seven personal and institutional factors tested, age and sex, proved to be significant. Not one of the institutional factors tested was found to be significant. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS In this chapter the findings of the study are summarized, general conclusions drawn, and suggestions made for further study. Summary The Problem. This study had as its problem the identification and analysis of critical problems as perceived by new faculty members in North Central Association colleges and universities of less than 3, 000 enrollment and the identification of faculty-determined helpfulness of administrative procedures in assisting them to resolve their problems. Method of Collecting Data. A four-page questionnaire was the primary method used in collecting data for the study. In this question- naire were listed fifty problems found by preliminary examination most likely to be among the critical problems which new faculty members would identify. Participants in the study were asked to check the intensity and persistence of each of these problems and to add others. Problems were listed under three headings: personal, institutional, and instructional. A second section of the questionnaire asked participants to evalu- ate the effectiveness of twenty-five administrative practices which might be used in helping them resolve their problems, and to indicate if they were in use in the institutions in which they were serving. 86 87 Questionnaires were mailed to 1771 first- and third-year faculty members in 144 stratified randomly selected NCA institutions near the close of the 1959-60 college year. Follow-up questionnaires brought a total response of 66 per cent. Hypotheses, Methods Used for Testing, and Findings. Following are the hypotheses as set forth in Chapter I, a summary of the methods used to investigate each as outlined in Chapter II, and the findings: Hypothesis 1. There are certain problems which new faculty members perceive as being more critical than other problems. (Sub- Hypothesis: Some problems of a personal nature, some of an institu- tional nature, and some of an instrutional nature are included in the problems perceived as being most critical.) Method: A weighted scale technique was used for determining the critical problems. Problems "great” in difficulty were valued at three; "moderate" in difficulty as two; "slight" in difficulty as one; designated as "never a problem" as zero. Problems with the highest mean dif- ficulty rating were declared the critical problems. .Findings: One personal problem, four institutional problems, and three instructional problems were found to be most critical. The personal problem was Finding suitable living quarters, ranking second in difficulty. Institutional problems were: Acquiring adequate secre- tarial help, ranking first in difficulty; Understanding college policies regarding promotions and salary increases, ranking third; Acquiring adequate office Space, ranking fifth; and Knowing what other departments expect of my department, ranking sixth. Instructional problems were: Lack of teaching aids, ranking fourth; Using effective discussion tech- niques in class, ranking seventh; and Developing effective lectures, ranking eighth. Findings warrant the acceptance of the hypothesis. 88 Hypothesis 2. New faculty members who have served three years in NCA institutions view their problems of a personal, institutional, and instructional nature as persisting to a much less degree than do those who have served just one year in these same institutions. Method: Percentages of persistence of each of the fifty problems were determined for all first- and third-year faculty members who had declared they had experienced some difficulty with these problems since being employed at the present NCA institution. Percentages of persist- ence were also determined for all personal, institutional, and instruc- tional problems of first- and third-year faculty members. Comparisons were made between these persistence percentages. Findings: Responses from all participants in the study indicated that one personal problem, six institutional problems, and three instruc- tional problems with which they had experienced some difficulty were still persisting at a high level, 80 per cent or more. Problems of a personal nature were reported as persisting by 64. 7 per cent of the first- year faculty members who had experienced some difficulty with them and by 58. 9 per cent of the third-year faculty members. Differences in persistence of problems of an institutional nature and of an instructional nature between first- and third-year faculty members was even less than that found for personal problems. ' Persistence of problems of an institutional nature dropped from 69. 3 to 65. 8 per cent; the persistence of instructional problems remained at about the same level, 71. 4 as compared to 71. 2 per cent. Findings warrant the rejection of this hypothesis. Hypothesis 3. There are no significant differences in the degree of difficulty of the critical problems perceived by new faculty members regardless of such personal factors as sex, age, level of preparation, or previous professional experience. 89 Method: Each critical problem was tested for differences in responses related to each of the four personal factors by a three-stage process. The _t_ test for significance was applied in each stage. Findings: Level of preparation, possession or non-possession of a doctorate, was the only personal characteristic of the four investigated that did not appear to have some bearing on the degree of difficulty new faculty members experienced with the critical problems they faced. ' Age appeared to be a significant factor in the degree of difficulty of two of the critical problems; sex, two; and experience, one. . Findings warrant the rejection of this hypothesis. Hypothesis 4. There are no significant differences in the degree of difficulty of the critical problems perceived by new faculty members re- gardless of such institutional factors as size, nature of control, or level of instruction for which institutions are accredited by NCA. Method: Each critical problem was tested for differences in reSponseS related to each of the three institutional factors by a three- stage process. The _t_ test for significance was applied in each stage. Findings: All institutional factors tested appeared to be significant factors in the difficulty experienced by new faculty members in at least one critical problem out of the eight; control appeared to be significant in two. Findings warrant the rejection of this hypothesis. Conclusions Some of the Specific conclusions reached as a result of this study have already been stated in the closing parts of chapters in which data were presented and summarized. .General conclusions which seem apparent from this study are listed below: 9O 1. Some personal, institutional, and instructional problems which have faced new faculty members in NCA colleges and universities of less than 3, 000 enrollment remain as problems to them after three years of service. 2. In the Opinion of new faculty members in NCA colleges and universities a higher per cent of their problems of a personal nature and those associated with the institutions in which they are serving are being solved to their satisfaction than are those problems of an instruc- tional nature, although no instructional problem is found among the top three problems identified as most critical. 3. The orientation and in-service programs of NCA colleges and universities are failing to come to grips with instructional problems as perceived by new faculty members. 4. The characteristics of NCA new faculty members used as variables in this study do not seem to be much different than the characteristics of new faculty members being employed in similar institutions throughout the country and therefore the findings here might have implications for more than NCA institutions. Such, however, could not be tested since exact comparable data regarding the characteristics of new faculty members being employed in similar institutions through- out the United States is not available. Further research would be necessary to prove this hypothesis. 5.- Not only do the orientation and in-service techniques used by administrators in NCA colleges and universities as evaluated by new faculty members vary in quantity but also in degree of helpfulness in resolving problems of new faculty. This was evident from the wide range of degree of helpfulness ratings given the twenty-five adminis- trative procedures used in the questionnaire (Appendix F). 6. The high reSponse from the questionnaire, requests which have come to the author for c0pies of the questionnaire and results of the 91 study by administrators and faculty members give evidence that there is a high degree of interest in the improvement of orientation and in- service programs among NCA institutions through discovery of faculty determined critical problems. 7. The statistical summary of the relationships between the critical problems identified by new faculty members and variables used in this study was given in Chapter V. From the data compiled in this part of the study the author draws the following general conclusions: a. Each of the personal characteristics, except level of preparation, and all of the institutional factors used as variables has some bearing upon the degree of difficulty of critical problems as identified by new faculty members. Since there is no one of these institutional or personal vari- ables where a significant difference in the degree of difficulty is evident for each of the critical problems, general predictions can not be made concerning the relationship which might be expected between the institu- tional and personal factors and the degree of difficulty of identified critical problems. b. Men members of the faculty have a tendency to report a signifi- cantly higher degree of difficulty with the problems of housing and acquiring adequate secretarial assistance than do women, but there appears to be no sex difference in the identification of critical problems of an instructional nature. c. Young members of the faculty have more difficulty with prob- lems of an instructional nature than do the older members who join NCA faculties. In two of the three critical instructional problems problems in this study--Developing effective lectures and Lack of teaching aids-- these differences were found to be significant at the five per cent level. d. New faculty members who have had no previous college experi- ence have more difficulty with instructional problems identified by all new faculty members as being critical than do those who have had 92 previous college experience. Differences were found to be significant in two of the three critical problems tested-~Deve10ping effective lectures, at the one per cent level, and Using effective discussion techniques, at the five per cent level. Experience does not appear to be a significant factor in the degree of difficulty of other than instruc- tional problems. e. Those new faculty members serving in colleges and universities with enrollments of 1, 000 to 3, 000 are more apt to recognize the diffi- culty they experience in solving their critical personal and institutional problems than are those serving in smaller institutions. However, in this study there was found to be a significant difference at the five per cent level related to size of institution for only one problem, that of Knowing what other departments expect of my department. f. Those serving in public institutions are more apt to have a greater degree of difficulty than those in private institutions with the problems of housing and understanding college policies regarding promo- tion and salary increases. Those in private institutions tend to report more difficulty with instructional problems than those in public institu- tions, but no significant differences were evident. g. New faculty members serving in institutions approved for graduate study and those serving in institutions approved for only under- graduate programs by NCA apparently do not view critical problems of a personal or instructional nature significantly different in difficulty. However, those in undergraduate institutions evidence a higher degree of difficulty inUnderstanding college policies regarding promotions and salary increases than do those in graduate approved institutions. The difference was found to be significant at the five per cent level. 8. It became evident as the study progressed from one stage of investigation of the critical problems to the next that conclusions in studies of this kind having the same raw data could differ widely depend- ing upon the method of analysis chosen. If the investigator had stopped 93 at stage one, the conclusions relative to the relationship between the intensity of the critical problems and the personal and institutional characteristics of the respondents would have been considerably dif- ferent than they were. In Table 6. 1 will be found a summary of the results of the investi- gation of the degree of difficulty of the critical problems at the initial and final stages of investigation. It will be noted that there were five areas having differences significant in at least one-half the groups tested at stage one which were not significant at.stage three. In three areas significant differences were found at stage three that"were not evident at stage one. Suggestions for Further Study As this study progressed it became apparent that there were additional studies which might be made to shed further light upon the problems of new faculty members in institutions of higher education in the United States so that in-service and orientation programs might be made more effective. Following are listed some of those suggestions: 1. Data collected for this study might be analyzed further to determine (a) if the degree of difficulty on critical problems identified by new faculty members are significantly related to the turn-over of faculty members in these institutions; (b) if there are certain types of institutions which by faculty evaluation seem to be using better adminis— trative techniques of aiding new faculty members to meet their problems than other types of institutions; (c) if the critical problems perceived by those who aspire to positions other than the ones they are now holding are different from the critical problems perceived by those who do not aspire to other types of positions; (d) if the critical problems identified by either males or females are related to their marital status. 