)V1ESI.J BEIURNING MATERIALS: P1ace in book drop to LIBRAfiJES remove this checkout from .l-l-ESIIIL. your record. FINES wi11 be charged if book is returned after the date stamped be1ow. r T PERCEPTIONS OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS: A SURVEY OF THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND JUNIOR COLLEGE ADHINISTRATORS IN THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA (TAIWAN) BY Tien-Chi Chen A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1987 ABSTRACT PERCEPTIONS OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS: A SURVEY OF THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND JUNIOR COLLEGE ADHINISTRATORS IN THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA (TAIWAN) By Tien-Chi Chen The purpose of this study was to investigate perceptions of Ministry of Education officials and junior college administrators regarding the existing and desired importance and rank ordering of junior college goals in the Republic of China (Taiwan). The researcher selected 39 goal statements from the Community College Goals Inventory (CCGI) to test respondents' attitudes toward United States junior and community college education. The researcher conducted in-country data collection by means of mailed questionnaires. Respondents were asked to weigh the importance of goals listed in the questionnaire on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (of no importance) to 5 (of extremely high importance) in two dimensions: existing and desired. The significance of comparisons between paired groups and among pooled groups and discrepancies between the existing and desired importance of junior college goals were tested by means of chi-square, t-test, analysis of variance, and Scheffe post hoc procedures. Some factors were chosen and tested to determine whether they influenced respondents' perceptions regarding the existing and desired importance of goals. Tien-Chi Chen The major findings and conclusions of the study were: 1. Both Ministry of Education officials and junior college administrators had new visions of junior college goals. 2. The philosophy and some fundamental goals of American junior and community colleges were accepted by the respondents and may become junior college goals in the Republic of China (Taiwan). 3. Significant discrepancies between the existing and desired importance of goals indicated that respondents strongly wanted the goals to receive more attention. 4. By and large, congruence of perceptions regarding the existing and desired importance of goals was found between paired groups and among pooled groups. 5. Certain factors (age, level of education, years of service at junior colleges, years of service as junior college administrators, years of service in the present position at junior colleges, and years of service in business and industry) significantly influenced respondents' perceptions regarding the existing but not the desired importance of many goals. Based on the findings and conclusions, the researcher presented recommendations to the Ministry of Education and junior colleges administrators, as well as recommendations for further research. This dissertation is dedicated to my mother and late father who bore me, my sister and brother-in-law who brought me up, my mother-in-law who gave me a beautiful wife, and my respected teachers. iv Acknowledgments Words are really hard at this moment to express how grateful and appreciative I am to Dr. Philip Gannon, President of Lansing Community College and adviser of my committee. His full support, intellectual guidance, and encouragement, made my dream of having a Ph.D. come true. Dr. Samuel Moore treated me not only as his student but as his good friend. He was so helpful in structuring and facilitating my Ph.D. program. He has been so generous and patient to spend his precious time editing my dissertation. I want to extend my gratitude to him and say, "Thanks, my Lord, how lucky I am to have him as the chairperson of my committee." Dr. George Ferns and Dr. Howard Hickey, advisers of my committee, are two of my most respected professors. Not only have I learned a lot from their instruction in the classes but from their scholarly paragon. I would like to say, "I want to be a professor like they are." I really appreciate what they have done for me. I would like to thank Dr. Kenneth Neff for his suggestions and intellectual guidance. It was my fortune to have him in my committee. Dr. Jacqueline Taylor, Vice-president of Lansing Community College and my best friend, sacrificed her countless sleeping and rest hours to help me through the doctoral and the dissertation process. She shared my frustration as well as happiness. In the past four years, she has always stood by me. I shall never forget her invaluable friendship. I want to extend my gratitude and appreciation to Dr. Richard Hallgren for his concern and help, not only for the dissertation but, especially, for the growth of my spiritual life. Through him I come to know God. Our friendship through God's hands will be everlasting. Thanks a lot to Ms. Lin Chang for her intellectual consultation on quantitative methods for data analysis. Also, I want to extend my gratitude to Educational Testing Service for its permission to use a portion of Community College Goals Inventory as the research instrument. Especially, I would like to thank many faculty members, administrators, and staff of Lansing Community College for using their precious time and sharing their abundant knowledge and experience which not only helped me realize what Lansing community college is, but also motivated me to choose this topic. Also, they were very supportive to the accomplishment of the dissertation. My gratitude, now, goes to the Ministry of Education and colleagues in the Republic of China (Taiwan), especially to presidents of junior colleges, for responding to the questionnaire. Without their responses, I would never have had an opportunity to complete this dissertation. I want to extend my grateful appreciation to the Board of Trustees of Ta-hwa Institute of Technology for its full financial support, especially to the chairperson of the Board, Dr. Cheng Chung vi Chen and Board members, Dr. Hung Chao Lee, Mr. Pao Chuan Chiao and Mr. Che Kuo. Millions of thanks go to Dr. S. N. Clifford Yoh for his kindness and concern. Without his help, I would not have had a chance to go to East Lansing for my advanced study. To many friends whose names are not mentioned in this very limited space, please forgive me and accept my respect and appreciation for your concerns with my study. Finally, I would like to thank my dear wife and my lovely children. Their support, tolerance, understanding, and sacrifice made the difference so I could obtain my Ph.D. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES Chapter Page 1. The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction and Background Economic Development in the ROC (Taiwan). . . . . . 3 Economic and Educational Planning in the ROC (Taiwan). . . . . . . 4 The Junior College Education System in the ROC (Taiwan). . . . . . . . 6 Status of Junior College Education in the ROC (Taiwan). . . . . . . . . . 11 Goals of Junior College Education in the ROC (Taiwan). . . . . . . 12 U. S. Junior and Community College Education . . . . 18 Statement of the Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Purpose and Importance of the Study . . . . . . . . . 21 Delimitation and Limitation of the Study. . . . . . . 24 Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 2. Review of Selected Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Junior College Goals in the Republic of China (Taiwan). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Goals of U. 5. Junior and Community College Education . . . . . . . . . . 35 Development of the Research Instrument on U. 8. Community College Goals . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 3. Methodology and Prbcedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 The Study Population. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Research Questions and Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . 52 Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6O Demographic Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 viii Chapter 4. Analysis of Data. Respondents' Perceptions Regarding the Existing and Desired Importance and Rank Ordering of Junior College Goals. Total Group . Subgroup. Discrepancies Between the Existing and Desired Importance of Goals as Perceived by Respondents Total Group and Subgroups of JCADS, Chairpersons, and PrJCADS Subgroups . . . . . . . . Comparison of Paired or Pooled Subgroups' Perceptions of the Existing and Desired Importance of Goals The MOE and JCADS . PuJCADS and PrJCADS Administrators at Junior Colleges With and Without Evening Schools . . Presidents, Deans and Chairpersons. . . Two-year, Three- year, Five- -year JCADS and Administrators at Junior Colleges with Combination of Program Durations. . . . . . . Selected Factors Influencing Respondents' Perceptions of the Existing and Desired Importance of Goals Results of Interviews . Goals and Comments Provided by Respondents. 5. Summary, Findings, Conclusions, Discussion and Recommendations Summary of the Study. Findings. . Conclusions . . Discussion after the Research . Recommendations . Recommendations to the Ministry of Education and Junior College Administrators. Recommendations for Further Research. Appendices. Appendix A. 3? ecification of Junior College Goals in the Questionnaire . Appendix B. Ninety Goal Statements for the Community College Inventory . Descriptions of the 20 Goal Areas in the Community College Goals Inventory . English Questionnaire . Permission from Educational Testing Service ix Page 67 68 68 78 109 109 118 137 137 147 154 163 171 178 196 200 204 204 210 218 220 222 222 224 226 227 228 232 233 238 241 252 UCRIHS Approval . . Chinese Questionnaire . . Chinese Letter to Junior College Presidents in the Republic of China (Taiwan) English Translation of the Letter to Junior College Presidents in the Republic of China (Taiwan). Chinese Translation Letter to the Respondents in the Republic of China (Taiwan) English Letter to Respondents in the Republic of China (Taiwan) Bibliography. 253 254 264 265 266 267 269 LIST OF TABLES Distribution of Laborers by Education. The Number of Public and Private Junior Colleges and Enrollments: 1960 to 1984. . . . . . . Classification of Junior Colleges by Category and Type. . . . . Statistics of Junior College Graduates Pursuing Advanced Study or Employment Status in 1974, 1976, 1977, and 1978 Surveys . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Joint Entrance Examination Results of Applicants to Four Year Colleges and Universities: 1974 Through 1984. Summary of Joint Entrance Examination Results of Applicants to Two-Year Junior Colleges: 1974 through 1984. Summary of Joint Entrance Examination Results of Applicants to Three-Year Junior Colleges: 1974 through 1984. Summary of Joint Entrance Examination Results of Applicants to Five-Year Junior Colleges: 1971 through 1985. Breakdown of Population into Subgroups . Response Rate by Total Group and by Subgroups. Distribution of Respondents by Age, Level of Education, Years of Service at Junior Colleges, and Years of Service in the MOE (N - 336). Distribution of JCAD Respondents by Years of Service As JCADS, Years of Service in Present Position and Years of Service in Business and Industry (N - 328). xi Page 10 12 14 14 15 16 51 63 64 67 Table 4.1 Frequency Distribution of Perceptions of All Respondents Concerning the Existing Importance of Junior College Goals. Frequency Distribution of Perceptions of All Respondents Concerning the Desired Importance of Junior College Goals. Existing Ranking of Junior College Goals As Perceived by All Respondents. . Desired Ranking of Junior College Goals As Perceived by All Respondents. Comparison of the Existing and Desired Ranking of Junior College Goals As Perceived by All Respondents Comparison of the Existing and Desired Ranking of Junior College Goals As Perceived by the MOE . Comparison of the Existing and Desired Ranking of Junior College Goals As Perceived by JCADS . Comparison of the Existing and Desired Ranking of Junior College Goals As Perceived by Presidents. Comparison of the Existing and Desired Ranking of Junior College Goals As Perceived by Deans Comparison of the Existing and Desired Ranking of Junior College Goals As Perceived by Chairpersons. Comparison of the Existing and Desired Ranking of Junior College Goals As Perceived by PuJCADS . Comparison of the Existing and Desired Ranking of Junior College Goals As Perceived by PrJCADS . Comparison of the Existing and Desired Ranking of Junior College Goals As Perceived by Administrators at Two-Yr. Junior Colleges. Comparison of the Existing and Desired Ranking of Junior College Goals As Perceived by Administrators at Three-Yr. Junior Colleges. Comparison of the Existing and Desired Ranking of Junior College Goals As Perceived by Administrators at Five-Yr. Junior Colleges . xii Page 72 74 76 77 79 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 93 95 97 Table 4.16 Comparison of the Existing and Desired Ranking of Junior College Goals As Perceived by JCADS at Junior Colleges with a Combination of Program Duration . . . . . . Comparison of the Existing and Desired Ranking of Junior College Goals As Perceived by Administrators at Junior Colleges with Evening Schools. Comparison of the Existing and Desired Ranking of Junior College Goals As Perceived by Administrators at Junior Colleges without Evening Schools . Total Number of Existing Goals at Different Levels of Importance According to Perceptions of Total Group and Subgroups . Total Number of Desired Goals at Different Levels of Importance According to Perceptions of Total Group and Subgroups . Top Five and Bottom Five Existing Goals, Ranked by Total Group and Subgroups . . . . Top Five and Bottom Five Desired Goals Ranked by Total Group and Subgroups. Discrepancies between the Existing and Desired Importance of Junior College Goals As Perceived by All Respondents . Discrepancies between the Existing and Desired Importance of Junior College Goals As Perceived by JCADS. Discrepancies between the Existing and Desired Importance of Junior College Goals As Perceived by Chairpersons . Discrepancies between the Existing and Desired Importance of Junior College Goals As Perceived by PrJCADS. Discrepancies between the Existing and Desired Importance of Junior College Goals As Perceived by the MOE. Discrepancies between the Existing and Desired Importance of Junior College Goals As Perceived by Presidents . Discrepancies between the Existing and Desired Importance of Junior College Goals As Perceived by Deans. xiii Page 99 101 103 105 106 107 108 110 112 114 116 119 121 124 Table Discrepancies between the Existing and Desired Importance of Junior College Goals As Perceived by PuJCADS. Discrepancies between the Existing and Desired Importance of Junior College Goals As Perceived by Administrators at Two-Yr. Junior Colleges . Discrepancies between the Existing and Desired Importance of Junior College Goals As Perceived by Administrators at Three-Yr. Junior Colleges . Discrepancies between the Existing and Desired Importance of Junior College Goals As Perceived by Administrators at Five-Yr. Junior Colleges. Discrepancies between the Existing and Desired Importance of Junior College Goals As Perceived by Administrators at Junior Colleges with a Combination of Program Durations . Discrepancies between the Existing and Desired Importance of Junior College Goals As Perceived by Administrators at Junior Colleges with Evening Schools . Discrepancies between the Existing and Desired Importance of Junior College Goals As Perceived by Administrators at Junior Colleges without Evening Schools . Chi-Square for Differences in Perceptions of the MOE and JCADS Concerning the Existing Importance of Junior College Goals . Results of Chi- -Square Comparing Perceptions of the MOE and JCADS on the Existing Importance of Junior College Goals. . . . . . . Chi-Square for Differences in Perceptions of the MOE and JCADS Concerning the Desired Importance of Junior College Goals . Results of Chi- -Square Comparing Perceptions of the MOE and JCADS on the Desired Importance of Junior College Goals. . . . . . . . . T-Test for Differences in Perceptions of PuJCADS and PrJCADS Concerning the Existing Importance Junior College Goals. . . xiv Page 126 128 131 133 135 138 139 143 144 145 146 150 Table Results of T-Test Comparing Means of the Existing Importance of Junior College Goals As Rated by PuJCADS (Pu) and PrJCADS (Pr) T-Test for Differences in Perceptions of PuJCADS and PrJCADS Concerning the Desired Importance of Junior College GoalS . Results of T-Test Comparing Means of the Desired Importance of Junior College Goals As Rated by PuJCADS (Pu) and PrJCADS (Pr) T-Test for Differences in Perceptions of Administrators at Junior Colleges with and Those without Evening School Concerning the Existing Importance of Junior College Goals . Results of T-Test Comparing Means of the Existing Importance of Junior College Goals As Rated by Administrators at Junior Colleges with (A) and Those without (B) Evening Schools T-Test for Differences in Perceptions of Administrators at Junior Colleges with and Those without Evening Schools Concerning the Desired Importance of Junior College Goals . Results of T-Test Comparing Means of the Desired Importance of Junior College Goals As Rated by Administrators at Junior Colleges with (A) and Those without (B) Evening Schools ANOVA for Differences in Perceptions of Presidents, Deans, and Chairpersons Concerning the Existing Importance of Junior College Goals . Results of Scheffe Test Comparing Means of the Existing Importance of Junior College Goals As Rated by Presidents (P), Deans (D), and Chairpersons (C). ANOVA for Differences in Perceptions of Presidents, Deans, and Chairpersons Concerning the Desired Importance of Junior College Goals . Results of Scheffe Test Comparing Means of the Desired Importance of Junior College Goals As Rated by Presidents (P), Deans (D), and Chairpersons (C). ANOVA for Differences in Perceptions of Administrators at Two-Yr, Three-Yr, Five-Yr Junior Colleges and Junior Colleges with a Combination of Program Durations Concerning the Existing Importance of Junior College Goals . XV Page 151 153 154 156 157 160 161 164 165 168 169 172 Table 4.54 Results of Scheffe Test Comparing Means of the Existing Importance of Junior College Goals As Perceived by Administrators at Junior Colleges with Different Program Durations. ANOVA for Differences in Perceptions of Administrators at 2-Yr, 3-Yr, S-Yr Junior Colleges and Junior Colleges with a Combination of Program Durations Concerning the Desired Importance of Junior College Goals Results of Scheffe Test Comparing Means of the Desired Importance of Junior College Goals As Perceived by Administrators at Junior Colleges with Different Program Durations. ANOVA for Differences in Perceptions of All Respondents According to Different Intervals of Age Concerning the Existing Importance of Junior College Goals. ANOVA for Differences in Perceptions of All Respondents According to Different Intervals of Age Concerning the Desired Importance of Junior College Goals ANOVA for Differences in Perceptions of A11 Respondents According to Years of Service at Junior Colleges Concerning the Existing Importance of Junior College Goals . ANOVA for Differences in Perceptions of All Respondents According to Years of Service at Junior Colleges Concerning the Desired Importance of Junior College Goals ANOVA for Differences in Perceptions of A11 Respondents According to Levels of Education Concerning the Existing Importance of Junior College GoalS. ANOVA for Differences in Perceptions of A11 Respondents According to Levels of Education Concerning the Desired Importance of Junior College Goals . ANOVA for Differences in Perceptions of A11 Respondents According to Years of Service in the MOE Concerning the Existing Importance of Junior College Goals . ANOVA for Differences in Perceptions of A11 Respondents According to Years of Service in the MOE Concerning the Desired Importance of Junior College Goals . xvi Page 173 176 177 181 182 184 185 186 187 189 190 Table 4.65 4.66 4.67 4.68 4.69 4.70 ANOVA for Differences in Perceptions of JCADS According to Years of Service As Junior College Administrator Concerning the Existing Importance of Junior College Goals ANOVA for Differences in Perceptions of JCADS According to Years of Service As Junior College Administrator Concerning the Desired Importance of Junior College Goals . ANOVA for Differences in Perceptions of JCADS According to Years of Service in Present Positions Concerning the Existing Importance of Junior College Goals . ANOVA for Differences in Perceptions of JCADS According to Years of Service in Present Positions Concerning the Desired Importance of Junior College Goals . ANOVA for Differences in Perceptions of JCADS According to Years of Service in Business and Industry Concerning the Existing Importance of Junior College Goals ANOVA for Differences in Perceptions of JCADS According to Years