94 6:0 6&36 ad “on 66.2: 6m6um um uc63>6 626.83% “266$“:me mo Goflo6§p "“3639: .N ”66.23 6m6u6 um a0: 6366a 695nm 65 mo 36: ”.663 “6 a“ 6G0 6&36 um “c6326 6oc6n6wmwp unmowficmwm 63.66223 W ”66.23 .93 6:0 6w6um anon, um E3656 6uc6n6mfip 3663336 mo con—663p 6363?: N "maongm mo cofimcmaxm * Lli N .w 66.93563 scammdomwp 6236636 wnwmb 66.3563 6>366wm6 mcaoH6>6Q 636 3:36.66» m0 #664 66666uusw >u6fimm pad mnofloaonm magnum?" mowoflom 6m6206 mnwpcmumumpsb Ems Hmwu6u6uo6m 36.55666 mfiugwo’w 66.6mm 6330 3.636666 mcwuflavo< us6§umm6p >5 mo «6693 muc6§umm6p u6fio “6:3 msgoafi - X X * 6.33.636 magi 63.336 mugs?” H6564 HouusoO 22.6 66C6wn6|nwnm N6m 66ya 6m< .mngodh adsoflgfimaa m oflmwugomngflu H.986 n6nm mafia—Ohm #66320. 1' .1 ll. .6633. 9.3 6G0 66mmum cw peach 6H6? E630um ~663qu aomm MOM >fidoflmmfl mo 66nm6Q a: m6os6u6wfifl unmoflfinmfim £633 Gm 666.1% mo ”86269330.... .H .c 636M. 95 2. Since critical problems of new faculty members were determined by a weighted scale technique and analyzed through use of a central tendency there no doubt are certain problems which new faculty members have an inclination to rate at the extremes of the difficulty scale as "no problem" or "great" in magnitude that are not revealed as critical by this analysis. - Such could be undertaken with the data on hand by studying only the extremes in responses instead of using a weighted scale technique. 3. Administrators of the same institutions as used in this study might be surveyed as to their ratings of the effectiveness of administra- tive procedures they have used in aiding faculty adjustment. 4.’ A follow-up study of those who have left institutions at their own or the administration's initiative might be conducted to determine the relation between the critical problems identified by these two groups and those who have remained in these institutions for at least three years. 5. Since this study involved only Opinions of faculty members from institutions of less than 3, 000 enrollment, a study could be made of the opinions of new faculty members in similar NCA institutions of more than 3, 000 concerning their problems and their evaluation of adminis- trative procedures used in assisting them to resolve their problems. 6. Since this study involved only faculty members in colleges and universities having at least four-year programs, a similar study might be made of problems of faculty members at the Junior College level. 7. ' Studies similar to this study might be conducted outside the NCA area to determine if regions of the United States make a difference in problems perceived by new faculty members to be most critical. 8.- Since the 'methodology in this study involved the identification of critical problems of new faculty members by those who would admit to experiencing these problems, a more impersonal approach might be made by asking them to identify the presence and degree of difficulty of problems which other new faculty members experience. 96 9.~ Since the conclusions drawn in this study relative to the degree of difficulty of the critical problems as related to the personal and institutional characteristics of the respondents were based upon a system of combining matched-groupings, it is suggested that the same procedure might be used in any comparative study to be done in the future. As evi- denced in this chapter, other methods of analysis might yield quite different results. CHAPTER VII IMPLICATIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES This study has been particularly concerned with the identification of the critical problems of new faculty members in NCA institutions of less than 3, 000 enrollment and the evaluation of techniques used by administrators in assisting staff members to resolve their problems. If the conclusions drawn in the preceding chapter are valid, the results of this study should have implications for all administrators in colleges Similar to those used in this study who have anything to do with the plan- ning for or the execution of any orientation or in-service programs for new faculty members. Even though institutional factors used as variables in this study help to indicate to the administrator the problems of greatest difficulty he might expect new faculty members in his institution to have, each institution has some unique features which can not be accounted for in a study of this nature. Administrators should make an attempt to discover the problems of adjustment that are causing new faculty members in their particular institution the most concern, since there may be critical problems in their institution which are not reflected as such by this or any Similar study. Any administrator must realize that the study of individual prob- lems of faculty members is essential if the best possible in-service program is to be made available to the new faculty members on his staff. Even though this study shows some major problems with which the administrator needs to be concerned, the success or failure of any 97 98 orientation and in-service program will be determined by any new faculty member in light of the assistance such program gives him in solving his problems. Administrators need to be concerned about the problems of provid- ing adequate secretarial help and adequate office Space for their new faculty members. These were indicated among the top eight most critical problems by those in this study. They may be there because the new faculty members see the differences between the secretarial assist- ance and office space alloted to them and that which has been alloted to older members of the faculty; they may see these as status symbols and for this reason view tham as problems. ’Nevertheless, to the new faculty members these are real problems. ,‘Administrators need to take a close look at the situation in their institutions to know if they too evaluate these as real problems. If such is the case, administrative plans should be made for more adequate office space and additional secretarial help for their new faculty members. This study not only has implications for the administrator who is planning the orientation and inrservice program of new faculty members but also for anyone who is assisting the prospective college teacher to take a look at the profession as it is and to plan his pre-service edu- cation so that the critical problems will be minimized for him. Implications for improvement of orientation and in-service pro- grams based upon findings of this study include the following: 1.1 New faculty members should not be assigned immediately to faculty committees. They should be given time to become acquainted with the institution and its policies through other means. 2. Administrators should plan for introduction of new faculty members to other faculty members soon after arrival on campus, followed by regularly scheduled faculty meetings and an open door administrative policy if, in the eyes of new faculty members, they are 99 to have the most effective means of helping new faculty members resolve their problems. 3. ‘Administrators might pay more attention to the housing of new faculty members. Men, in particular, find this to be a pressing personal problem as they begin their duties in NCA colleges and univer- sities. Institutional housing or a housing service in cooperation with community real estate dealers are possible solutions. 4.. The orientation and in-service programs designed 'to assist the young new faculty members to resolve their instructional problems probably Should be more intense than those for Older faculty members, since this study reveals a higher level of difficulty with critical problems of instruction as reported by the young faculty members. Since the younger faculty members realize their instructional weaknesses, they should benefit greatly from any assistance given them. Instructional deans might well assume the major responsibility for this assistance in small institutions; division or department heads, in large institutions. Regular Opportunity for young new faculty members to meet with those assisting them to improve their teaching methods should be a part of the administrative plan of every institution. In addition to discussing any special problems of instruction or evaluation of instruction which they face, the group might read and discuss such books as Gilbert Highet's The Art of Teaching. 5. Orientation and in-service programs for new faculty members who have had no previous college experience should be geared to assist- ing them to develop effective lectures and to use effective discussion techniques, since it is in these areas where the inexperienced college teacher indicates a high degree of difficulty. Deans or others in charge of improving instruction should not overlook the possibilities Of assist- ance to these inexperienced college teachers through such teachniques as seminars on college teaching and classroom visitations. Although visits to classes was not given a high use or helpfulness rating by those 100 in this study, the writer believes that such assistance to the inexperienced college teacher by an understanding supervisor would help him gain con- fidence in meeting his instructional problems. 6. Administrators in large institutions should make a real effort to see that communication between departments is improved. »New faculty members in institutions over 1, 000 enrollment in this study feel that they do not know what other departments Of the college or university expect of the department in which they are serving. This might be accomplished through a sharing of the curriculum plans at faculty meetings; through special faculty bulletins in which each department presents what it believes its curricular responsibilities to be; through department heads giving to new faculty members in their departments at the pre-school conference and throughout the year what they believe other departments of the college or university expect from their department. 7.- Since this study reveals a relatively high difficulty level by new faculty members serving in public institutions concerning faculty housing and understanding college policies regarding promotions and salary increases, administrators in these institutions might see what could and should be done locally to assist in resolving these problems. 8.‘ Administrators in public NCA undergraduate approved institutions might find it advisable to strengthen their attempt to promote an under- standing of college policies regarding promotions and salary increases since this was not only recognized as a critical problem by all those in this study but was found to be more of a problem to those in public and undergraduate approved institutions than to those in private institutions and those accredited for graduate study. . Some of this lack of understanding regarding this policy may stem from a failure on the part of the adminis- tration to have a systematized method for assessing the quality of teach- ing being done, rather than a matter of communication. If this is the case, a more systematized method of evaluation should be developed. BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS Barzun, Jacques. Teacher in America. Boston: Oxford, Brown and CO. , 1945. Bixler, Harold H. ‘Check List for Educational Research. ‘New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1928. Blegen, Theodore C. , and COOper, Russel M. (eds. ). The Preparation of College Teachers. American Council of Education Studies, Series I, Vol. XIV. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1950. Buxton, Claude E. ‘College Teaching, A Psychologist's View. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company, 1956. Byram, Harold M. Some Problems in the Provision of Professional Edu- cation for College Teachers. Teachers College Contribution to Education No. 576. New York: Bureau of Publications, Columbia University, 1933. Cooper, Russell M. , and Others. Better Colleges--Better Teachers. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1944. Cronkhite, Bernice Brown (ed. ). A Handbook for College Teachers. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1950. Daniel, R. S. , and Louttit, . C. M. Professional Problems in Psychology. New York: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1953. Diekhoff, John S. Tomorrow's Professors. A Report of the College Faculty Internship Program. New York: The Fund for the Advance- ment of Education, 1960. ‘ Eckert,,Ruth’E. "The Preparation of College Teachers, " Current Trends in Higher Education, edited by Ralph W. McDonald. Washington, D.C.:.- Department of Higher Education, National Education Associ- ation, 1948. 101 102 Edwards, Allen L. Experimental Design in Psychological Research. New York: Rinehart and Company, 1954. Edwards, ‘ E. "Social Change and the Education of College Teachers, " The Preparation and In-service Training of College Teachers, edited by William S. Gray. Vol. X, '1938. Proceedings of the Institute for Administrative Officers of Higher Institutions. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1938. Elsbree, Willard S. The American Teacher. New York: The American Book Company, 1939. Garrison, Lloyd A. "Preparation of College Teachers, " Current Trends in Higher Education, edited by Ralph W. McDonald. Washington, D. C.: Department of Higher Education, National Education Associ- ation, 1949. Good, Carter V., Barr, A. S., and Scates, Douglas E. The Methodology of Educational Research. New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, 1941. Gray, William S. "Professional Education of College Teachers, " The Study of College Instruction. Yearbook Of the National Society of College Teachers of Education, No. 27. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1939. Kelley, William. The Inservice Growth of the College Teacher. Omaha: Creighton University Press, 1950. Kelly, Fred .1. (ed. ). Improving College Instruction. Washington: American Council on Education, 1950. Toward Better College Teaching. Bulletin NO. 13, 1950. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1950. - Klapper, . Paul. ”Problems in College Teaching, " The Preparation of College Teachers, edited by Theodore C. Blegen and Russell M. (Cooper. American Council on Education Studies, Series I, Vol. XIV. Washington, D. C.: AmericanCouncil on Education, 1950. McKeachie, Wilbert, and Kimble, Gregary. Teaching Tips, A Guide Book for the Beginning College Teacher. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The George Wahr Publishing Company, 1953. National Conference on Higher Education. (Current Trends in Higher Education. Washington: National Education Association of U. S. , 1949. 103 President's Conference on Higher Education. Higher Education for American Democracy. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1947. Tead, Ordway. College Teaching and College Learning. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1949. 'ARTICLES, BULLETINS, AND PERIODICALS Alexander, W. B., Sheedy, C. E., anister, A. O. "Higher Education as a Field of Study; Inservice Training of College Teachers, " Current Issues in Higher Education, 1957, pp. 56-63. American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Orienting New Faculty, Vol. XII, No. 13 Bulletin, January 29, 1960. Anderson, Harold A. "The Preparation of College Teachers, " Journal of the National Education Association, XL (May, 1951), 343. Bain, Read. "College Teaching, " American Association of University Professors Bulletin, XXXI, Issue 1, 48-59. Bogardus, E. S. "Teaching Problems of Young Sociologists, " Sociology and Social Research, . XXXVIII (January-February, 1954), 174-82; also "Special Problems of Young Sociologists, " (March-April, 1954), 242-52. Bowman, C. C. "The Administrator and the Professor, ” American Association of University Professors Bulletin, XXXII (1946), 678-86. » Eckert, Ruth E. "A New Design for the Training of College Teachers, " Junior College Journal, XVIII (September, 1947), 25-33. ”Some Neglected ASpects in the Preparation of College Teachers, " Journal of General Education, III (January, 1949), 137-44. Eells, W.,C. "Journals Publishing Articles on College Teachers and College Teaching, " American Association of University Professors Bulletin,-XLIII (September, 1957), 458-60. Elder, . F. 4K. "Improvement of College Instruction, ” Educational Adminis- tration and Supervision, XXXV (December, 1949), 457-88. Fleming, E. M. "Good Teaching is Our Most Important Job, " North Central Association Quarterly, XXXVIII (April, 1954), 367-69. 104 French, C. .C. "Significant Problems Involved in the Improvement of Instruction in Colleges, " Southern Association Quarterly, XI (May, 1947), 359-62. Goodhartz, Abraham S. "Selection and Induction of New Faculty Members, " The Journal of Educational Sociology, XXVI (January, 1953), 187-93. Hattery, Lowell H. “Joys and Sorrows of College Teaching, " School and Society, October 9, 1948, 241-43. Hollis, H. V. "Problems in the Preparation Of College Teachers, " American Association of University Professors Bulletin, XXVII (Spring, 1941), 206—12. Horn, T. D. “Good Teachers: Whose responsibility?" Journal of Teacher Education, VIII (December, 1957), 354—55. Houston, N. V. and Umstattd, James G. "Teacher Personnel Problems in Junior and Senior Colleges and Universities, " Review Of Edu- cational Research, XXVIII (June, 1958), 234-41. Inlow, 7H. E. "Problems Of the Beginning Teachers, ” Educational Administration and Supervision, . XXVIII (September, 1942), 414-25. Kelly, . F. J. ”How Do Faculty Members Like Their Jobs ?“ Higher Education, V (May, 1949), 193-96. Lewis, E. M. “The Beginning College Teacher, " Journal of Higher Education, (January, 1947), 41-42. Lindquist, C. B. "Recent Practices Relating to Faculty in Institutions of Higher Education: Preliminary Report, " Higher Education, XV (November, 1958), 41~47. McKune, L. E. ”Teachers and Teaching, " North Central Association Quarterly, XXXII (April, 1958), 361-63. McPheeters, A. A. "Toward Improving College Instruction, ” Association of American College Bulletin, XXXVIII (December, 1952L 137-44. Michael, Lloyd S. “Oriontating New Teachers, "' Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, ‘ XXXIV (December, 1950L 72-78. 105 Mitchell, Kathryn A. "Orientation of the Newly Appointed Teacher; Prevailing Practices in New Jersey, " Bulletin of National Association of Secondary School Principals, XXXIV (May, 1955), 80-88. Morse, H. T. "Conference on College Teaching: Minnesota Centennial Conference on College Teaching, " Journal of Higher Education, XXIX (June, 1958), 293-300. National Education Association, "First Year Teachers in 1954-1955, " Research Bulletin, XXXIV, NO. 1 (February, 1956). Nolan, Aretas W. Techniques Used in Dealing with Certain Problems of College Teaching, (University of Illinois Bulletin), XXVI, NO. 40 (June 4, 1929), p. 25. -North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, "List of Accredited Institutions of Higher Education, July 1, 1959, " The North Central Association Quarterly, XXXIV (July, 1959), 16-28. Pace, C. R. "The Preparation of College Teachers, " Review of Edu- cational Research, XIX (June, 1949), 230-34. Reeves, Floyd W. "Survey of Current Methods in the In-Service Train- ing Of College Teachers, ” The Training Of College Teachers. Proceedings of the Institute for Administrative Officers of Higher Institutions, 11, 133-46. Smith, Henry P. ”A Study of the Problems of Beginning Teachers, " ' Educational Administration and Supervision, XXXVI (May, 1950), 257-64. ' Stripling, R. O. ”Orientation Practices for New College Faculty Members, " Bulletin of American Association of University Professors, No. 40 (1954-55), 555-62. . ”Problems of New Members Of the College Faculty, " Clearing House, XXVII (February, 1953), 356-62. Sullivan, - R. H. ”Administrative-Faculty Relationships in Colleges and Universities, " Journal of Higher Education, XXVII (June, 1956), 308-26. 106 Taylor, George R. "Faculty Orientation at Amherst, " Faculty Prepara- tion and Orientation. Proceedings of a Regional Conference Sponsored by the New England Board of Higher Education, ed. John W. Gustad. Winchester, Mass.: New England Board of Higher Education, 1960, 93-96. ‘ U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Education Directory, 1959-1960, Part 3, Higher Education. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1959. Wallace, Morris S. "New Teachers' Evaluation of Induction Techniques, " North Central Association Quarterly, XXV (April, 1951), 381-82. "Problems Experienced by 136 New Teachers During Their Induction into Service, " NorthkCentral Association Quarterly, XXV (January, 1951), 291-309. . "The Induction of New Teachers Into School and Community, " North Central Association Quarterbr, XXV (October, 1950), 238-51. Williams, Kenneth R. , and Jenkins, Adele M. "Improving Instruction in Institutions of Higher Education, " Educational Record, XXIX (April, 1948), 145-61. Williamson, A. V. ”Effective Teaching at the College Level, " Associ- ation of American Colleges Bulletin, XXXIII (Winter, 1947), 645-51. Yauch, Wilbur A. "Helping the New Teacher to Success, ” Educational Forum, XX (November, 1955), 37-43. OTHER SOURCES Garrett, Cyril D. "A Study of the Inservice Improvetnent Programs of Eight Liberal Arts Colleges. “ Unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1957. Kidd, Rex C. "The Irriprovement ofthe Pre_-_S_e_rvice Education of Under- graduate Colflege‘pTeache‘rq. " Unpublished electoral .diss erta'tiqn, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, August, 1951, 262. Tracy, Norbert J. Personal letter including outline of paper, "What Incoming Faculty Members Wish To Learn about Their Institutions, " presented at Summer Departmental Meeting Of the Association for Higher Education, National Education Association, Los Angeles, June 27, 1960. 106 Taylor, George R. "Faculty Orientation at Amherst, " Faculty Prepara- tion and Orientation. Proceedings of a Regional Conference Sponsored by the New England Board of Higher Education, ed. John W. Gustad. Winchester, Mass.: New England Board of Higher Education, 1960, 93-96. U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Education Directory, 1959—1960, Part 3, Higher Education. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1959. Wallace, Morris S. "New Teachers' Evaluation of Induction Techniques, " North Central Association Quarterly, XXV (April, 1951), 381-82. "Problems Experienced by 136 New Teachers During Their Induction into Service, " North‘Central Association Quarterly, XXV (January, 1951), 291-309. . "The Induction of New Teachers Into School and Community, " North Central Association Quarterly, » XXV (October, 1950), 238-51. Williams, Kenneth R. , and Jenkins, Adele M. ”Improving Instruction in Institutions of Higher" Education, " Educational Record, XXIX (April, 1948), 145-61. Williamson, A. V. "Effective Teaching at the College Level, " Associ- ation of American Colleges Bulletin, XXXIII (Winter, 1947), 645-51. Yauch, Wilbur A. "Helping the New Teacher to Success, " Educational Forum, XX (November, 1955), 37-43. OTHER SOURCES Garrett, Cyril D. "A Study Of the Inservice Improvetnent Programs Of Eight Liberal Arts Colleges. " Unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1957. Kidd, Rex C. "The, Iniprovement of the Pre-Service Education of Under- graduate Coll 939. T sachets. " Unpubli shed doctor: a1 'di 88 erta'tiqn, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, August, 1951, 262. Tracy, Norbert J. Personal letter including outline Of paper, "What Incoming Faculty Members Wish To Learn about Their Institutions, " presented at Summer Departmental Meeting of the Association for Higher Education, National Education Association, Los Angeles, 1 June 27, 1960. APPENDICES 107 AE‘FSTDIX A NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIA'D: ON OF COLLEGES AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS Commission on Research and Service April 15, 1960 Dear College President: The Subcommittee on In-Service Education of Teachers of the Commission a1 Research and Service of the North Central Association has been concerned for some time about the problems of the beginning college teacher. We believe that helping faculty members find satisfactory solutions to these problems is of vital concern to every college administrator, but before this can be done the problems of new faculty members need to be clearly identified. This we believe has not been done. Too often we have taken for granted that we knew what the problems were. It is with the expectation that these problems can be identified that the North Central Association Subcommittee on In-Service Training of Teachers is working with the Center for the Study of Higher Education at Michigan State University in conducting a study of this problem. Harlan R. McCall of Alma College has been engaged to conduct the study. The definition of new faculty members is given on the back of Form C which is attached.‘ This includes any teacher 22! tg’ygur particular institution but does 223 include in this study full-time administrative personnel, graduate assistnts, visiting instructors, or research personnel. Your assistance as president is requested as follows: 1. Please furnish information about numbers of faculty for 1957, 1958, and 1959 as requested on Form C. 2. Then list the names of new faculty members to whom the question- naire will be sent. 3. Please return Form C with necessary information to the Center for the Study of Higher Education at Michigan State University. Your cooperation by an early response to this request will be greatly appreciated as questionnaires are to be mailed to new faculty members early in May. Sincerely yours, Paul W. Harnly, Chairman In-Service Education of Teachers J. Fred Murphy, Chairman BroadIRipple High School 1115 Broad Ripple Avenue Indianapolis 20, Indiana Herbert W. Schooling Vice Chairman Superintendent of Schools Webster Groves, Missouri 108 Clyde Vroman, Secretary Director of Admissions University of Michigan Ann ArbOr, Michigan NCA/MSU PROJECT AITEI‘IDIX B INSTRUCTOR PROBLEMS INVENTORY FORM C Problems of New Faculty Members in North Central Association Colleges and Universities Kindly fill in the following information and return in the enclosed envelope to the Center for the Study of Higher Education, Michigan State University, at your earliest convenience. Institution Name- 1 Location: Name of Person Furnishing Information: a Position- DEFINITION OF TERMS: For the purpose of this study terms used in this questionnaire are defined as follows: Faculty Member: Include those who are full-time members of the staff who spend more than half their time as members of the teaching staff. If some full-time members of the staff perform administra- tive functions which take less than half their time and spend more than half-time teaching, they may be included as faculty members. Do Not Include: full-time administrative personnel, graduate assistants, visiting instructors or research personnel. New Faculty Members: “New” here is defined as “all those who are new to your particular institution of higher education, including those new to the profession and those with previous teaching experience.” Total No. Of Faculty, Fall 1959? No. of New Faculty Members, Fall 1959? Total No. of Faculty, Fall 1958? No. of New Faculty Members, Fall 1958? Total No. of Faculty, Fall 1957? No. of New Faculty Members, Fall 1957? Names of New Faculty members, Fall Names of New Faculty members, Fall Names of New Faculty members, Fall 1959, who are still on staff. 