of Service in Business and Industry Concerning the Desired Importance of Junior College Goals . xvii Page 191 193 194 195 197 198 LIST OF FIGURES Integrated System for Junior College Education . Graphic Representation of Discrepancies between the Existing and Desired Importance of Goals As Rated by All Respondents . Graphic Representation of Discrepancies between the Existing and Desired Importance of Goals As Rated by JCADS . Graphic Representation of Discrepancies between the Existing and Desired Importance of Goals As Rated by Chairpersons. Graphic Representation of Discrepancies between the Existing and Desired Importance of Goals As Rated by PrJCADS . Graphic Representation of Discrepancies between the Existing and Desired Importance of Goals As Rated by the MOE . Graphic Representation of Discrepancies between the Existing and Desired Importance of Goals As Rated by Presidents. Graphic Representation of Discrepancies between the Existing and Desired Importance of Goals As Rated by Deans . Graphic Representation of Discrepancies between the Existing and Desired Importance of Goals As Rated by PuJCADS . Graphic Representation of Discrepancies between the Existing and Desired Importance of Goals As Rated by Administrators at Two-Yr. Junior Colleges. Graphic Representation of Discrepancies between the Existing and Desired Importance of Goals As Rated by Administrators at Three-Yr. Junior Colleges. xviii Page 111 113 115 117 120 122 125 127 129 132 Figures Page 4.11 Graphic Representation of Discrepancies between the Existing and Desired Importance of Goals As Rated by Administrators at Five-Yr. Junior Colleges . . . . . . . 134 4.12 Graphic Representation of Discrepancies between the Existing and Desired Importance of Goals As Rated by Administrators at Junior Colleges with a Combination of Program Durations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 4.13 Graphic Representation of Discrepancies between the Existing and Desired Importance of Goals As Rated by Administrators at Junior Colleges with Evening Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 4.14 Graphic Representation of Discrepancies between the Existing and Desired Importance of Goals As Rated by Administrators at Junior Colleges without Evening Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 4.15 Graphic Representation of Differences of Mean Scores of the Existing Importance of Goals As Rated by the MOE and JCADS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 4.16 Graphic Representation of Differences of Mean Scores of the Desired Importance of Goals As Rated by the MOE and JCADS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 4.17 Graphic Representation of Differences of Mean Scores of the Existing Importance of Goals As Rated by PuJCADS and PrJCADS. . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 4.18 Graphic Representation of Differences of Mean Scores of the Desired Importance of Goals As Rated by PuJCADS and PrJCADS. . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 4.19 Graphic Representation of Differences of Mean Scores of the Existing Importance of Goals As Rated by Administrators at Junior Colleges with and without Evening Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 4.20 Graphic Representation of Differences of Mean Scores of the Desired Importance of Goals As Rated by Administrators at Junior Colleges with and without Evening Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 4.21 Graphic Representation of Differences of Mean Scores of the Existing Importance of Goals As Rated by Presidents, Deans, and Chairpersons . . . . . . 167 4.22 Graphic Representation of Differences of Mean Scores of the Desired Importance of Goals As Rated by Presidents, Deans, and Chairpersons . . . . . . 170 xix Figures 4.23 4.24 Page Graphic Representation of Differences of Mean Scores of the Existing Importance of Goals As Rated by Administrators at Junior Colleges with Different Program Durations . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 Graphic Representation of Differences of Mean Scores of the Desired Importance of Goals As Rated by Administrators at Junior Colleges with Different Program Durations . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Intxgdnctign di Backgroung In the past the time-span of important change was considerably longer than that of a single human life. Thus mankind was trained to adapt itself to fixed conditions. . . .Today this time-span is considerably shorter than that of human life, and accordingly our training must prepare individuals to face a novelty of conditions. A. N. Whitehead In the era of knowledge explosion and information technology, change in society is so rapid that what is required today may be an option or even forgotten tomorrow, and what is not known today could be commonplace tomorrow (Gleazer, 1980). Therefore, to keep pace with rapid change, people strongly desire opportunities to learn or to be trained for their daily lives. In such an environment, educational and training institutions have been burdened with more responsibilities than other institutions to prepare people for meeting the needs of the change and to satisfy their desires, as well. The problem concerns how educational institutions can set their direction to assume and meet their responsibilities. Medsker (1960) wrote: In one sense, a statement of a basic philosophy and a written set of objectives are to an institution what a road map is to the tourist or a flight plan to the pilot--they chart the direction. (p. 84) [£180. King, Breuder, and Marquess (in David, 1983) addressed the question as follows: 2 The Roman philosopher Seneca concluded "When a man does not know what harbor he is making for, no wind is the right wind." Similarly, we may conclude, an educational institution today which has not identified and set forth clear and explicit goals will be unable to prove the necessary focus and direction needed to achieve its prescribed mission. (p. 1) That is why Etzioni (1964) said that the very raison d'etre of organizations is the service of their goals, and the actual effectiveness of a specific organization is determined by the degree to which it realizes its goals. Institutions of higher education already have objectives or goals. But, since higher education institutions are open organizational systems, they should be sensitive and responsive to changes in their environment (Lima, 1985). Reviewing purposes or goals is both meaningful and necessary for an organization (King & Cleland, 1978). Faure et a1. (1972) foresaw that "education is now engaged in preparing men for a type of society which does not yet exist" (P. 13). They stressed the multiple functions of education. They said that ”the physical, intellectual, emotional, and ethical integration of the individual into a complete man is a broad definition of the fundamental aim for education" (p. 156). However, Swartz (1977) indicated that recent developments in society have led planners and administrators to move the curriculum toward vocational preparation and away from the humanities. When Peterson was asked the purposes of institutions of higher education in the United States, he (1972) stated: The college experience must be job-relevant. Need it be? Can it also be an experience for self-discovery and improved human relating, of developing leisure skills, of trying out different lifestyles, of acquiring humane values? Can it also be a base from which people can engage in useful social or public service? . . .Adults are more and more coming to define themselves 3 in other than occupational terms. Many young people, of course, now as in the past, simply don't know what they want to do with their lives. Many, furthermore, don't want to be in a hurry to decide. (p. 35) The preceding concerns are relevant not only to educational institutions in the United States. Junior college educators in the Republic of China (ROC) (Taiwan) may also be concerned about whether the goals of junior college education in the ROC (Taiwan), defined four decades ago, can still respond to today's needs. Before continuing with a report of the present investigation, it is necessary to provide a general introduction to junior college education in the ROC (Taiwan). 3W Wm). Taiwan is an island located in Far East Asia. Its total area is about 35,961 square kilometers. Because two-thirds of the island is covered by a rugged mountain range, therefore only one-third of the land can be cultivated. As Taiwan has very limited natural resources and a large population (now over 19 million), the government recognized that manpower plays the most important role in economic developments (Council for Economic Planning and Development under Executive Yuan, 1984; Lee, 1979). In the past three decades, through land-reform programs and four- and six-year economic plans, the economic structure of the ROC (Taiwan) has been shifted from agricultural productivity to labor- intensive and export-oriented manufacturing. Currently, through four- and ten-year economic plans, the country has been heading toward skill-intensive industry. These economic developments in the past 4 decades, stemming from the effective and efficient use of human resources, have made the ROC (Taiwan) the leader country among developing countries (Lee, 1980), a model of economic development for other developing countries (Yu, 1985), and an "economic miracle” in the twentieth century (YOung, 1985). The ROC (Taiwan) has been praised as one of the four "little dragons" in Asia (the other three are Hong Kong, Singapore, and South Korea) (Yoh, 1986). According to Young (1985), three factors have brought about this amazing economic achievement: (a) successful leadership of the central government, (b) sufficient supply of manpower, and (c) widespread education and job training. The advantage of cheap labor in the ROC (Taiwan) disappeared in the late 1970s. External factors such as two energy crises, worldwide economic recession, worldwide protectionism, and competition from other developing countries, as well as such internal factors as increasing demand for petroleum, a high degree of dependence on foreign trade, higher labor wages, too many small and medium-size enterprises, and low profit on processed goods have brought about difficulties for the economy of the ROC (Taiwan) during the last two decades.' The economic structure had to be shifted from labor- intensive industry to capital- and skill-intensive industry. WWW WOW). The shift in the economic structure of the ROC (Taiwan) has brought about an increased demand for skilled workers and technicians. According to the Manpower