1958, who are still on staff. 1957, who are still on staff: If additional space is needed, use another sheet. To: From: Subject: APPENDIX C January 5, 1960 A First-Year Faculty Member in one of Michigan's North Central Association Colleges Harlan R. McCall, Alma College, Alma, Michigan. I am planning on conducting a study of problems of new faculty members for the Sub- Committee on In-Service Training of Teachers of the Commission on Research and Service of the North Central Association. The study will be conducted by use of a questionnaire. ' So that the most important problems to new faculty members will be listed in the questionnaire, I am contacting a few such persons in Michigan colleges. Would you be kind enough to list problems which you think are among the most important ones faced by faculty members who are new to the institution in which you are now serving. Problems can be of any nature, from finding suitable living quarters to becoming acquainted with the college curriculum. Specific instructional problems, such as constructing suitable evaluative instruments, should also be included. Your prompt reply to this communication will be appreciated. You can list the problems on this sheet and return to me in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope. Person Submitting Name of Institution 110 AfriEf-EIX D NCA/MST] PROJECT NORTH CENTRAL ASS’N. STUDY REGARDING PROBLEMS OF NEW FACULTY MEMBERS Dear Faculty Member: The North Central Ass’n. Sub-Committee on In-Service Education of Teachers of the Commission on Research and Service is sponsoring a study of the problems of faculty members who have accepted new positions at their member institutions since the fall of 1957. I have been given your name by an administrator of your institution as one of those eligible to participate in the study. Will ou kindly assist us by taking a few minutes of your time to answer the questions on this form and return the same in t e enclosed self-addressed envelope at your earliest convenience? The information obtained will be held in strictest confidence and will in no way reflect upon the school, the individual teacher, or the administration. - Sincerely yours, MW fifflffld/ HARLAN R. McCALL _ Center for the Study of Higher Education Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan PERSONAL INFORMATION: 1. Institution where now employed: (Name) 5" '4 10. ll. (Location) (City) (State) Person supplying information: (Name) (Sex) Male ( ) Female ( ) (Marital Status) Single ( ) Married ( ) Age at initial employment in this institution: . Degrees earned: (Check) (Name of Institution Granting) (Location) (Major) (l) Bachelor’s (2) Master’s (3) Doctor’s , Number of years experience in full-time. teaching at any level prior to coming to present institution: (Circle No. of years) (1) College Teaching (a) 0 (b) 1 to 3 (c) 4 to 10 (d) more than 10 (2) High School Teaching (a) 0 (b) 1 to 3 (c) 4 to 10 (d) more than 10 (3) Elementary Teaching (a) 0 (b) 1 to 3 (c) 4 to 10 (d) more than 10 (4) Other full-time teaching experience? Specify as to type of institution in which done and number of years. ; (City and State) Subject field(s) in which you taught the first year in this institution: Level at which you taught first year in this institution: (Check one) (1) ( ) Undergraduate only. (2) ( ) Graduate only. ( 3) ( ) Both graduate and undergraduate. Faculty rank at time of initial employment by this institution: (Check one) ( 1) ( ) Instructor (2) E ) Ass’t. Professor ) Assoc. Professor ( 4) ( ) Professor (5) ( ) Other (Specify) If this rank has changed since initial employment check present rank below: (1) ( ) Instructor ( ) Ass’t. Professor ( ) Assoc. Professor (4) ( ) Professor ( ) Other (Specify) What do you consider as being the primary reason you came to this institution? (Check one) (1) ( ) Alma Mater ( ) Just the type assignment I wanted (2) ( ) Location (6) ( ) Size of institution (3) ( ) Friendship w/college administrator ( 7) ( ) Religious affiliation (4) ( ) Opportunity afforded for advancement (8) ( ) Other (Specify) What do you. hope to be doing 15 years from now? (Check one) a; E 3 81:32:: sasssssztztk e < . .. time i.“ (3) ( ) College personnel work (6) ( ) Spending most of time in writing (4) ( ) Be retired (Tl ( ) Other (Specify) GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS for completing questionnaire: The list of problems (Section I) was compiled from problems found to be present to some degree for new faculty mem- bers in institutions of higher education. Note that this section calls for two checks, one in column B and one in column C, for each of the listed items which has caused you any degree of dzfl'zculty smce coming to the institution you are now serving. The list of administrative procedures (Section 11) contains practices used by administrators in helping new faculty members solve problems which they face. Note thatthis section calls for only one'check for each practice — either a check under the appropriate heading in column A if practice is used or under the appropriate heading in column B if the practice is not used in your institution. SECTION I — PROBLEMS Check the extent to which. each of the following For each item kindly place one check in Column A if “Never A was a problem for you since you came to this Problem”, or two checks -— one in Column B to indicate per- institution. ' sistence of problem and one in Column C to indicate difficulty of problem. Col. A Col. B L001. 0 Never Persistence of Problem Difliculty of men a Has Been, Still A. Personal Problem Not Now Persists Slight Moderate Gm 1. Finding suitable living quarters. ........ ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 2. Becoming acquainted with other faculty members. ............................ ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 3. Establishing satisfactory social relations with faculty families. .................. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 4. Establishing satisfactory social relations in the community. ....................... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 5. Working with department co—workers. . . . ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) .. 6. Working with personnel from other depart- ments. ............................... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) . ( ) 7. Working with college administration. . . . . ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 8. Working with counseling personnel. ..... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 9. Knowing about health services in the com- munity. .............................. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 10. Finding satisfying recreational outlets for ‘ self or family. ........................ ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 11. Other (Specify) B. Institutional 1. Understanding institutional objectives. . . . ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 2. Understanding my responsibilities for reg- istering students. ..................... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 3. Understanding my responsibilities for counseling students. ................... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 4. Understanding faculty committee struc- ture. ................................. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 5. Keeping and making out official records and reports. .......................... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 6. Becoming acquainted with college calendar. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 7. Learning curriculum requirements. ...... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 8. Learning details of any student assistant- ship program. ........................ ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 9. Knowing what other departments of the college teach. ......................... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 10. Knowing what other departments of the college expect of my department. ........ ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 11. Knowing the institutional procedure to be followed for curriculum revision. ........ ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 12. Having little opportunity to work on col- ;lege committees. ...................... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 13. Understanding policies regarding grading standards. ........................... ( ) - ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 14. Acquiring adequate office space. ......... ( ) i ) ) ( ) ( ( ) 15. Acquiring adequate secretarial help. ..... ( ) I ( ) ( ) ) ( ( ) 16. Understanding college policies regarding ‘ promotions and salary increases. ........ ( ) l ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 17. Understanding policies regarding fringe benefits. ............................. ()13() () (l (l () _ "A" .— 24. 26. 18. 19. B. Institutional cont’d. Understanding policies regarding textbook adoptions. ............................ Understanding policies regarding proba- tionary status and dropping of students. . . . Understanding policies regarding research. 21. Fulfilling expectations regarding research activities. ............................ . Fulfilling expectations regarding student counseling. ........................... . Understanding institution’s legislative or- gamzation. ........................... Understanding f aculty-trustee relation- ships. ............................... .Fulfilling expectations regarding total amount of responsibilities. ............. Other (Specify) C. Instructional 1. Learning the availability of instructional material. ............................ 2. Learning routine for acquiring new in- structional and library materials.‘ ....... 3. Lack of teaching aids. ................. 4. Developing satisfactory tests and exam- inations. ............................. 5. Developing effective lectures. ........... 10. 11. 1 12. l3. l4. .. 15. 16. . Using effective discussion techniques in class. ................................ Obtaining and maintaining student in- terest. ............................... Coordinating instruction in my classes with other classes in my department. . . . . Coordinating instruction in my classes with instruction in other college depart- ments. ............................... Increasing my effectiveness in student counseling techniques. ................. Required to teach classes for which not prepared. ............................ Too many “extra class” responsibilities on faculty committees. ................... Becoming acquainted with pupils in my . classes. .............................. Gearing instruction to level of those in my classes. .............................. Obtaining help in the improvement of my instruction. .......................... Other (Specify) 001. A Col. f _ Col. 0 Never Persistence of Problem Difficulty of Problem a Has Been, Still Slight Moderate Great Problem Not Now Persists ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ( ( ( ) ( ) ( ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( l ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ) ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ) ) ( ( ) ( ( ) ) ( ) ( ( ) ( ( ) ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ( ) ( ) ( ) SECTION II — ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES Following are listed some of the procedures used For each procedure used by the institution you are now serving by college administrators to help new faculty put a check in Column A under the appropriate heading. members solve their problems. For each procedure not used by your institution place a check in Column B under the appropriate heading. Column A Célgmn B If used, degree of helpfulness to you If not used, degi'ée-df helpfulness PROCEDURES: was you think this would have b£en_ Nonel Slight 'Moderate Great None Slight Moderate Great 1. Supplies printed material (catalog, pam- phlets) before appointment. ............ ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 2. Expects visit to campus before appoint- ment ................................ ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) . ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 3. Sends personal letter of welcome after ac- I cepting appointment. .................. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 4. Furnishes further printed material (such as faculty handbook) after appointment. . ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) II ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 5. Sends summer news letter. ............. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 6. Sends copies of college paper. ........... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I ( ) ( ) 7. Sends copies of local paper. ............. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I! ( ) ( ) I ( ) ( ) 8. Administration passes on word to other I faculty and to the community information ‘ concerning families of incoming faculty. . . ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I ( ) ( ) , ( ) ( l 9. Helps in finding housing. ............... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 10. Faculty sponsor for each new faculty mem- ber. ................................. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 11. Introduced to community soon after ar- rival. ................................ ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 12. Introduced to faculty soon after arrival. . . ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 13. New faculty expected to report to college two weeks before opening. .............. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ‘ 14. Orientation conference. ................ ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 15. Light teaching load for new faculty. ..... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) . ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 16. Arranged personal conferences with ad- I ' ministrators. ......................... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 17 . Open door policy of administrators. ..... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I ( ) ( ) ( ) ( l 18. Faculty-student reception. ............. ( ) I ( ) ( ) ( ) I. ( ) I ( ) I ( ) I ( l 19. Immediate assignment to committee. ..... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I? ( ) I( ) f ( ) I ( l 20. Invite new faculty members to visit com- I; I g I mittee meetings. ...................... ( ) ( ) ( ) I ( ) If( ) 3( ) I ( ) I ( ) 21. Organized faculty study groups. ......... ( ) ( ) ( ) I ( ) I ( ) I ( ) ( ) ' ( ) ' 22. Scheduled departmental meetings. ...... ( ) ( ) ( ) I ( ) II ( ) I( ) I ( ) I ( ) 23. Scheduled faculty meetings. ............ ( ).- ( ) I ( ) i ( ) '( ) 'I( ) : ( ) I ( ) 24. Use of audio-visual aids to understand in- I I I ! stitution. ............................ ( )I ( ) I ( ) I ( ) II( ) I( ) I ( ) I ( ) 25. Administrator visits classes and helps I ' I , I evaluate instruction. ................... ( ) i ( ) . ( ) i ( ) ( ) I ( ) , ( ) ( ) 26. Other (Specify) I j I II I I ll APPENDIX E WRITE-IN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONNAIRE Other (written in) reasons in addition to those given on the printed questionnaire and reported in Table 3. 9 in answer to , "What do you con- sider as being the primary reason you came to this institution?" were: Frequency 26 22 13 mwwwwwwmfihmmoum N Reason Availability of position Salary Start in College teaching (or try-out) Best offer (courses and salary) Husband hired in institution or in city Obedience--assigned as member of religious community Opportunity for service Temporary position--needed job for year or two Institutional philosophy of education Close to type of assignment I wanted Friendship w/departrnent chairman or other faculty member Opportunity for advanced work Assignment (Air Force) Quality of institution/its students Reputation of institution/its faculty Wanted to teach or return to teaching Accidental Miscellaneous reasons for coming to particular institutions, ten being mentioned by two and all others by one each. Other (written in) aspirations of new faculty in addition to those given on the printed questionnaire and reported in Table 3. 10 in answer to, "What do you hope to be doing 15 years from now?" were: Frequency 19 19 16 13 Nab-Ammuso A Spiration Teaching and research Other profession, industry, or business Different teaching assignment Full-time housewife (2 already married) Uncertain Department or division head or director Obedience--will be where I am told to be Teaching at graduate level (or more at graduate level) College administrator of personnel work Teaching and writing Miscellaneous aSpirations listed, none by more than two 115 APPENDIX F THE ADEQUACY OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AS PERCEIVED BY NEW FACULTY MEMBERS How new faculty members react to the administrative practices being used or feel about practices not being used to help them resolve any problems they face in new positions can not be over-looked by the con- scientious administrator who wishes to have an affective in-service education program in his institution. Presented here are the results of that section of the questionnaire which asked respondents to indicate which of twenty-five listed adminis- trative procedures were being used to help them resolve their problems and to evaluate the degree of helpfulness of these procedures. Wide Range in Helpfulness Ratings In Table 8. 1 will be found the average degree of helpfulness, based on a scale of 300, of each of the twenty-five administrative procedures and their ranks. 'It is evident from these data that new faculty members rate certain procedures as somewhat more helpful than others. The range of helpfulness on the 300-point scale is from a low of 94 for Immediate assignment to committee to a high of 221 for Introduced to faculty soon after arrival. It will be noted that seven other procedures have average helpfulness ratings of over 200. . These are as follows: Open doorpolicl of administrators, Furnishirg further printed material (suchas faculty handbook) after appointment,- Expects visit to campus before appointment, A Helps in finding housing, ‘ Scheduled department meetings, Scheduled faculty meetings, and Light teaching load for new faculty. 116 117 030 #830056 30.00 3 mawpaom00u H0352“ 03» >3 6030?? £030 00.5 00030 mo 3.30» 03h. ‘I‘!l\ cl“!l‘l\l\ ’(u (Clef-PEI" dFCCFuIF an UJ+TGOFTcFFIA (Fm. TG+OFCCQOF C‘WQ‘ Tahfochq; +‘QW+CFFC .0000 >3 000G250.” :0Goaz pad m0co >3 000G0Q00h 13330: ”03» >3 000G250.” :0300605: So: no 00.: GM .8333? .0053 >3 000aom00u .Ld0uw: 3.30» 030 magaflgfiu >3 p0£8u0u0p 0.03 000G~dmm303 mo 00uw0p 0wdu0>m 03H. * m3 3m mm «A. ...................00ufiEEou o» 0G0§Ww000 00036000083 mm 33 ¢N N03 ..................................H0anmHNUOHHOmvmmoumflcvm mm 03 mm. 503 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . GOSH—«305 pcmu0u0pcd on 03.0 30003703050 «0 005 0N : NM 003 . . . . . £033,305 00.03.96“ 0303 cam 0000.030 0030?. Hogmnu0w§§< m.©~ om 3N mag ..............................................meGQQO 00303 003003 030 0m0:oo 3 0.8.5.” on @000098 >3500m 302 NM NM om vNH . . . . . . . . 0903005 003380.000 £03 0» 0003505 33.903 30: 0035 m: mm OH GNH ..................................Hmnm.mnmvmvzoomommfimoum6”.Hum 0.” mm ma FNH ...................................H0uu0awBOCHGESmmmugmw m; mm >3 ova ................................0mdo.~m>330>03500mv0§adwh0 3N mm 3 m3; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H0350?“ 33.903 30G 30.00 MOM ~00nom0 >fi§omh H." w@ m.H mnv." ...................................GOquQUvHufimflnSWIqu—Hfinudh m3 5. v3 hmH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30>wnum H0030 G000 >umndggoo Ou 300300.35” NH «.0 Ma 00H ...............................................>ugomw 938005 mo 00238.3 wnflcu0ocoo coflmguoflfi 33.95 :800 03» 0... pam 516.3 H0300 on. p.83 no 0003a coflmuu0wfig< v3 ow. N3 m: . . . . . . . . . . . 0030303035300 303’ 00oa0u0mdoo 3.0G00u0m U0mdmuh< w on. 3 >2 . . . ”28533930 $330000 H0030 0500303 mo H0303 30:00u0m 0ps0m 0 MN. OH mww ............:./........................OUGQHOHGOUGOwudqumHO o ow 0 m2 .308 #5250 00303 A00033mgmm .modmumov 30300.05 @03qu 003.396 mAwH om m mON ...........................>330dm30dHOMUNOHMGEUdvuufimm‘H m4 :0 m6 mom ...................................0mafi005>3500wp033003om 03 NE m.o mom .............................mwdwuvogHduGOEuHmmmflUvgfiwfiom o ow m MHN ...................................zmawmqu—amfiflufiflfiw093mm 0. mm 3. «Am . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 300550de 0u0m03 0595.00 3 £0? 0000mxmn 0 0w m mHNA.....................................uGGEuGMOQQdHOu—wd 200390.03 >3§omm 0.0 30503 3.030005 30033.2“ H0333 003020.133 M mm N QHN ........................ ...QHOHNHHmewgvdHOLWUMHOQHOOUGQAHO m4 #0 3 Hum H03.71000fi00000 3.303003000300005 03.0% 300 00m 03.0% .0. .n0>< 009 a 009033303 0005p0oounm 0>303035EU< mo 00nm0n— .0033000>..ED bad 00m0300 .<.U.Z p0uu030m 5 0003802 >ugomh 302 >3 o0udnfi>m 0.0 0E0a3ounm 3039 wgflxfdom :M QHUDEQE >Hddodrm Boz Umwmm< O“ mnw-HSHUQUOHAH 0>HHMHHQHH~MEU< NO on: MUG“ QQUCHSHQdomn-I od. .3 QHQG.H. 118 High Helpfulness Ratings For Much Used Procedures It is evident from the comparable data of helpfulness and use (Table 8. 1) that in many reSpects administrators in the sample NCA colleges and universities are using the administrative procedures which new faculty members feel are most helpful to them in resolving their problems. The coefficient of correlation between the estimated helpful- ness and the actual use by administrators of these twenty-five procedures was + . 87 . 1 While the top five ranking procedures in helpfulness (Table 8. 1) also rate within the top six in use, there is a noticeable difference in the two procedures tied for sixth and seventh ranks and the eighth ranking procedure in helpfulness and use. ‘ Scheduled departmental meetings and Scheduled faculty meetings, having an average helpfulness rating of 208 and tying for sixth rank, are used by administrators of 72 and 94 per cent of the respondents, respectively. Respondents feel that Light teaching loads, ranking eighth, would be very helpful in solving problems, but that relatively few insti- tutions make use of this, only 36 per cent, giving it a "use" rank of 16. 5. This lack of use of the "light teaching load" for new faculty members is borne out by administrators in the Tracy study‘reported in Chapter I. In general, the practices reported by new faculty members as being used little or extensively by institutions are the same as those reported by administrators in the Tracy study. One other particularly noteworthy difference in rating of helpful- ness and use of an administrative procedure is in relationship to the Immediate assignment to committee. As noted above, the respondents rated this as the least helpful of the twenty-five procedures, the only .ISpearman rank-difference method was used for figuring coefficient of correlation. 119 one to have an average helpfulness rating of less than 100, yet it was reported by Sl'per cent of the respondents as being used in institutions. Conclusions While in general new faculty members in NCA colleges and uni- versities tend to rate the highest administrative practices in use as the highest in helpfulness and those used least, the lowest in helpfulness, there are some exceptions. One procedure ranking relatively high in use has the lowest helpfulness rating and one procedure having relatively high helpfulness rating is not extensively in use. Just what meaning should be attached to the fact that there is a high correlation between helpfulness and use of administrative practices as evaluated by new faculty members ? This might be interpreted to mean one of the following: (1) That the status quo of orientation and in-service practices in NCA colleges and universities is generally thought to be adequate by new faculty members; therefore, no changes in orientation or in-service programs are warrnated. (2) That new faculty members are able to reveal symptoms of need but generally are unable to suggest any more effective administrative procedures for meeting these needs than those presently in use by administrators. (3) That acceptance of orientation and in-service procedures operates independently of relevance of procedures to solve problems of adjustment effectively. However, close examination of the data reveals that even the pro- cedures thought by faculty to be the most helpful are not in use by all administrators. ‘ Each college administrator might well concern himself with the evaluation of each of the administrative procedures listed in the questionnaire in light of procedures used in his institution, giving particular consideration to those procedures reported by new faculty members as being of relatively high helpfulness. 120 In view of the above data the following hypothesis might be justified: that new faculty members consider certain administrative procedures as having a greater degree of helpfulness to them in solving their prob- lems than other procedures. However, further analysis of this data and additional information would be required to test this hypothesis. 'No attempt was made in this analysis of data to tie helpfulness ratings with the solution of any particularly type of problem--personal, institutional, or instructional. APPENDIX G Table 9. 1. -—Stage One Raw Data; Results of Significance by t Test on Degree of Difficulty of Housing Problem as Related to Personal Characteristics. m 1 Personal Characteristics Institutional Sex Age Degree - Experience Factors t Non- -Doc- No Male Female Young Old Doct. torate College College Size: Small 325 78 245 159 290 126 207 206 759 189 563 385 573 294 459 508 324 127 260 181 336 120 264 192 M>F C>NC Large 549 102 420 224 475 186 389 270 1301 256 992 547 1143 434 911 662 487 145 393 233 470 170 383 257 M>F Control: Private 491 109 395 196 423 182 319 286 1147 255 923 464 999 416 707 708 503 175 418 250 491 193 402 283 M>F C>NC Public 388 71 270 187 339 128 277 190 928 181 632 467 817 308 663 462 308 97 235 164 314 96 245 166 M>F Level: Undergrad. 609 125 464 265 552 191 431 312 1435 297 1084 641 1300 453 987 766 562 213 469 296 609 176 482 303 M>F Graduate 270 55 201 118 210 119 165 164 640 139 471 290 516 271 383 404 249 59 184 118 197 118 165 146 Note: Meaning of numbers in each cell in order from top to bottom: X, the sum of difficulty ratings; 2X7“, the sum of squares of difficulty ratings; N, number of respondents. cant at the five per cent level. 121 Differences are shown when signifi- ' A PPENDIX H Table 9. 