Planning of the Ten-Year Economic Development Plan (1980-89), the demand for laborers who have been 5 educated at senior vocational high schools, junior colleges, or universities will increase in the next decade. Table 1.1 shows that junior college graduates will constitute 8.4% of the total labor force by 1989, a 1% increase over 1980. TABLE 1.1 DISTRIBUTION OF LABORERS BY EDUCATION Unit: 100 persons Education 1980 % 1984 % 1989 % Mid Sch. and below 1,688 53.8 1,813 52.9 1,771 49.8 High School 196 6.2 205 6.0 215 6.0 Voc. High School 770 24.2 858 25.0 962 27.0 Junior College 231 7.4 273 8.0 300 8.4 University 255 8.1 281 8.1 312 8.5 Total 3,140 100.0 3,430 100.0 3,560 100.0 Source: T. C. Chiang, 1985. Calhourn and Finch (1982) emphasized the importance of training technicians to economic development: In the future, the rate of economic growth will increasingly depend on the rate of technological development which, in turn, will depend on the availability of technically trained personnel, especially in these countries which have the shortage of fuel and other natural resources. (p. 69) Education in the ROC (Taiwan) is centralized. The Ministry of Education (MOE) is responsible for planning, programming, budgeting and supervising the educational system. Foreseeing the increased demand for skilled laborers and following the manpower development plans (1965 - 1989), the MOE devised educational plans. In 1968, free education was extended from six years to nine years to increase the number of students. Vocational and technical education was also 6 strengthened to train more skilled manpower. The MOE planned to shift the student enrollment ratio of senior general high schools to senior vocational high schools and five-year junior colleges from 6:4 to 3:7. In 1968, under this kind of educational planning, student enrollment ratio of general high schools to senior vocational and technical schools together with junior colleges became 4:6. In 1980, the ratio became 3:7. Since 1980, the ratio has continued to grow as a result of the growth of vocational and technical education (Chiou, 1980). Moreover, in the mid-19608, an integrated vocational and technical education system was established, which includes senior vocational high schools, junior colleges, and the National Taiwan Institute of Technology. e at n stem WM). In the 19605 and early 19703, the government encouraged industry, business, and even private individuals to establish junior colleges. As shown in Table 1.2, the number of junior colleges more than quintupled -- from 14 to 73 -- in the ten year period from 1961 to 1971. During the same period, student enrollment increased 14.2 times -- from 8,366 to 119,146. At present, 77 of the 105 institutions of higher education in the ROC (Taiwan) are junior colleges, which enroll almost 55% of the students pursuing in higher education. Of the 77 junior colleges, 56 or 73% are controlled by the private sector; almost 75% of the students participating in junior college education are enrolled in these institutions. TABLE 1.2 THE NUMBER OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE JUNIOR COLLEGES AND ENROLLMENTS: 1960 TO 1984 School No. of Junior College Enrollment Year --------------------------------------------------------- Public Private Total Public Private Total 1951 3 1 4 1,489 651 2,140 1961 8 6 14 4,988 3,378 8,366 1971 20 53 73 31,813 87,333 119,146 1981 21 56 77 45,553 147,348 192,901 1982 21 56 77 48,016 155,706 203,722 1983 21 56 77 51,119 165,046 216,165 1984 21 56 77 54,372 173,120 227,492 Source: 1985 Educational Statistics of the Republic of China. The statistics in Table 1.2 show that since 1951 junior colleges have played a critical role in the educational system and in cultivating middle-level well skilled manpower as (Commission on Education Research under the Ministry of Education, 1984). Former Deputy Minister of Education Deng, interviewed by the researcher, said that junior college graduates have contributed a great deal to the Ten Economic Construction Projects of the 19705. In general, three kinds of programs are offered by the current junior college education system: 1. Five-year program -- Admits graduates from junior high schools who pass the joint entrance examination. 2. Two-year program -- Admits graduates from senior vocational schools who pass the joint entrance examination. 3. Three-year program -- Admits graduates from both senior 8 high schools and senior vocational high schools who pass the joint entrance examination. Two-year evening programs are affiliated with two-year and five-year junior colleges and admit only those who have a senior high school or senior vocational high school diploma, have been employed one year and have passed the joint entrance examination. Three-year evening programs are affiliated with three-year junior colleges and admit those who have graduated from either senior general or vocational high schools, without the requirement of one year's employment, and have passed the joint entrance examination. After passing the joint entrance examination, junior college graduates in some fields of engineering technology and commercial technology can continue their study at the National Taiwan Institute of Technology, which offers two-year technical bachelor's degree programs solely for junior college graduates. All junior college graduates may also transfer to a four-year college or university after passing a transfer examination or they may directly take the entrance examination of a university graduate school or the National Taiwan Institute of Technology to pursue a master's degree. Figure 1 shows how the educational system is organized and operated. en du k Voc-Tech. Education Track | Graduate Sch. | Graduate School of ) I I I I I I I ’.‘ I I I i V I I ’.‘ I I I I I ’.‘ I I A I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I V O O H H O O H P‘H I .__I I |Seni. High Sch.| -------------- >|Seni. Voc-High Sch.| A A A | Junior High School | I I I I I _______ I I | A A |Coll.| I I I I I I I I I Source: 1985 Educational Statistics of the Republic of China and Status Quo of Vocational and Technical Education in the Republic of China (1978). aNTIT: National Taiwan Institute of Technology. FIGURE 1.1 INTEGRATED SYSTEM FOR JUNIOR COLLEGE EDUCATION 10 No junior college is permitted to offer comprehensive programs. Instead, the junior college must specialize in one of the following 14 categories: normal, agriculture, industrial, commercial, health technology, nursing, home economics, maritime, municipal affairs, arts, athletics, journalism, management, or foreign languages. A majority of the junior colleges (34) have an industrial and technical specialty because the graduates of these institutions are most sought by industry. (See table 1.3.) TABLE 1.3 CLASSIFICATION OF JUNIOR COLLEGES BY CATEGORY AND TYPE Category Public Private Total Agriculture 2 - 2 Arts 1 - 1 Athletics 2 - 2 Municipal Affairs - 1 1 Commercial 2 10 12 Normal (Elementary Teacher Training) 9 - 9 Foreign Language - 1 1 Home Economics - 2 2 Industrial 3 31 34 Journalism - 1 1 Maritime 1 l 2 Nursing and Health-Tech. 1 9 10 N H m 0‘ \J \J Source: 1985 Educational Statistics of the Republic of China. 11 W93 1W Many problems have developed because of the rapid growth of junior colleges. In the 1970s, the shortcomings of junior colleges in the ROC (TAiwan) were widely publicized in journals and newspapers. In 1984, the Council for Economic Planning and Development conducted an examination of junior college education. In its report, the Council clearly indicated the weaknesses of junior colleges and suggested the five-year junior college programs be phased out. Robert Jacoby (1981), the vocational training adviser for the ROC (Taiwan), made the same recommendation in his report. Moreover, according to estimates of the supply and demand for labor force in the ROC (Taiwan) from 1983 to 1993, there already is an oversupply of junior college graduates (Council for Economic Planning and Development under Executive Yuan, 1985). Four consecutive surveys conducted by the National Youth Commission under Executive Yuan showed that junior college graduates have the highest unemployment rate among graduates of all levels of education (1980). As shown in Table 1.4, the third survey in 1977 and the fourth survey in 1978 indicated that more than 50% of junior college graduates who responded were unemployed ten months after completing their military service. In the 1982 national survey, which differed from the previous four surveys in terms of methodology, also indicated that 36% of junior college graduates were unemployed ten months after completing military service -- the highest unemployment rate among graduates of all levels of education. 12 TABLE 1.4 STATISTICS OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GRADUATES PURSUING ADVANCED STUDY OR EMPLOYMENT STATUS IN 1974, 1976, 1977, AND 1978 SURVEYS Year Response Employed Unemployed Advanced Study Other (it) (’3) (95) (‘3) 1974 16,754 9,778 4,802 870 1,304 (58.76) (28.66) (5.19) (7.78) 1976 13,819 6,370 6,384 315 750 (46.10) (46.19) (2.28) (5.43) 1977 12,937 4,380 7,632 201 724 (33.86) (58.99) (1.55) (5.60) 1978 11,402 4,969 5,828 270 335 (43.58) (51.11) (2.37) (2.94) Source: 13th Report of the National Youth Commission. W121: W Based on the proceeding discussion, the question may be asked, what are the goals of junior college education in the ROC (Taiwan)? If the purpose is to train people for employment, why do graduates of junior colleges experience the highest unemployment rate? Both the Council for Economic Planning and Development and the National Youth Commission have suggested that the number of junior colleges should not be increased; instead, their quality should immediately be enhanced (Council for Economic Planning and Development under Executive Yuan, 1984). Also, vocational and technical educators have Claimed that educational planning must be matched to manpower development to increase the benefits of educational investment and to 13 decrease underemployment (Lui, 1984). People in the ROC (Taiwan) traditionally believe that a person's worth is directly related to his/her years of schooling. more years of schooling will make a person better than others. As a matter of fact, on the average, a person's annual income and total lifetime earnings increase in direct proportion to the number of years of schooling completed. Likewise, better educated individuals constitute a labor force that is more skilled, more adaptable to change, and more likely to develop imaginative ideas, techniques, and products (Lee, 1979). Also, the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education (1973) stressed that "Higher education, in particular, can help lead to more individual participation in a democratic society, more meaningful work in a more productive economy, and more creativity in a future with greater leisure" (p. 16). Schultz (1962), too, stressed that education is the key investment in human capital. Table 1.5 shows the number of applicants to four-year colleges and universities and the number of students who passed the joint entrance examination in the decade from 1974 through 1984. Tables 1.6, 1.7, and 1.8 show the number of students taking and passing junior college joint entrance examinations. More and more adults and employees are taking junior college evening programs to continue their education and skill training. 