2. --Stage Two Raw Data; Results of Significance by t Test on Degree of Difficulty of Housing; Problem as Related to Personal Characteristics. Personal. Characteristic s Sex Age Degree 3 Experience Male Female Young Old Non-Doc. Doc. No College Coll—egg 1-9* 1-8 1-25 1-5 78 15 78 36 78 9 78 34 174 25 174 88 174 21 174 84 88 29 88 30 88 14 88 34 2-22 2-7 3-33 2-15 87 26 87 47 35 15 87 21 203 12 203 117 75 34 203 53 56 15 56 33 45 12 56 20 LA>F‘ 3-23 3-20 8—19 3-35 35 14 35 9 36 18 35 10 75 34 75 21 88 38 75 20 45 14 45 16 30 16 45 11 8-4 9-4 12-28 4-13 36 10 15 10 27 6 10 20 88 22 25 22 65 12 22 56 30 34 29 34 25 13 34 21 LA>F' 6-13 5-6 13-34 8-6 43 20 34 43 20 3 36 43 107 56 84 107 56 5 88 107 34 21 34 34 21 10 30 34 7-26 10-24 32-14 7-30 47 5 32 23 10 19 47 18 117 13 72 59 26 43 117 44 33 14 30 15 12 20 33 12 LA>F‘ *Hyphenated numbers at t0p center of cell indicate matched- grouping numbers as assigned (Table 2. 6). in footnote of Table 9. 1. 122 Other: c e11 numbers explained 123 Table 9. 2. --Continued -— ___ u Personal Characteristics Sex f Age Degree 7 Experience Male Female Yogijg Old Non-Doc. Doc. ‘No College College 10-27 15-30 30-16 10-36 32 8 21 18 18 25 32 15 72 18 53 44 44 63 72 37 30 14 20 12 12 18 30 11 11-34 36-18 18-17 19-11 32 3 15 12 12 27 18 32 78 5 37 28 28 63 38 78 29 10 ll 18 18 l9 16 29 LA>F‘ 25-19 24-37 37-17 9 18 23 10 10 27 21 38 59 24 24 63 14 16 15 ll ll 19 22-26 24-18 6 5 23 12 12 13 59 28 15 14 15 18 IVC>£3 35-32 20—32 10 10 9 10 20 26 21 26 ll 12 16 12 A PPENDIX I Table 9. 3. --Stage One Raw Data; Results of Significance by 1 Test on Degree of Difficulty of Housing Problem as Related to Institutional 124 Factors. Institutional Factors 'Personal Size Control Level Characteristics Under- Small Largg: Private Public raduate Graduate Sex: Male 342 594 491 400 620 271 792 1301 1147 946 1452 641 340 487 504 323 575 252 Pu>Pr Female 79 102 109 72 126 55 181 256 255 182 298 139 137 145 179 103 219 63 Age: 254 420 395 279 472 202 Young 576 992 923 645 1096 472 274 393 420 247 479 188 Pu>Pr Old 152 224 196 190 268 118 289 546 464 472 646 290 192 233 253 172 304 121 Pu>Pr Degree 298 475 423 350 562 211 Non-Doctorate 688 1143 999 832 1314 517 355 470 495 330 624 201 L>S Pu>Pr 7 Doctorate 128 186 182 130 193 119 298 434 416 312 457 271 127 170 195 101 180 113 Pu>Pr Experience: 215 389 319 285 439 165 No College 471 911 707 675 899 383 279 383 406 256 493 169 L>S Pu>Pr College 211 270 286 195 316 165 515 662 708 469 772 405 203 257 284 176 311 149 Note: See explanation of numbers, bottom Table 9. 1. APPENDIX J Table 9.4. --Stage Two Raw Data; Results of Significance by t Test on Degree of Difficulty of Housing Problem as Related to Institutional Factors. Institutional Factors Size Control Level Small A Large Private Public Under-Grad. Grad. 1-3* 3-2 2-10 78 35 35 87 87 32 174 75 75 203 203 72 88 45 45 56 56 30 Pu>Pr 29-2 20-27 3-12 12 87 9 8 35 27 28 203 21 18 75 65 12 56 16 14 45 25 6-32 12-10 7-24 43 10 27 32 47 23 107 26 65 72 117 59 34 12 25 30 33 15 8-20 14-16 11-31 36 9 19 25 32 13 88 21 43 63 78 31 30 16 20 18 29 12 Pu>Pr 9-23 35-15 14-21 15 14 10 21 19 7 25 34 20 53 43 15 29 14 11 20 20 14 11-14 21-17 16-17 32 19 7 27 28 27 78 43 15 63 63 63 29 20 l4 19 18 19 Pu>Pr * Hyphenated numbers at top center of cell indicate matched- grouping numbers as assigned (Table 2. 6). explained in footnote of Table 9. 1. 125 Other cell numbers 126 Table 9. 4. --Continued Institutional Factors Size Control Level Small Large Private Public Under-Grad. Grad. 31-21 23-22 30-18 13 7 14 6 18 12 31 15 34 12 44 28 12 14 14 15 12 18 p 25-33 32-30 22-27 9 15 10 18 6 8 21 31 26 44 12 18 14 12 12 12 15 14 33-28 15 6 31 12 12 13 APPENDIX K Table 9. 5. --'-Stage One Raw Data; Results of Significance by: Test on Degree of Difficulty of Interdepartmental Understanding Problem as Related to Personal Characteristics. Personal Characteristics Institutional Sex Age Degggee Experience , Factors Non- Doc- No Male Female Young Old Doct. torate College College Size: ‘ Small 216 84 158 137 228 78 169 137 420 162 300 269 442 154 319 277 314 119 252 170 323 114 255 182 Large 360 93 293 155 348 110 286 172 750 169 597 307 712 214 572 354 476 142 392 220 458 166 377 248 Control: Private 354 111 286 177 355 118 283 190 710 207 570 341 713 222 555 380 491 167 409 237 476 188 390 274 Public 222 66 165 115 221 70 172 119 360 124 327 235 441 146 336 251 299 94 235 153 305 92 242 156 Level: Undergrad. 410 132 329 210 430 121 336 215 822 244 651 406 848 237 662 423 551 205 464 281 596 169 474 291 Graduate 166 45 122 82 146 67 118 94 348 87 246 170 306 131 228 208 239 56 180 109 185 111 157 139 Note: See meaning of numbers, bottom Table 9. 1. 127 APPENDIX L Table 9. 6. "Stage Two Raw Data; Results of Significance by t Test on 1 Degree of Difficulty of Interdepartmental Understanding Problem as Related to Personal. Characteristics. m Per sonal Characteristic s Sex Age Digree Experience Male Female Young Old Non-Doc. «Doc. No College Collegi 1-9* 7 1-8 1-25 1-5 49 15 49 27 49 5 49 21 104 25 104- 53 104 9 104 39 86 29 86 29 86 14 86 33 2-22 2-7 3-33 2-15 45 7 45 13 49 8 45 12 95 9 95 25 115 20 95 20 56 16 56 32 46 12 56 20 3-23 3-20 8-19 3-35 49 12 49 8 27 14 49 12 115 20 115 14 53 26 115 28 46 14 46 16 29 15 46 11 8-4 9-4 12-18 4-13 27 34 15 34 22 7 34 8 53 62 25 62 50 13 62 12 29 33 29 33 24 13 33 18 6-13 5-6 13-34 8-6 23 8 21 23 8 7 27 23 52 12 39 52 12 17 53 52 32 18 33 32 18 10 29 32 7-26 10-24 32-14 7-30 13 10 22 11 7 14 13 17 25 16 48 49 13 26 25 39 32 12 30 14 11 19 32 12 ' C>NC a: Hyphenated numbers at top center of cell indicate matched- grouping numbers as assigned (Table 2.6). explained in footnote of Table 9. 1. 128 Other cell numbers Table 9. 6. --Continued 129 Per sonal Characteristic s Sex Age Degree Experience Male Female Young: Old Non-Def. Doc. .No Collegg College: 10-27 15-30 30-16 10-36 22 11 12 17 17 10 22 8 48 17 20 39 39 16 48 18 30 14 20 12 12 16 30 11 11-34 36-18 18-17 19-11 15 7 8 11 11 14 14 15 49 17 18 25 25 34 26 49 28 10 11 15 15 17 15 28 25-19 24-37 37-17 5 14 ll 8 8 14 9 26 17 16 16 34 14 15 14 11 11 17 7 22-26 24-18 7 10 11 11 9 16 17 25 16 12 14 15 35-32 20-32 12 7 8 7 28 25 14 13 11 11 16 11 APPENDIX M Table 9. 7. --Stage One Raw Data: Results of Significance by_t_ Test on Degree of Difficulty of Interdepartmental Understanding Problem as Related to Institutional Factors. Igtitutional Factors Personal Size 7 Control Level Characteristics Under- Small Large Private Public graduate Graduate Sex: 224 360 355 229 414 170 Male 430 750 711 469 826 354 330 476 492 314 564 242 Female 95 93 116 72 138 50 189 169 216 142 262 96 129 142 171 100 211 60 Age: 170 293 288 175 336 127 Young 326 597 572 351 670 253 266 392 411 247 474 184 Old 144 155 181 118 213 86 280 307 349 238 409 178 181 220 240 161 289 112 Degree: 231 348 359 230 438 151 Non-Doctorate 441 712 721 462 868 315 342 458 479 321 611 189 Doctorate 84 110 120 74 123 71 162 214 224 152 239 137 121 166 190 97 173 114 Experience: 180 286 289 177 341 125 No College 340 572 565 347 673 239 270 377 394 253 485 162 College 145 172 190 127 220 97 293 354 380 267 434 213 193 248 275 166 299 142 Note: See explanation of numbers, bottom Table 9. 1. 130 APPENDIX N Table 9. 8. --Stage Two Raw Data; Results of Significance by t Test on Degree of Difficulty of Interdepartmental Understanding Problem as Related to Institutional Factors. Institutional Factors Size Control Level Small . Large Private Public Under- Grad. Grad. 1-3* 3-2 2-10 49 49 49 45 45 22 104 115 115 95 95 48 86 46 46 56 56 30 29-2 2-27 3-12 3 45 8 ll 49 22 5 95 14 17 115 50 13 56 16 14 46 24 6-32 12-10 7-24 26 7 22 22 13 11 52 13 50 48 25 17 32 11 24 30 32 14 8-20 14-16 11-31 27 8 14 10 15 5 53 14 26 16 49 9 29 16 19 16 28 11 9-23 35-15 14-21 15 12 12 12 14 6 25 ' 20 28 20 26 10 29 14 11 20 19 16 11-14 21-17 16-17 15 14 6 14 10 14 49 26 10 34 16 34 28 19 16 17 16 17 >1: Hyphenated numbers at top center of cell indicate matched- grouping numbers as assigned (Table 2. 6). Other cell numbers explained in footnote of Table 9. 1. 131 132 Table 9. 8. --Continued Institutional Factors Size Control Level Small - Large ‘Private Public Under-Grad. Grad. 31-21 23-22 30-18 5 6 12 7 17 11 9 10 20 9 39 25 ll l6 14 16 12 15 25-33 32-20 22-27 5 8 7 l7 7 ll 9 12 13 39 9 l7 14 12 ll 12 l6 14 33-28 8 7 12 13 12 13 APPENDIX 0 Table 9. 9. "Stage One Raw Data; Results of Significance by_t_ Test on Degree of Difficulty of Office Space Problem as Related to Personal Characteristics. = :‘L m Personal Characteristics Institutional Sex Age g Degree Experience Factors 1 Non-JDoc- No Male Female Yong Old Doct. torate College Colleg_e_ Size: Small 232 74 187 110 214 92 178 128 534 170 435 248 500 204 408 296 317 127 257 177 329 120 260 189 Large 406 99 315 176 385 142 308 202 1028 253 793 448 979 346 778 516 480 143 387 229 461 168 378 252 Control: Private 362 106 308 150 340 130 280 190 862 248 744 340 814 300 654 460 492 176 412 246 483 192 395 280 Public 276 67 194 136 259 84 206 140 700 175 484 356 665 210 532 352 305 94 232 160 307 96 243 161 Level: Undergrad. 470 126 372 209 446 155 377 224 1164 296 920 501 1096 377 923 550 556 213 466 293 603 176 479 300 M>F Graduate 168 47 130 77 153 59 109 106 398 127 308 195 383 133 263 262 241 57 178 113 187 112 159 141 ND>D Note: See meaning of numbers, bottom Table 9. l. 133 Table 9. 10. --Stage Two Raw Data; Results of Significance by t Test on A PPENDD( P Degree of Difficulty of Office Space Problem as Related to Personal ~ Characteristics. Personal Characteristics Sex .. 1 Age Degree A Experience Male Female Young- Old Non-D38. Doc. .No ColLege Coll_eg_§ 1-9* 1-8 1-25 1-5 59 18 59 27 59 6 59 23 109 42 ‘109 65 109 8 109 55 86 30 86 29 86 14 86 34 2-22 2-7 3-33 2-15 61 4 61 35 32 10 61 17 165 10 165 93 78 26 165 35 56 15 56 34 46 12 56 19 M>F 3-23 3-20 8-19 3-35 32 14 32 13 27 16 32 9 78 36 78 27 65 36 78 27 46 14 46 16 29 15 46 10 8-4 9-4 12-18 4-13 27 12 18 12 26 5 12 12 65 28 42 28 60 13 28 26 29 34 30 34 23 13 34 20 M>F 6-13 5-6 13-34 8-6 23 12 23 23 12 13 27 23 55 26 55 55 26 35 65 55 32 20 34 32 20 11 29 32 7-26 .- 10-24 32-14 7-30 35 10 16 13 7 16 35 17 93 26 32 35 19 42 93 49 34 13 30 14 12 20 34 12 * Hyphenated numbers at top center of cell indicate matched- grouping numbers as assigned (Table 2. 6). ~Other cell numbers explained in footnote of Table 9. 1. 134 Table 9. 10. --Continued 135 Personal Characteristics .1 Sex Age Degree Experience Male Female Young Old Non-Doc. Doc. .No Collgge College— 10-27 15-30 30-16 10-36 16 7 17 17 17 15 16 6 32 19 35 49 49 41 32 14 30 14 19 12 12 19 30 11 11-34 36-18 18-17 19-11 11 13 6 14 14 8 16 19 43 35 14 34 34 20 36 43 28 11 11 15 15 18 15 28 25-19 24-37 37-17 6 16 13 3 3 8 8 36 35 5 5 20 14 15 14 11 11 18 22-26 24-18 4 10 13 14 10 26 35 34 15 13 14 15 35-32 20-32 9 7 13 7 27 19 27 19 10 12 16 12 ll APPENDIX Q Table 9. 11. --Stage One Raw Data: Results of Significance by 1 Test on Degree of Difficulty of Office Space Problem as Related to Institutional Factors. m m r: Instit itional Factors Personal Size g Control a Level Characteristics Under- Small Lagge Private Public graduate Graduate Sex: 243 406 362 287 478 171 Male 563 1028 862 729 1184 407 333 480 493 320 569 244 Pu>Pr Female 78 99 106 71 130 47 178 253 248 183 . 304 . 127 137 143 i 180 100 219‘ 61 Age: 196 315 308 203 378 133 Young 458 793 744 507 934 317 271 . 387 414 244 476 182 Old 116. 176 150 142 Y. 215 77 ' 262 448 340 370 515 195 188 229 249 7168 301 116 Pu>Pr Degree: 225 385 340 270 457 153 Non-Doctorate 527 979 814 692 1123 383 ' 348 461 486 323 618 191 L>S , Doctorate 96 142 130 88 156 ‘ 62 2.14 346 300 220 378 142 127 168 194 101 180 115 Un>Gr Experience: 184 308 280 212 383 109 No College . 418 778 654 542 933 263 275 378 399 254 490 163 College 137 202 190 149 230 109 323 516 460 379 568 271 200 252 281 171 308 144 Note: See explanation of numbers, bottom Table 9. 1. 136 APPENDIX R Table 9. 12. --Stage Two Raw Data; Results of Significance by: Test on Degree of Difficulty of Office Space Problem as Related to Institutional Factors. Institutional Factor 8 A, ASize ‘\ Control Level Small . Large Private Public Under-Grad. Grad. 1-3* 3-2 2-10 59 32 32 61 61 16 109 78 78 165 165 32 86 46 46 56 56 30 Un>Gr 29-1 20-27 3-12 11 61 13 7 32 26 23 165 27 19 78 60 13, 56 16 14 46 23 6-32 12-10 7-24 23 7 26 16 35 13 ‘55 19 60 32 93 35 32 12 23 30 34 14 8-20 14-16 11-31 27 13 16 15 19 7 65 27 42 41 43 11 29 16 20 19 28 12 9-23 35-15 14-21 18 14 9 l7 l6 5 42 36 27 35 42 9 30 14 10 19 20 16 11-14 21-17 16-17 19 16 5 8 15 8 43 42 9 20 41 20 28 20 16 18 19 18 ‘z nyphenated numbers at top center of cell indicate matched- grouping numbers as assigned (Table 2. 6). Other cell numbers explained in footnote of Table 9. 1. 137 138 Table 9. 12. --Continued Institutional Factors Size Control . Level Small ' Large Private Public Under-Grad. Grad. 31-21 23-22 30-18 7 5 l4 4 17 14 ll 9 36 10 49 34 12 16 14 15 12 15 25-33 32-30 22-27 6 10 7 l7 4 7 8 26 19 49 10 19 14 12 12 12 15 14 33-28 10 5 26 13 12 13 APPENDIX S Table 9. 13. --Stage One Raw Data; Results of Significance by _t_ Test on Degree of Difficulty of Secretarial Help Problem as Related to Personal ~ Characteristics. m L Personal Characteristics Institutional V Sex - Age Degree ’ J Experience Factors Non- Doc- No Male Female Young Old Doct. torate Collgge Collgge Size: 7 Small 345 92 264 159 315 127 251 191 815 204 632 351 747 285 592 439 318 124 255 175 328 118 259 187 M>F Large 534 126 399 249 453 211 405 261 1274 294 931 603 1075 501 961 619 474 140 386 222 456 164 377 244 M>F D>ND Control: 7 Private 485 127 382 211 422 195 365 252 1115 291 898 457 990 429 851 568 493 170 409 242 479 190 395 274 M>F Public 394 91 281 197 346 143 291 200 974 207 665 497 832 357 703 490 299 94 232 155 305 92 241 157 M>F D>ND Level: Undergrad. 608 170 487 272 580 207 481 306 1450 394 1169 624 1378 487 1149 716 549 207 460 283 595 169 473 291 M>F D>ND Graduate 271 48 176 136 188 131 175 146 639 104 394 330 444 299 405 342 243 57 181 114 189 113 163 140 Note: See meaning of numbers, bottom Table 9. 1. 139 APPENDIX T Table 9. 14. --Stage Two Raw Data; Results of Significance by t Test on Degree of Difficulty of Secretarial Help Problem as Related to Personal Characteristics. Pe r sonal Characteristic s Sex Age Degree Experience Male Female Young Old Non-Do: Doc. .No College Colleg9_ 1-9* 1-8 1-25 1-5 87 12 87 39 87 12 87 39 219 26 219 89 219 28 219 91 87 29 87 29 87 14 87 33 M>F 2—22 2-7 3-33 2-15 69 7 69 42 32 14 69 27 163 19 163 102 72 28 163 67 55 15 55 33 45 12 55 19 3-23 3-20 8-19 3-35 32 19 32 16 39 16 32 6 72 49 72 36 89 28 72 14 45 14 45 16 29 14 45 11 8-4 9-4 12-28 4-13 39 17 12 17 25 12 17 15 89 31 26 31 57 28 31 33 29 32 29 32 24 13 32 19 M>F 6-13 5-6 13-34 8-6 27 15 39 27 15 15 39 27 55 33 91 55 33 35 89 55 33 19 33 33 19 11 29 33 7-26 10-24 32-14 7-30 42 9 ‘22 25 11 19 42 12 102 17 48 65 27 43 102 30 33 12 29 15 11 18 33 12 O>Y * . Hyphenated numbers at top center of cell indicate matched- grouping numbers as assigned (Table 2. 6). Other cell numbers explained in footnote of Table 9. l. 140 141 Table 9. l4. --Continued ‘ —__—' Per sonal Characteristic s Sex Age 2 Degree * Experience Male Female Yougg Old Non-Doc. .Doc. , No Collgge Collggg 10-27 15-30 30-16 10-36 22 9 27 12 12 19 22 16 48 15 67 30 30 45 48 40 29 14 19 12 12 16 29 11 11-34 36-18 18-17 19-11 27 15 16 22 22 22 16 27 57 35 40 56 56 56 28 57 29 11 11 17 16 17 14 29 25-19 24-37 37-17 12 16 25 21 21 22 28 28 65 51 51 56 14 14 15 11 11 17 22-26 24-18 7 9 25 22 19 17 65 56 15 12 15 16 35-22 20-32 6 11 16 11 14 17 36 27 11 11 16 11 APPENDIX U Table 9. 15. --Stage One Raw Data: 7 Results of Significance by 1 Test on Degree of Difficulty of Secretarial Help Problem as Related to Institutional Factors. = Institutional Factors Personal Size Control 4 Level Characteristics Under- Small Large Private Public ggaduate Graduate Sex: 358 534 488 404 618 274 Male 852 1274 1124 1002 p 1478 648 334 474 494 314 562 246 Pu>Pr Female 99 126 127 98 177 48 219 294 291 222 409 104 134 140 174 100 213 61 Age: 278 399 385 292 498 179 Young 672 931 907 696 1200 403 269 386 411 244 470 185 Pu>Pr Old 165 249 211 203 278 136 363 603 457 509 636 330 186 222 245 163 291 117 L>S Pu>Pr Degree: 330 453 422 361 595 188 Non-Doctorate 788 1075 990 873 1419 444 347 456 482 321 610 193 Pu>Pr Doctorate 132 211 198 145 209 134 296 501 438 359 489 308 125 164 192 97 173 116 Pu>Pr Experience: 263 405 368 300 490 178 No College 625 961 860 726 1172 414 274 377 399 252 483 167 Pu>Pr College 199 261 252 208 314 146 459 619 568 510 736 342 198 244 275 167 299 143 Pu>Pr Note: See explanation of numbers, bottom Table 9. 1. 142 APPENDIX V Table 9. 16. --Stage Two Raw Data; Results of Significance by _t- Test on Degree of Difficulty of Secretarial Help Problem as Related to Institutional Factors. Institutional Factors Size 1 Control ~ Level Small Large Private Public Under-Grad. Grad. 1—3* 3-2 2-10 87 32 32 69 69 22 219 72 72 163 163 48 87 45 45 55 55 29 Pu>Pr 29-2 20-27 3-12 21 69 16 9 32 25 53 163 36 15 72 57 13 55 16 14 45 24 6-32 12-10 7—24 27 11 25 22 42 25 55 27 57 48 102 65 33 11 24 29 33 15 8-20 14-16 11-31 39 l6 19 19 27 12 89 36 43 45 57 24 29 16 18 16 29 12 9-23 35-15 14-21 12 19 6 27 19 13 26 49 14 67 43 23 29 14 11 19 18 16 .L>S 11-14 21-17 16-17 27 19 13 22 19 22 57 43 23 56 45 56 29 18 16 17 16 17 >5: Hyphenated numbers at top center of cell indicate matched- grouping numbers as assigned (Table 2. 6). explained in footnote of Table 9. 1. 143 Other cell numbers 144 Table 9. 16. --Continued Institutional» Factors Size Control g Level Small Large Private Public Under-Grad. Grad. 31-21 23-22 30-18 12 13 19 7 12 22 24 23 49 19 30 56 12 16 14 15 12 16 25-33 3230 22-27 12 14 ll 12 7 9 28 28 27 3O 19 15 14 12 11 12 15 14 33-28 14 12 28 28 12 13 APPENDIX W 1 Table 9. 17. --Stage One Raw Data; Results of Significance by 3 Test on Degree of Difficulty of Understanding Promotions Problem as Related to Personal Characteristics. Personal Characteristics Institutionsl Sex Age Degree r Experience Factors 1 Non- ;Doc- No Male Female Young Old Doct. torate Collegge College— Size: Small 277 82 241 109 284 103 218 149 619 178 545 229 646 213 500 319 319 122 258 173 327 119 257 189 Y>O Large 488 134 389 215 458 166 368 258 1104 314 875 497 1038 382 816 608 482 140 389‘ 226 461 167 376 253 Control: Private 415 117 362 158 397 142 317 222 919 249 802 338 879 306 A 701 484 498 166 414 240 480 191 393 278 Y>O Public 350 99 268 166 345 107 269 185 804 243 618 388 805 249 615 443 303 96 233 159 308 95 240 164 Level: Undergrad. 541 160 465 219 562 150 444 268 1215 356 1045 481 1268 330 990 608 558 204 467 285 600 172 474 298 M>F Y>O Graduate 224 56 165 105 198 99 142 139 508 136 375 245 470 225 326 319 243 58 180 114 188 114 159 144 Note: See meaning of numbers, bottom Table 9. 1. 145 APPENDIX X Table 9. 18. --Stage Two Raw Data; Results of Significance by_t_ Test on Degree of Difficulty of UnderstandingPromotions Problem as Related to~Personal Characteristics. Personal Characteristics Sex . Age Degree Experience Male Female Youngw Old Non-Dog. Doc. No Collgge College_ 1-9* 1-8 1-25 1-5 72 31 72 24 72 7 72 37 168 67 168 54 168 11 168 79 87 30 87 31 87 14 87 24 2-22 2-7 3-33 2-15 76 8 76 31 41 8 76 22 182 13 182 63 85 12 182 52 56 16 56 33 46 12 56 20 M>F 3-23 _ 3-20 8-19 3-35 41 14 41 10 24 14 41 15 85 28 85 22 54 32 85 31 46 13 46 16 31 15 46 11 8-4 9-4 12-28 4-13 24 16 31 16 17 10 16 12 54 34 67 34 43 28 34 30 31 30 30 30 23 13 30 19 6-13 5-6 13-34 8-6 15 12 37 15 12 2 24 15 29 30 79 29 30 2 54 29 33 19 34 33 19 ll 31 33 Y>O 7-26 10-24 32-14 7-30 31 15 21 13 9 14 31 12 63 35 37 29 17 28 63 43 33 12 29 14 12 19 33 17 * Hyphenated numbers at top center of cell indicate matched- grouping numbers as assigned (Table 2. 6). vOther cell numbers explained in footnote of Table 9. l. 146 Table 9. 18. --Continued 147 Per sonal Characteristic s Sex Aggg g Degree a Experience Male ermale Young Old Non-Ddc. -Doc. No College College 10-27 15-30 30-16 10-36 21 12 22 17 17 22 21 11 37 28 52 43 43 56 37 25 29 14 20 12 12 17 29 13 11-34 36-18 18-17 19-11 30 2 13 19 19 18 14 30 66 2 25 43 43 36 32 66 29 11 11 17 17 14 15 29 M>F 25-19 24-37 37-17 7 14 13 14 14 14 11 32 29 36 36 36 14 15 14 11 11 18 22-26 24-18 8 15 13 19 13 35 29 43 16 12 14 17 35-22 20-32 15 9 10 9 31 17 22 17 11 12 16 12 APPENDIX Y Table 9. 19. —-Stage One Raw Data; Results of Significance by _t_ Test on Degree of Difficulty of Understanding PromotionstProblem as Related to'Institutional Factors. Institutional Factors Personal Size Control Level Characteristics Under— Small La gge 'PriVate Public Lraduate Graduate Sex: 288 488 415 361 552 224 Male 640 1104 919 825 1236 508 335 482 499 318 571 246 Pu>Pr Female 86 134 117 103 164 56 186 314 249 251 364 136 132 140 170 102 210 62 L>S Pu>Pr Age: 251 389 362 278 475 165 Young 567 875 802 640 1067 375 272 389 416 245 477 184 Pu>Pr Old 113 215 158 170 223 105 235 497 338 394 487 245 184 226 243 167 293 117 L>S Pu>Pr Degree: 297 458 397 358 575 180 Non-Doctorate 673 1038 879 832 1295 416 346 461 483 324 615 192 Pu>Pr Doctorate 85 166 142 109 152 99 175 382 306 251 332 225 126 167 193 100 176 117 Pu>Pr Experience: 227 368 317 278 451 142, 1N0 College 519 816 701 634 1005 326 272 376 397 251 485 163 College 155 258 222 191 274 139 329 608 484 453 618 319 200 253 279 174 306 147 L>S Note: ' See explanation of numbers, bottom. Table 9. 1. 148 APPENDIX Z . Table 9. 20. --Stage Two Raw Data; Results of Significance by: Test on Degree of Difficulty of Understanding Promotions Problem as 'Related to Institutional Factors. ‘ Institutionsl Factors Size Control Level Small Large Private Public Under-Grad. Grad. 1-3* 3— 2 2-10 72. 41 41 76 76 21 168 85 85 182 ‘182 37 87 46 46 56 56 29 Pu>Pr Un>Gr 29—2 2-27 3-12 19 76 10 12 41 17 53 182 22 28 85 43 12 56 16 14 46 23 6-32 12-10 7-24 15 9 17 21 31 13 29 17 43 37 63 29 33 12 23 29 33 14 8-20 14-16 ‘ 11-31 24 10 14 22 30 7 54 22 28 56 66 9 31 16 19 17 29 12 9-23 35-15 14-21 31 14 ‘15 22 14 6 67 28 31 52 28 10 30 13 11 20 19 16 11-14 21-17 16-17 30 14 6 14 22 14 66 28 10 36 56 36 29 19 16 18 17 18 a: Hyphenated numbers at top center of cell indicate matched- grouping numbers as assigned (Table 2. 6). Other cell numbers explained in footnote of Table 9. 1. * 149 150 Table 9. 20 .---Continued _- —_ Institutional Factors Size Control - Level ISmall - La rge ‘ Private Public Under—Grad. Grad. 31-21 23-22 30-18 7 6 l4 8 l7 l9 9 10 28 13 43 43 12 l6 l3 16 12 17 25—33 32-30 22-27 7 8 9 l7 8 12 ll 12 17 43 13 28 14 12 12 12 16 14 33-28 8 10 12 28 12 13 APPENDIX AA Table 9. 21. --Stage One Raw Data; Results of Significance by _t_ Test on Degree of Difficulty of Teaching Aids Problem as Related to Personal - Characteristics. Personal Characteristics Institutional Sex Age Degree Experience ‘Factors r Non- Doc- No Male Female YounggOld Doct. torate College Collegg Size: Small 304 90 240 147 291 109 215 185 636 178 498 299 605 223 443 385 317 122 255 176 324 120 256 188 M>F Large 429 125 329 220 408 153 324 237 901 279 699 466 880 313 686 507 478 141 388 226 457 168 ‘377 249 Control: Private 435 131 349 208 413 162 316 259 911 261 725 424 861 332 656 537 492 171 411 244 479 191 394 276 Public 298 84 220 159 286 100 223 163 626 196 472 341 624 204 473 355 303 92 232 158 302 97 239 161 Level: Undergrad. 529 172 438 255 557 154 416 295 1115 362 934 521 1189 310 890 609 553 207 462 289 594 175 473 296 Graduate 204 43 131 112 142 108 123 127 ’ 422 95 263 244 296 226 239 283 242 56 181 113 187 113 160 141 O>Y Note: See meaning of numbers, bottom Table 9. 1. 151 A PPENDIX BB Table 9. 22. --Stage Two Raw Data; Results of Significance by _t_ Test on Degree of Difficulty of Teaching Aids Problem as Related to Personal Characteristics. Per sonal. Characteristic s ‘1? Sex Agge Daggee Experience Male Female Young Old »Non-Doc. -Doc. .No College Collegg 1-9* 1-8 1-25 1-5 86 18 86 23 86 8 86 45 192 34 192 39 192 16 192 95 85 29 85 31 85 14 85 34 2-22 2-7 3-33 2-15 60 14 60 21 35 10 60 26 134 38 134 43 77 18 134 56 56 14 56 33 44 12 56 20 3-23 3-20 8-19 3-35 35 12 35 11 23 13 35 12 77 26 77 27 39 27 77 26 44 15 44 16 31 16 44 10 8-4 9-4 12-18 4-13 23 21 18 21 18 8 21 14 39 35 34 35 36 18 35 32 31 33 29 33 25 13 33 19 6-13 5-6 13-34 8-6 24 14 45 24‘ 14 13 23 24 44 32 95 44 32 27 39 44 31 19 34 31 19 11 31 31 Y>O 7-26 10-24 32-14 7-30 21 14 21 13 12 18 21 13 43 30 39 25 30 36 43 25 33 13 29 14 12 18 33 12 :1: Hyphenated numbers at t0p center of cell indicate matched- grouping numbers as assigned (Table 2. 6). Other cell numbers explained in footnote of Table 9. l. 152 153 Table 9. 22--Continued _ ‘— Personal Characteristics Sex Age R Dggree Experience Male Female YoungOld Non-Doc. .Doc. No College College— 10-27 15-30 30-16 10-36 21 3 26 l3 13 17 21 9 39 3 56 25 25 33 39 23 29 14 20 12 12 19 29 11 LA>F‘ 11-34 36-18 18-17 19-11 27 13 9 14 14 13 13 27 57 27 23 34 34 23 27 57 29 11 11 16 16 18 16 29 25-19 24-37 37-17 8 13 13 14 14 13 16 27 25 28 28 23 14 16 14 ll 11 18 22-26 24-18 14 14 13 14 38 30 25 34 14 13 14 16 35-32 20-32 12 12 ll 12 26 30 27 30 10 12 16 12 APPENDIX CC Table 9. 23. -—Stage One Raw Data; Results of Significance by _t_ Test on Degree of Difficulty of Teaching Aids Problem as Related to Institutional Factors. Institutionsl Factors Personal Size Control Level Characteristics Under- Small Laigg Private Public raduate Graduate Sex: 323 429 435 317 548 204 Male 683 901 911 673 1162 422 332 478 493 317 565 245 Female 95 125 132 88 176 44 189 279 262 206 372 96 132 141 175 98 213 60 Age: 253 329 349 233 451 131 Young 529 699 725 503 765 209 269 388 413 244 472 185 Un>Gr Old 155 220 209 166 262 113 317 466 425 358 538 245 186 226 247 165 296 116 Degree: 315 408 414 309 580 143 Non-Doctorate 663 880 862 681 1246 297 343 457 482 318 609 191 ~Un>Gr Doctorate 109 153 162 100 154 108 223 313 332 204 310 226 126 168 193 101 178 116 Experience: 190 324 317 237 430 124 No College 400 686 657 509 926 240 271 377 398 250 484 164 College 194 237 259 172 304 127 406 507 537 376 630 283 198 249 277 170 303 144 Note: See explanation of numbers, bottom Table 9. 1. 154 APPENDIX DD Table 9. 24. --Stage Two Raw Data; Results of Significance by _t_ Test on Degree of Difficulty of Teaching Aids Problem as Related to Institutional Factors. Institutional Factors Size Control Level Small ~ Large Private Public Under-Grad. Grad. 1-3 * 3—2 2- 10 86 35 35 60 60 21 192 77 77 134 134 39 85 44 44 56 56 29 29-2 20-27 3-12 21 60 11 3 35 18 49 134 27 3 77 36 13 56 16 14 44 25 6-32 12-10 7-24 24 12 18 21 21 13 44 3O 36 39 43 25 31 12 25 29 33 14 8-20 14-16 11-31 23 11 18 17 27 ll 39 27 36 33 57 23 31 16 29 12 18 19 9-23 35-15 14-21 18 12 12 26 18 12 34 26 26 56 36 22 29 15 10 20 18 15 11-14 21-17 16-17 27 18 12 13 17 13 57 36 22 23 33 23 29 18 15 18 19 18 >1: Hyphenated numbers at top center of cell indicate matched- grouping numbers as assigned (Table 2.6). -Other cell numbers explained in footnote of Table 9. 1. 155 156 Table 9. 24. --Continued Institutional Factors II Size g Control Level Small - Large Private Public Under-Grad. Grad. 31-21 23-22 30—18 11 12 12 14 13 14 23 22 26 38 25 34 12 15 15 14 12 16 25-33 32-20 22-27 8 10 12 l3 l4 3 16 18 30 25 38 3 14 12 12 12 14 14 33-28 10 8 18 18 12 13 APPENDIX EE Table 9. 25. --Stage One Raw Data; Results of Significance by _t_ Test on Degree of Difficulty of Effective Lectures Problem as Related to'Personal Characteristics. Personal Characteristics Institutional Sex Age Degree Experience Factors Non- Doc- No ale Female Young Old Doct. torate CollggiCollegg Size: 213 91 190 112 231 76 223 84 363 155 326 188 393 130 387 136 324 121 258 177 328 121 261 188 NC>C Large 311 98 285 168 321 92 282 132 541 158 491 250 541 166 472 236 479 143 389 228 459 170 377 253 ND>D NC>C Control: Private 348 128 321 154 355 127 342 140 606 214 559 258 607 223 590 240 501 172 416 247 485 195 400 280 Y>O NC>C Public 176 61 154 80 197 41 163 76 298 99 258 134 327 73 269 132 302 92 231 158 302 96 238 161 ND>D NC>C Level: Undergrad. 371 156 348 180 432 101 383 180 631 260 594 298 734 167 647 344 561 208 467 292 600 178 479 309 Y>O ND>D NC>C Graduate 153 33 127 54 120 67 122 66 273 53 223 94 200 129 212 118 242 56 180 113 187 113 159 142 Y>O NC>C Note: See meaning of numbers, bottom Table 9. 