14 TABLE 1.5 SUMMARY OF JOINT ENTRANCE EXAMINATION RESULTS OF APPLICANTS TO FOUR-YEAR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES: 1974 THROUGH 1984 Day school Evening school Year ---------------------------------------------- No. of No. of No. of No. of Applicants Students % Applicants Students % Passed Passed 1974 93,205 25,010 26.8 36,341 9,557 26.3 1978 94,850 26,847 28.3 39,894 9,004 22.6 1981 97,963 29,260 29.9 39,234 9,340 23.8 1984 98,236 31,535 32.1 37,547 9,390 25.0 Source: 1985 Educational Statistics of the Republic of China. TABLE 1.6 SUMMARY OF JOINT ENTRANCE EXAMINATION RESULTS OF APPLICANTS TO TWO-YEAR JUNIOR COLLEGES: 1974 THROUGH 1984 Day school Evening school Year -------------------------------------------- No. of No. of No. of No. of Applicants Students % Applicants Students % Passed Passed 1974 11,925 4,381 36.7 a 1978 26,260 6,335 24.1 15,456 3,843 24.9 1981 31,070 7,397 23.8 20,323 5,309 26.1 1982 34,176 8,065 23.6 29,058 9,689 33.3 1984 49,401 8,301 16.8 25,222 8,450 33.5 Source: 1985 Educational Statistics of the Republic of China. aThe entrance examination was combined with that of three-year junior colleges. 15 TABLE 1.7 SUMMARY OF JOINT ENTRANCE EXAMINATION RESULTS OF APPLICANTS TO THREE-YEAR JUNIOR COLLEGES: 1974 THROUGH 1984 Day school Evening school Year -------------------------------------------- No. of No. of No. of No. of Applicants Students % Applicants Students % Passed Passed 1974 30,208 7,363 24.4 a 1978 35,057 7,599 21.7 9,417 2,650 28.1 1981 36,344 7,544 20.8 11,072 2,650 23.9 No. of Applicants No. of Students % Passed 1982b 44,041 10,043 22 8 1984 44,227 10,233 23 1 Source: 1985 Educational Statistics of the Republic of China. 8The entrance examination was combined with that of two-year junior colleges. bFrom 1982 the entrance examinations of day school and evening school of three-year junior colleges were combined. 16 Table 1.8 SUMMARY OF JOINT ENTRANCE EXAMINATION RESULTS OF APPLICANTS TO FIVE-YEAR JUNIOR COLLEGES: 1971 THROUGH 1985 Year No. of Applicants No. of Students % Passed 1971 88,098 19,912 22.6 1974 126,798 20,277 16.0 1978 173,929 25,312 14.6 1981 261,158 29,458 13.6 1982 214,263 30,781 14.4 1985 240,338 29,948 12.5 Source: Reports of Joint Entrance Examination Committees of Northern, Central, and Southern Divisions. Tables 1.6, 1.7, and 1.8 reveal a phenomenon of rigorous competition to enter junior colleges and universities. This competition primarily concerns vocational-technical education students. According to a survey conducted by Koau Hsiung Normal College personnel in 1976, 65 % of vocational high school graduates showed an interest in and desire for higher education. Some vocational educators believe that, if this situation continues, vocational and technical education will develop in an unhealthy way, which will not only be contrary to the goal of vocational and technical education but also will lower the quality of skilled manpower (Council for Economic Planning and Development under Executive Yuan, 1985). The problems described above have been discussed for many years, but they still remain. The MOE, on the one hand, has adopted many measures to enhance the quality of junior college education to meet the needs of business and industry and, on the other, has 17 increased junior college and university enrollment to meet the needs of students, has established junior college evening programs as vocational-technical education extension, and has initiated televised junior college programs for adults and employees. MOE officials and many educators believe that if people are imbued with the concept of schooling-working-schooling and lifelong learning, the problems will be solved. Gannon (1983) stressed "The gap between work and education is expected to narrow as more and more of the work force continues to participate in learning experience throughout its lifetime" (p 64). Faure et a1. (1972) also stressed that "Every individual must be in a position to keep learning throughout his life. The idea of lifelong education is the keystone of the learning society (p. 181). But if educational and training systems lack a clearly defined mission and goals to match that object, how can people be convinced that they have a variety of opportunities during their life times to learn and be trained when they wish and in the areas in which they want to study? In the United States, the community college educational system solves these problems by providing a variety of programs, flexible schedules, open admission, and so on. A delegation from the ROC (Taiwan) that comprises junior college presidents and MOE officials annually attends the American Association of Community and Junior Colleges convention and visits community college campuses throughout the United States. Many junior colleges in the ROC (Taiwan) have a sister-college relationship with junior or community colleges in the United States. Through these communication channels, junior college educators and administrators in the ROC (Taiwan) have gained a better understanding of U.S. culture and the community college educational 18 system. The present study was undertaken to test the attitudes of MOE officials and junior college administrators in the ROC (Taiwan) concerning the importance of American community college goals as they relate to junior college education in the ROC (Taiwan). WWW After reviewing higher education in the United States, the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education (1974) concluded, "We explicitly reject a manpower planning requirements model as the basic general criterion for the development of higher education." This rejection was based on three considerations: 1. Individuals should enjoy maximum freedom in the choice of their career objectives. 2. Students' choices of fields of study are highly sensitive to shifts in the job market and can be relied upon to be a major factor in the process of adjustment to occupational shifts. 3. Adequate long-range manpower forecasting is an exceedingly intricate affair (p. 163). Peterson (1972) also asserted: The nation's system of higher education. . .needs to be increasingly an open system, capable of flexibly providing a great range of learning experiences in the interests of individuals, groups, and nation--toward a society marked, among other attributes, by a commitment of its people and institutions to constant learning. It would be well indeed if higher education policy and practice were informed by a comprehensive conception of the good society. (p. 35) The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education (1973) indicated that as a result of the land-grant-college movement, higher education in the United states has shifted from elite to mass higher education. Moreover, since World War II, the community college movement has been moving from mass to universal higher education. 19 Universities in the United States try to provide students as many opportunities as possible. Furthermore, junior and community colleges provide an open door to postsecondary education for anyone who is willing and interested enough to attend. For example, Lansing Community College in Lansing, Michigan, has the following admission policy, stated in the 1983-84 Student Guidebook: Lansing Community College is an 'open door' community college designed to extend service to all applicants possessing appropriate preparation to benefit from programs and courses offered at the college. . . .Persons who are 18 years of age or older or who have graduated from high school are eligible to attend Lansing Community College." Junior and community colleges have also demonstrated a willingness and an ability to adapt to changing needs and circumstances. Some observers have noted, "Anytime we can describe the community college in definitive, specific terms, we will destroy it" (Gleazer, 1980, p. 5). According to Cleazer, going to people who are unserved, giving priority to those who need the education they did not get at an earlier age, serving the students with roots in their community and who have jobs there, giving those who need it a second chance, bringing people into the mainstream, and serving people handicapped by problems of cost and transportation have become the signposts of junior and community colleges in the United States. Until the 1950s, community colleges were perceived as strictly junior college serving high school graduates who wanted a year or two of postsecondary schooling before taking a job or transferring to a four- year college or university. Now these colleges attempt to be all things to all people (Gleazer, 1980). In his "Decoding the Future: Our Commitment," Gannon (1983) 20 stated that the community college is no longer an institution for traditional schooling, but a facilitator of learning. He wrote: The monopoly of schooling has been broken by modern technology... Consequently, we will be judged as a facilitator for learning rather than as a two, four or ten year institution. If not, then we jeopardize our future. (p. 7) Statement of the Ptoblen In 1983, the MOE organized a commission to reform the educational system in the ROC (Taiwan). Former Minister of Education Chiu submitted the following six principles for such a reform: 1. Rename the stages of education to express institutional characteristics. 2. Provide people with an equal opportunity for education to develop their potential to the fullest. 3. Reform the educational system to meet defense social, political, economic, national, and educational needs. 4. Reform the educational system to meet the needs of physical and spiritual development, individual differences, and community differences. 5. Reform the educational system based on national cultural environments and social organization. 