1. 157 A PPENDIX FF Table 9. 26. --Stage Two Raw Data; Results of Significance by _t_ Test on Degree of Difficulty of Effective Lectures Problem as Related to Personal Characteristics. Per sonal Characteristic s Sex Age De ree Experience Male Female YoTing Old Non-Doc. Doc. -No Collegg Collggg 1-9* 1-8 1-25 1-5 79 26 79 26 79 10 79 11 145 42 145 46 145 14 145 11 88 30 88 31 88 14 88 34 NC>C 2-22 2-7 3-33 2-15 38 14 38 14 40 10 38 14 60 22 60 24 68 16 60 24 55 16 55 33 44 12 55 20 3-23 3-20 8-19 3-35 40 11 40 9 26 19 40 11 68 15 68 13 46 33 68 23 44 15 44 16 31 16 44 11 8-4 9-4 12-28 4-13 26 28 26 28 20 11 28 11 46 50 42 50 34 23 50 15 31 32 30 32 25 13 32 20 6-13 5-6 13-14 8-6 14 ll 11 14 11 8 26 14 24 15 11 24 15 16 46 24 33 20 34 33 20 10 31 33 NC>C 7-26 10-24 32-14 7-30 14 10 21 9 4 12 14 8 24 18 31 17 6 20 24 14 33 13 28 13 11 20 33 12 a: Hyphenated numbers at top center of cell indicate matched- grouping numbers as assigned (Table 2.6). Other cell numbers explained in footnote of Table 9. 1. 158 159 Table 9. 26. --Continued m;— m j — _— u - Personal Characteristic s Sex Age Degfee Experience Male Female YoungOld Non-Doc. Doc. No ColleLe Collegs 10-27 15-30 30-16 10-16 21 13 14 8 8 2 21 8 31 23 24 14 2 31 31 16 28 14 20 12 12 19 28 11 11-34 26-18 18-17 19-11 12 8 8 4 4 11 19 12 22 16 16 6 6 23 33 22 29 10 11 16 16 18 16 29 NC>C 25-19 24-37 37-17 10 19 9 5 5 11 14 33 17 7 7 23 14 16 13 11 11 18 22-26 24-18 14 10 9 4 22 18 17 6 16 13 13 16 35-32 20-32 11 4 9 4 23 6 13 6 11 11 16 11 APPENDIX GG Table 9. 27. --Stage One Raw Data; Results of Significance by_t_ Test on degree of Difficulty of Effective Lectures‘Problem as Related to Institutional Factors. Institutional FaCtors __ Personal Size . , Control Level Characteristics Under- Small Large Private Public Eaduate Graduate Sex: 222 311 350 183 376 157 Male 376 541 610 307 636 281 340 479 502 316 574 245 . Pr>Pu Female 97 98 131 64 159 36 165 158 219 104 265 58 130 143 175 98 214 59 Age: 200 285 323 162 354 131 Young 342 491 563 270 602 231 271 389 417 243 477 183 Old 117 168 157 82 182 57 195 250 263 136 300 99 188 228 250 166 300 116 Degree: 240 321 358 203 438 123 Non-Doctorate 406 541 612 335 742 205 347 459 488 318 615 191 Doctorate 82 92 129 45 103 71—7 140 166 227 79 169 137 127 170 196 101 182 115 Pr>Pu Experience: 234 282 347 169 389 127 No College 234 472 599 277 655 221 275 377 403 q 249 490 162 Pr>Pu 14 College 88 132 140 80 152 68 142 236 ' 240 138 256 122 199 253 281 171 307 145 Note: ‘ See explanation of numbers, bottom. Table 9. 1. 160 APPENDIX HH Table 9. 28. --Stage Two Raw Data; Results of Significance by: Test on Degree of Difficulty of Effective Lectures Problem as Related to Institutional Factors. Institutional Factors 1 Size Control Level Small Large Private Public Under-Grad. Grad. 1- 3 * 3- 2 2- 10 79 40 40 38 38 21 145 68 68 60 60 31 88 44 44 55 55 28 29-2 20-27 3-12 13 38 9 13 40 20 23 60 13 23 68 34 13 55 16 14 44 25 6-32 12-10 7-24 14 4 20 21 14 9 24 6 34 31 24 17 33 11 25 28 33 13 8-20 14-16 11-31 26 9 12 2 12 5 46 13 20 2 22 7 31 16 20 19 29 12 Pr>Pu 9-23 35-15 14-21 26 11 11 14 12 3 42 15 23 24 20 5 30 15 11 20 20 16 11-14 21-17 16-17 12 12 3 ll 2 11 22 20 5 23 2 23 29 20 16 18 19 18 Gr>Un :1: Hyphenated numbers at top center of cell indicate matched- grouping numbers as assigned (Table 2.6). Other cell numbers explained in footnote of Table 9. 1. 161 162 Table 9. 28. --Continued Institutional Factors Size Control ~ Level Small Large Private Public Under-Grad. Grad. 31-21 23-22 30-18 5 3 ll 14 8 4 7 5 15 22 14 6 12 16 15 16 12 16 25-33 32-30 22-27 10 10 4 8 14 13 14 16 6 14 22 23 14 12 ll 12 l6 14 33-28 10 ll 16 23 12 13 APPENDIX II Table 9. 29. --Stage One Raw Data; Results of Significance by: Test on Degree of Difficulty of Effective Discussions Problem as Related to Personal Characteristics. Personal Characteristics Institutional Sex Age Degree Experience Factors #— Non-4Doc- No Male Female Yong—Old Doct. torate Coll—eE College: Size: Small 226 86 q 198 108 223 89 200 110 398 158 342 200 389 167 350 202 320 121 252 179 327 118 259 186 Y>O Large 320 103 294 120 315 107 273 149 286 178 548 208 573 197 497 273 474 142 386 225 456 167 373 251 Y>O Control: Private 366 124 330 155 355 138 331 166 661 224 594 279 637 254 601 298 498 169 411 246 481 192 399 276 Y>O NC>C Public 180 60 162 73 168 58 148 93 322 112 296 129 280 110 258 177 296 94 227 158 302 93 235 161 Y>O Level: Undergrad. 383 141 343 178 406 121 345 182 689 257 609 328 736 215 607 344 553 205 460 289 594 173 474 293 Y>O Graduate 163 43 149 50 132 75 130 77 295 79 281 80 226 149 244 131 241 58 178 115 189 112 . 158 144 Y>O NC>C Note: See meaning of numbers, bottom Table 9. 1. 163 APPENDIX JJ Table 9. 30. --Stage Two Raw Data; Results of Significance by_t_ Test on Degree of Difficulty of Effective Discussions Problem as Related to Personal Characteristics. Personal Characteristics Sex _ Age Degree Experience Male Female Youngr Old Non-Do: Doc. .NoiCollgge Colleg_e_ 1-9* 1—8 1-25 1-5 72 25 72 20 72 11 72 20 136 43 136 34 136 17 136 30 88 28 88 31 88 14 88 33 2-22 2-7 3-33 2—15 29 9 47 15 35 9 29 16 47 13 47 29 61 13 47 32 54 15 54 33 44 12 54 20 3-23 3-20 8-19 3-35 35 8 35 16 20 16 35 12 61 12 61 36 34 28 61 20 44 15 44 16 31 16 44 11 8-4 9-4 12-28 4—13 20 29 25 29 21 8 29 6 34 53 43 53 35 20 53 10 31 33 28 33 25 13 33 19 NC>C 6-13 5-6 13-14 8-6 17 6 20 17 6 7 20 17 33 10 3o 33 1o 13 34 33 32 19 -33 32 19 10 31 32 7-26 10-24 32-14 7-30 15 10 25 8 8 12 15 5 29 16 51 12 14 20 29 9 -33 13 27 13 11 19 33 11 1;: Hyphenated numbers at top center of cell indicate matched- grouping numbers as assigned (Table 2. 6). Other cell numbers explained in footnote of Table 9. 1. 164 165 Table 9. 30. --Continued Per sonal Characteristic s Sex Agge ‘ Degree 1 Experience Male Female Young Old Non-Doc. .Doc. .No Collggg College__ 10-27 15-30 30-16 10-36 25 14 16 5 12 35 25 6 51 26 32 9 9 24 51 8 27 14 20 11 11 18 27 11 11-34 36-18 18-17 19-11 17 7 6 4 4 8 16 17 31 13 8 6 14 31 28 31 29 10 11 16 16 18 16 29 25-19 24-37 37-17 11 16 8 8 8 8 17 28 12 18 18 14 14 16 13 11 11 18 1 22-26 24-18 9 10 8 4 13 16 12 6 15 13 13 16 35-32 20-32 12 8 16 8 20 14 36 14 11 11 16 11 APPENDIX KK Table 9. 31. --Stage One Raw Data; Results of Significance by t Test on degree of Difficulty of Effective Discussions Problem as Related to Institutional Factors . Institutional Factors Personal Size Control Level Characteristics Under- Small . Large Private Public raduate Graduate Sex: 236 320 368 188 389 167 Male 414 586 666 334 697 303 336 474 499 311 566 244 Pr>Pu Female 92 103 127 63 144 46 168 178 229 117 262 84 131 142 173 100 211 62 Age: 208 294 334 168 347 155 Young 360 548 602 306 615 293 266 386 413 239 470 182 Old 114 120 156 78 183 63 208 208 280 136 335 105 190 225 249 166 297 118 Un>Gr Degree: 230 315 356 189 412 133 Non-Doctorate 398 573 638 333 744 227 346 456 484 318 609 193 Pr>Pu Doctorate 98 107 142 63 124 81 184 197 262 119 220 161 125 167 194 98 177 115 Experience: 212 273 332 153 350 135 No College 370 497 602 265 614 253 274 373 401 246 485 162 Pr>Pu College 116 149 166 99 186 79 212 273 298 187 350 135 197 251 277 171 301 147 Note: See explanation of numbers, bottom Table 9. 1. 166 APPENDIX LL Table 9. 32. --Stage Two Raw Data; Results of Significance by _t_ Test on Degree of Difficulty of Effective Discussions Problem as Related to Institutional Factors. Institutional Factor 3 Size Control ‘ \ Level Small Large Private Public Under-Grad. Grad. 1—3* 3-2 2-10 72 35 35 29 29 25 136 61 61 47 47 51 88 44 44 54 54 27 29-2 20-27 3-12 10 29 16 14 35 21 12 47 36 26 61 35 12 54 l6 14 44 25 6-32 12-10 7-24 17 8 21 25 15 8 33 14 35 51 29 12 32 11 25 27 33 13 8-20 14-16 11-31 20 16 12 12 17 6 34 36 20 24 31 10 28 15 11 20 19 16 9-23 35-15 14-21 25 8 12 16 12 4 43 12 20 32 20 6 28 15 11 20 19 16 11-14 21—17 16-17 17 12 4 8 12 8 31 20 6 14 24 14 29 19 16 18 18 18 >:< Hyphenated numbers at top center of cell indicate matched- grouping numbers as assigned (Table 2.6). Other cell numbers explained in footnote of Table 9. 1. 167 168 Table 9. 32. --Continued Institutional Factors Size Control Level Small Large Private Public Under-Grad. Grad. 31-21 23-22 30-18 6 4 8 9 5 4 10 6 12 13 9 6 12 16 15 15 11 16 25-33 32-30 22-27 11 9 8 5 9 14 17 l3 l4 9 13 26 14 12 11 11 15 14 33-28 9 8 13 20 12 13 APPENDIX MM N. c. A. COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES PARTICIPATING IN STUDY First- and third-year faculty members of the following NCA colleges and universities, listed by states, were used in carrying out this study: ‘ Arkansas Arkansas Agricultural and Mechanical College,. College Heights Arkansas Polytechnic College,. Russellville Arkansas State Teachers College,. Conway College of the Ozarks,. Clarksville Harding College, Searcy Hendrix College,. Conway Ouachita Baptist College, Arkadelphia Southern State College,. Magnolia Colorado Adams State College, Alamosa Western State College of Colorado, Dunnison Illinois Augustana College,. Rock Island Blackburn College,. Carlinville Concordia Teachers College,. River Forest Elmhurst College, Elmhurst ~A Illinois Wesleyan University, Bloomington Knox College, Galesburg '.Lake Forest College,. Lake Forest Millikin University,. Decatur Monmouth College, Monmouth .Mundelein College,. Chicago 40 National College of Education, Evanston Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Chicago 12 Rockford College,. Rockford Rosary College,. River Forest St.. Procopius College,- Lisle St. Xavier College,. Chicago 43 School of the Art Institute of Chicago, . Chicago 3 WheatonCollege, Wheaton Indiana Anderson College,- Anderson Earlham College,. Richmond Evansville College,. Evansville 4 Hanover College, Hanover 169 170 Indiana Central College, Indianapolis 27 Manchester College, North Manchester Marian College, Indianapolis 22 Rose Polytechnic Institute, Terre Haute Saint Francis College,. Fort Wayne 8 Taylor University, Upland Valparaiso University, Valparaiso Iowa Briar. Cliff College, Sioux City 3 Buena Vista College,. Storm Lake Central College, Pella 'Clarke College, Dubuque Cornell College, Mount Vernon Grinnell College, Grinnell Parsons College, Fairfield Upper'Iowa University, Fayette Wartburg College, Waverly Kansas Baker University,. Baldwin Fort Hays Kansas State College,. Hays Friends University, Wichita 13 Kansas State College of Pittsburg, Pittsburg _Kansas Wesleyan University, Salina Marymount College, Salina Ottawa University, Ottawa St. Benedict's College, Atchison Saint Mary College, Xavier ' Southwestern College, Winfield Washburn-University of Topeka, Topeka (Michigan AlbionKCollege, Albion Aquinas College, Grand Rapids 6 Emmanuel Missionary College,. Berrien Springs Hope College,. Holland Marygrove College, Detroit 21 Mercy College, Detroit 19 Northern Michigan University, Marquette Siena Heights College, Adrian Minnesota Augsburg College and Theological Seminary, Minneapolis 4 Bemidji State College, Bemidji Bethel- College, St.- Paul 1 171 College of St. Benedict, St. Joseph College of St. Catherine, ~ St, Paul 5 St. John's University,. Collegeville St. Olaf College, Northfield St, Paul Seminary, St. Paul 1 Winona State College, Winona Missouri College of St. Teresa, Kansas City 13 Culver-Stockton College,. Canton Drury College, Springfield 2 . Fontbonne College, St. . Louis 5 Lincoln University, Jefferson City Maryville College of the Sacred Heart, St- Louis 18 Missouri Valley College, Marshall Northwest Missouri State College, Maryville Park College, Parkville Tarkio College, Tarkio Westminster College,. Fulton Nebraska College of St. Mary, Omaha Concordia Teachers College, Seward Nebraska State Teachers College, Chadron Nebraska State Teachers College, Peru Nebraska State Teachers College at Wayne, Wayne Union College, Lincoln 6 New Mexico New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Socorro New Mexico Western College, Silver City North Dakota Jamestown College, Jamestown State Teachers College, Dickinson State Teachers College, Minot State Teachers‘College, Valley City Ohio Baldwin-Wallace College, Berea Bluffton College, Bluffton Central State College, Wilberforce Heidelberg College,. Tiffin 4 KenyonCollege, Gambier Mount Union College, Alliance 172 Muskingum College, New Concord Oberlin College, Oberlin Ohio Wesleyan University, Delaware Our‘Lady of Cincinnati College,. Cincinnati 6 Saint John College of Cleveland, Cleveland 14 Western College for Women, Oxford Wilmington College, Wilmington Oklahoma Bethany Nazarene College, Bethany Langston University, Langston Northeastern State College,. Tahlequah Northwestern State College, Alva Oklahoma College for Women, Chickasha Panhandle Agricultural and Mechanical College, Goodwell Phillips University, Enid South Dakota Augustana College, Sioux Falls Black Hills Teachers College, Spearfish Huron College, Huron Sioux Falls College, Sioux» Falls South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Rapid City West Virginia Alderson-Broaddus College, Philippi Bluefield State College, Bluefield Concord College, Athens Davis and Elkins College, Elkins Fairmont State College,. Fairmont Glenville State College, Glenville Morris Harvey College,. Charleston 4 West Liberty State College, West Liberty West Virginia State College, Institute Wisconsin Alverno (College,. Milwaukee 15 Carroll College, Waukesha Holy Family College, Manitowoc Lawrence College, Appleton Northland College, _ Ashland Ripon College,. Ripon St. Norbert College, West De Pere Stout State College, Menomonie Wisconsin State College at La Crosse, LaCrosse Wisconsin State College and Institute of Technology, Platteville Wisconsin State College, Stevens Point st. 1. !. ”g. 1 - 1 ‘ a 1.: , . a w wr c, f, 1:}- '. L MICHIGAN smTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES 1|1|1111111111I1111111111"11111111 3129300808051 1