6. Reform the educational system as an organic structure that provides a variety of channels among different stages of education and educational institutions. (Commission on Education Research under the Ministry of Education, 1984) Any educational innovation should be brought about by referring to clearly defined goals (UNESCO, 1981). In "Status and Principles of Innovation of Junior College Education in the Republic 21 of China," Sun (1972) pointed out that many junior colleges did not identify their goals but instead, confused them with university goals. Therefore, the functions of junior college education were not fully achieved. As Minister Without Portfolio of Executive Yuan of the Republic of China, Lee emphasized the importance of recognizing the difference between university and junior college goals. He indicated: If we recognize goals and functions of junior colleges, we will understand that many ideas and measures are incorrect . . . . Firmly grasping defined goals, designing practical curriculum based on the consideration of students' ability, and establishing a dynamic educational system to connect learning and working are the directions for the innovation of vocational and technical education (Commission on Education Research, 1984, pp. 702). Cohen (1969) also noted: As an institution becomes large and complex, more and more time is allocated to its maintenance and less time is devoted to the definition and redefinition of its purposes in the light of changed environmental conditions. (p. 50) Therefore, this study was to determine what the goals of junior college education in ROC (Taiwan) currently are and what they will be as perceived by the MOE officials and junior college administrators. Entpgse and Impottance of the Study The researcher's primary purpose in conducting this study was to clarify the existing and desired importance of possible junior college goals in the ROC (Taiwan), to establish priorities of junior college goals for both the present and the future by investigating the perceptions of MOE officials and junior college administrators (presidents, deans of instructions, deans of student affairs, and department Chairpersons), and to determine if the respondents' perceptions differed according to their positions, junior college structure, junior college type, or junior college program duration. 22 A secondary purpose was to determine the attitudes of MOE officials and junior college administrators toward selected American junior and community college philosophies and goals. Living in today's global society, people from different cultures have the opportunity to learn from each other. Some educators in junior colleges in both the ROC (Taiwan) and the United States recognize that certain aspects of the American type of community college are likely to be adopted in the ROC (Taiwan) in the future. In 1970, after examining Taiwan's history, geography, economy, culture, and education, Knoebel suggested that "While it is recognized that most western educational programs cannot and should not be adopted in total by other nations, it may be extremely desirable for Taiwan educators and economy planners to examine the potential for community-type education in their land" (p. 18). Concerning the future development of junior college education in the ROC (Taiwan), T. C. Chiang (1985) asserted that U.S. community college education is adoptable in the Republic of China. The desire to learn more about American community colleges may influence the further development of junior college education in the ROC (Taiwan). The third purpose for carrying out this was to determine whether the findings of the study might provide useful information to MOE officials and junior college administrators concerning policies or strategic and tactical planning for the development of junior college education in the ROC (Taiwan). Peterson (1971) said, "the notion of goals can be enormously useful in deliberating, determining, and evaluating policy and practice in educational organizations." (p. 11) The fourth purpose was to determine whether selected factors (age, level of education, years of service at junior colleges, number 23 of years of service in the MOE, number of years of service as junior college administrators, years of service in present position and years of service in business and industry) influenced respondents' perceptions regarding the importance of junior college goals. Finally, the researcher attempted to do the initial work in developing a goals inventory for junior colleges in the ROC (Taiwan). Because junior college education is governed by the MOE, it is not only practical but necessary to understand MOE officials' perceptions of junior college goals. On the other hand, junior college administrators are practitioners, and their perceptions of junior college goals cannot be overlooked. It was meaningful to discover the congruences and discrepancies between the perceptions of MOE officials and junior college administrators. Also, it was important to view the congruences and discrepancies between the perceptions of public and private junior college administrators because the ratio of private to public junior colleges is almost 6:1. Junior college administrators -- presidents, deans, and chairpersons -- all play a key role in setting and implementing goals. If there is any appreciable dissonance in their perceptions, it will be worthwhile to conduct a further research to determine what factors account for those differences. Also, it was important to determine whether there were congruences and discrepancies in perceptions between administrators of junior colleges with and those without an evening schools; and among administrators at two-year, three—year, five-year junior colleges and those at junior colleges with a combination of two-year, three-year, and five-year program durations regarding the importance of junior college goals. The congruences and 24 discrepancies in their perceptions might be used later in formulating the policies of the MOE or the junior colleges themselves. a d t t o s o the Stud Deli-miseries: 1. The survey population was limited to two groups: MOE officials and junior college administrators. Faculty, students, employers and others were not included. Hence, the study findings may not represent a universal perception of junior college goals. 2. The researcher selected 64 of the 77 junior colleges in the ROC (Taiwan), because the other 13 junior colleges in the categories of normal, athletics, foreign languages, and arts are not as directly related to economic development. Since representatives of these 13 junior colleges were not included in the study population, the results of the investigation may not represent their perceptions of junior college goals. 3. The representatives of the MOE were delimited to those officials who had the most influence on policy making in junior college education. Their perceptions of junior college goals may not represent the perceptions of other MOE officials. Limitatiena 1. The researcher may have been culturally and politically biased in selecting goal statements from the Community College Goals Inventory for the questionnaire. 2. The researcher did not intend to develop a system to advise MOE officials and junior college administrators on how to achieve junior college goals. 25 3. The accuracy of the findings of this study depended on respondents' willingness to respond candidly to the questionnaire. 4. The researcher avoided posing sensitive questions in the questionnaire so the study findings would not be endangered. 5. Because of the small size of the MOE population, statistical analyses related to this group were limited to chi-square procedures. Definition of terms The following terms are defined in the context in which they are used in this dissertation. Dtnn_nf_1n§ttntt19n: the person in charge of academic affairs such as curriculum and instruction, evaluation, student academic records and admission. His/her position is next to the president. D§§n_2f;§tn§tnt_nfifnit§: the person primarily responsible for guiding student behavior, citizenship education, and extracurricular activities. es ed 0 ta o unior colle e oals: the importance of junior college goals in the future. W: the importance of junior college goals at the present time. Qgglgz ends toward which effort is directed and resources allocated, regardless of whether they are to be achieved or maintained. u ' o e : an educational entity that is viewed and treated as an institution of higher education in the ROC (Taiwan). The junior college offers two-year, three-year, and five-year 26 vocational and technical programs designed primarily to be terminal in nature, without awarding a degree. It is a generic term officially translated and used by the MOE. Actually, every category of junior college has its own translated English title. Jnn1tt_tnllggg_§gm1n1§ttnttt§: persons directing or supervising the affairs of the junior college. Administrators included in this study were limited to the president, specific deans, and department chairpersons of each selected college. 0 1e : a component of the American educational system. At the beginning, the junior college offered two years of instruction, strictly at the collegiate freshman and sophomore levels. During the 19503 and 19603, the term was applied more often to the lower-division branches of private universities and to two-year colleges supported by churches or organized independently. The term ”community college" gradually came to be used for the comprehensive, publicly supported institution. By the 1970s, the term "community college” was usually applied to both types of institutions (Cohen & Brawer, 1982). M1n1§t11_tf_§gntnt12nz a department of the central government of the ROC (Taiwan), which is completely responsible for planning and policy making for the nation's education, especially concentrating on higher education. Pttttntitnfi: intellectual, experienced, and insightful judgments about existing and desired junior college goals, based on awareness of environments. io t : identical to rank ordering of importance of goals, based on comparison of means and standard deviations. 27 MW: employment Preparation offered by senior vocational schools and junior colleges in programs leading to diplomas and certificates. Ove ew Chapter I included an introduction to the problem and background of junior college education in the ROC (Taiwan); a statement of the problem; the purposes and importance of the study; delimitations and limitations; and definition of terms. Chapter II is a review of selected literature pertaining to the conceptual framework of the research. Included is selected research and literature related to junior college goals in the ROC (Taiwan), as well as writings on the goals of American junior and community colleges and the development of the Community College Goals Inventory. The research methodology and data collection-procedure are explained in Chapter III. The study population, the research instrument, and data collection technique are discussed. The research questions and hypotheses are also stated. Chapter IV contains the results of the data analysis, including: (a) the importance and rank ordering of the goals as perceived by the total group and subgroups, (b) discrepancies between the present and future importance of the goals according to the total group and subgroups, (c) comparisons of existing and desired rankings of the importance of goals according to the total group and subgroups, (d) differences in perceptions of paired groups and pooled groups concerning the importance of the goals, and (e) the influence of 28 selected factors on respondents' perceptions regarding the importance of the goals. Chapter 5 includes a summary of the study, important findings and conclusions, discussion after the research, recommendations for MOE officials and junior college administrators, and recommendations for further research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE This chapter contains a review of selected literature pertaining to the goals of junior colleges in the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the goals of junior and community colleges in the United States. Historical- and philosophical-deve1opment approaches are used in the review. Research on community and junior college goals and development of the Community College Goals Inventory (CCGI) is discussed in the third section. Thirty—nine of the CCGI goal statements were selected for the instrument used in this survey. u o e e e u i o a wa Literature is sparse regarding junior college goals in the ROC (Taiwan). In 1981, Chiou published an article entitled "A Study of Long-Term Targets and Consecutive Manpower Programs for Vocational- Technical Education in Taiwan Area, Republic of China," in which he analyzed the planning goals of junior college education. He divided the goals of junior college education into three dimensions: (a) principle goals, which indicate the goals and purposes regulated by the Junior College Law and the goals proclaimed in the Curriculum Standard; (b) planning goals, which indicate the long-term, middle- term, or short-term targets; and (c) behavior goals, which concern the 29 30 students' learning behavior and activities. The planning goals of junior college education, according to Chiou's research, can be described in two stages: t 9 - Based on four manpower development plans submitted by the Council for International Economic Cooperation Development under the Executive Yuan (the Central Government), the planning goes for junior colleges can be generalized as follows: 1. Expanding junior college education and enhancing its quality. 2. Attaining the ratio of 4:6 between the enrollment of general high schools and that of senior vocational high schools and junior colleges. 3. Developing industrial technical education as the mainstream of junior college education. W Based on two manpower development plans submitted by the Economic Planning Council and the Council for Economic Planning and Development, the planning goals can be generalized as follows: 1. Enhancing the quality of junior college education. 2. Attaining a 3:7 ratio between the enrollment of general high schools and that of senior vocational high schools and junior colleges before 1981. 3. Establishing an occupation certificate system and enlarging the examination of qualification for certificates. 4. Adjusting the enrollment of junior colleges according to demands of the labor market. 31 Other researchers conducted the historical research related to the development of junior college goals and described six different stages. These researchers indicated that vocational and technical education began in 1866, when a ship-manufacturing school was established. (T. C. Chiang, 1985; Chou, 1985; Department of Technological and Vocational Education, 1978; Yoh, 1984) Wane—(M2121 During this stage, there was only one level of vocational education. The purpose of such schooling was to teach students foreign languages, machine manufacturing, and use of martial equipment. Until 1903, the vocational and technical education system in China was divided into three levels: beginning, intermediate and advanced. The advanced level was equivalent to junior college education, which was parallel to the preparatory level of the university. The principal goal was to promote the development of agriculture, industry and commerce to enrich the people and the nation. Such education was practical, not theoretical. Mimi-9.1242211 Just after the ROC founded, the MOE revised the school system, promulgated Junior College Order, and proclaimed that junior colleges were aimed at teaching advanced studies and training students to be specialists in their chosen fields. W In November 1922, the MOE promulgated the new educational system, in which universities and junior colleges could establish a branch for a specific subject for those who needed it. 32 Int Etnttn §t§gg (1928—1932) In 1929, the first national education convention renamed the junior college. In 1929, the MOE promulgated organization of junior colleges; junior colleges were to teach applied science and train students to be specialists. Senior high school graduates were admitted to junior colleges for a study period of two or three years. Int Elf§h Stngg (1232-1248) When the Sine-Japanese war broke out in 1937, junior colleges were asked to train workers to meet the skilled manpower needs for the war. In January 1939, the Main Points for Establishing Technical Junior Colleges were published. In addition, the MOE established public and private technical junior colleges and universities and ordered them to open affiliated junior colleges that would admit senior high school graduates for a study period of two years. In June, the MOE ordered junior colleges to offer five-year programs in sericulture, music, fine arts and veterinary medicine. In 1948, the Central Government proclaimed the Junior College Law. Article 1 of that law states the goal of junior college education: "In accordance with Article 158 of the Constitution of the Republic of China, junior college education aims at teaching applied science and cultivating skilled personnel." Article 158 of the Constitution of the Republic of China states the goals of education: ”Education is to cultivate citizens' national characteristics, democratic spirit, traditional morality, good physiques, scientific knowledge, and ability to work." 33 WES (1949 - 1 Soon after the removal of the Central Government from Mainland China to Taiwan, junior colleges were established on the basis of the previously mentioned regulations and law. In April 1952, during the reconstruction period, a ”Measure for the Spirit of Schools, Military Training, and Physical Construction and Skill Training in the Senior High Schools or Up" was published, which emphasized the importance of national spirit and national morality. In June, the "Military Training Regulations in the Senior High Schools or Up" was proclaimed by the Executive Yuan, which required junior college students to take military training courses (Yoh, 1985). The Fourth National Educational Convention in 1962 asserted that junior college goals were different from those of universities. The former aim at cultivating skilled manpower, whereas the latter aim at research. The Fifth National Educational Convention suggested in 1970 that vocational/technical education should have its own system parallel to the general education system. The goal of vocational and technical education is to cultivate all levels of skilled workers and technicians (Commission on Education Research, 1984). In 1976, the MOE reversed the Junior College Law especially to recognize practical specialists. Article 1 was revised as follows: In accordance with Article 158 of the Constitution of the Republic of China, junior college education aims at teaching applied science and skill, and cultivating practical specialists. Articles 28 to 30 specify that: 1. The curricula of the junior colleges should be based on the expertise or the specialized knowledge suited to the needs of certain fields. 34 2. Each department of the junior colleges should arrange practical work experience for the students so as to promote their knowledge and expertise. In certain special departments, the students' practice for a period of time after graduation should be considered. 3. Junior colleges should take the necessary steps to cooperate with factories that are closely related to the fields of the students' majors. 4. Curricula and the teaching materials of the junior colleges, if associated with the economic development of the country, should keep pace with the manpower needs of the economic plans made by the government. T. C. Chiang (1985) suggested that the junior colleges can provide opportunity for the citizens to receive higher education for the community. The Commission on Reforming the Education System emphasized that junior colleges are to cultivate the middle-level skilled labor force. The Commission suggested that only two kinds of programs should be offered: a five-year program, which admits junior high school graduates and a two-year program, which admits senior high school graduates who have two years of work experience (Commission on Education Research, 1984) In "Analysis of Development and Problems of Commercial Junior College Education in the Republic of China on Taiwan," C. B. Young (1985) indicated that the goals of commercial junior colleges suggested by the Education Planning Unit are: (a) cultivating middle commercial practical skill workers, (b) providing training 35 opportunities for basic business management personnel in order to enhance the quality in their specific fields, and (c) providing commercial technical service. He considered that the goals comprise three functions, namely, teaching, extension of education, and public service. He did not agree with the goal of commercial junior colleges proclaimed by the Ministry of Education in 1983, which is to cultivate skilled middle-level commercial personnel. He asserted that the goals should include research and public service, in addition to teaching. In Ihggty nng Etgttice of Vgcatitngl and Technical Edutatitn, C. H. Young (1985) asserted that the behavioral objective of vocational and technical education in the ROC (Taiwan) is different from that in the United States. However, he did not explain the differentiation. T. L. Liu (1978) stressed the difference of goals between junior colleges and the university. Shieh (1985) emphasized that the explanation of education goals in the Constitution must be in accordance with the spirit of the Three Principles of the People of Dr. Sun Yat-sen, the founding father of the ROC. The Three Principles of the People are nationalism, democracy, and livelihood. U u nd Communit Co e e ducation In this section the philosophy and goals of U.S. junior and community college education are described from a historical perspective. An educational movement as widespread and fastgrowing as that of the junior and community college must be founded upon clear ideas as to its aims and functions. Without clearly understood and expressed aims which fit the pattern of modern American life, no new educational movement can long survive. . . .Much has been written about the philosophy of the junior and community college. 36 Not all authorities have been in agreement as to particular aims and functions (Hillway, 1958, p. 61). According to Thornton (1966), the historical development of junior and community colleges can be roughly divided into three major stages: (a) the Evolution of the Junior College (1850-1920), (b) the Expansion of Occupational Programs (1920-45), and (c) the Community College Concept (1945 - ). O'Banion (1972) further divided the third stage into two substages: (a) the search for general education (World War II to Sputnik), which emphasizes citizenship in terminal education, and (b) the commitment to comprehensiveness (Post-Sputnik Era), which emphasizes technical and scientific education. The goals of junior and community college education in each stage are discussed in the following paragraphs. Stggg 1 (1859-1920) During this stage, such leaders of higher education in the United States as Henry P. Tappan and William W. Folwell, influenced by the German educational system, believed that the university should be a place for specialized study and research, free elementary instruction and the care of adolescents. They considered it logical for the American secondary school to become like the German Gymnasium, which offered two-year liberal arts instruction similar to the first two-year program of the American university and took students from adolescence to their twentieth year (Hillway, 1958; Monroe, 1972; O'Banion, 1972). Zwerling (1976) pointed out that what these leaders wanted was the “pure“ university for an intellectual elite, which had nothing at all to do with extending higher educational opportunities to a wider public. 37 It cannot be denied that these leaders wrote the front page of American junior college education history. In 1892, in accordance with the same philosophy, William Rainey Harper, president of the University of Chicago, divided the University of Chicago into a lower division and an upper division, which later became junior college and senior college. Harper first used the term "junior college" because he could not find a better word to describe the work of the freshman and sophomore years (Eells, 1941). Inspired by Harper, the Joliet, Illinois, public school district, established the first public junior college in 1902. The curriculum of Joliet Junior College was strictly confined to the first two years of study parallel to the university. In 1910, the second public junior college was established in Fresno, California. Under the direction of Alexis F. Lange, Dean of the School of Education of the University of California at Berkeley, the Fresno Junior College began to offer vocational education. Lange wrote in 1918: Probably the greatest and certainly the most original contribution to be made by junior college is the creation of means of training for the vocations occupying the middle ground between those of the artisan type and the professions. (Zwerling, 1976, p. 51) The Board of Fresno Junior College was proud of building a separate, locally based, low-expense and commuting-distance junior college (Zwerling, 1976). In 1919, McDowell identified and ranked the importance of the purposes of junior college education. He observed: The junior college is in an experimental stage, we don't know what it should be, because we do not know what it is. Before we can see clearly what it is, we must know why it is (O'Banion, 1972, p. 5). He collected responses from 19 public and 28 private junior colleges 38 in 1917-18. The purpose ranked first in importance was "to provide a completion school for those who cannot go further." Hence, he concluded that, at that time, the junior colleges, especially the private institutions, did not meet the needs of the comparatively large proportion of their students who did not intend to transfer to the university upon graduation. He suggested that these institutions should offer a greater variety of vocational courses or finishing courses of college grade (Engleman & Eells, 1941). With the organization of the American Association of Junior Colleges in Chicago in 1921, the development of junior college education entered its second stage. In the first stage, the goals of junior colleges were focused on offering strictly collegiate instruction as evidenced by the first definition of the junior college. According to this definition, adopted by the newly founded Association in 1922, "the junior college is an institution offering two years of instruction of strictly college grade." (Cohen & Brawer, 1982, p. 4) Sta e 920- 945 During this stage, the focus of junior colleges was shifted to terminal education, which included vocational-technical education and general education to meet the goals of individuals and the nation. This was in response to the Great Depression, World War II, federal legislation, and automation of industry. After analyzing a wide variety of materials related to purposes of the junior colleges, Koos (1924) listed the special purposes of junior colleges, which grouped into five categories: (a) affecting education in the two years under consideration, (b) 39 affecting the organization of the school system, (c) affecting the university, (d) affecting instruction in high school, and (e) affecting the community location. In 1926, Thomas established criteria for determining the legitimate functions of the junior college. He identified four basic functions: (a) popularizing function, (b) preparatory function, (c) terminal function, and (d) guidance function (Proctor, 1927). Eells (1931) observed that these were the "most widely recognized functions of the junior college." (p. 3) In the first issue of the Juniot College Journal, Ricciardi (1930) defined the functions of the junior college as follows: A fully organized junior college aims to meet the needs of a community in which it is located, including preparation for institutions of higher learning, liberal arts education for those who are not going beyond graduation from the junior college, vocational training for particular occupations usually designated as semi-professional vocations, and short courses for adults with special interests. (p. 24) The American Association of Junior Colleges made a concerted effort to develop differentiated goals for junior colleges to establish their own identity separate from other types of educational institutions. Thornton (1966) stressed: The association has served as a spokesman for the interests of junior colleges of all types and has contributed beyond measure to their establishment as an important segment of American higher education. (p. 55) Campbell (1930) studied the catalogues of 343 junior colleges in the United States and found 15 purposes most frequently stated in these publications. Preparatory education was the most frequently stated purpose, and occupational training was sixth. 40 Stage 3 (1945 - ) The most critical philosophical development of junior college education took place at the beginning of the third stage, in 1945. Monroe (1972) pointed out that "one of the most significant statements to be made in support of the community college came from President Harry S. Truman's Commission on Higher Education." The President's Commission on Higher Education (1947), after estimating that "at least 49 percent of the population had the mental ability to complete 14 years of schooling" (Vol. 1, p. 41), emphasized the open-door to higher education. The Commission stated: Equal educational opportunities for all persons, to the maximum of their individual abilities and without regard to economic status, race, creed, color, sex, national origin or ancestry is a major goal of American Democracy. Only an informed, thoughtful, tolerant people can maintain and develop a free society (Vol. 2, p. 3). The democratic country cannot tolerate a society based upon education for the well-to-do alone. If college opportunities are restricted to those in the higher income brackets, the way is open to the creation and perpetuation of a class society which has no place in the American Democracy. (Vol. 2, p. 23) Moreover, the Commission pointed out that all people should have access to higher education during the thirteenth and fourteenth school years in their own communities, a low-tuition or tuition-free institutions. Such a college must fit into the community life. The Commission indicated: Whatever form the community college takes, its purpose is educational service to the entire community, and this purpose requires of it a variety of functions and programs. It will provide college education for the youth of the community certainly, so as to remove geographic and economic barriers to educational opportunity and discover and develop individual talents at low cost and easy access. But in addition, the community college will serve as an active center of adult education. It will attempt to meet the total post-high school needs of its community. (Vol. 1, pp. 67-68) 41 The Commission stressed the importance of comprehensive programs: Higher education in America should include a variety of institutional forms and educational programs, so that at whatever point any student leaves school, he will be fitted, within the limits of his mental capacity and educational level, for an abundant and productive life as a person, as a worker, and as a citizen. (Vol. 1, p. 67) The Commission suggested that the name "community college" be applied to the institution designed primarily to serve local community education needs. In the same year, the term "community " instead of "junior” was first used by Moline Community College. Breneman and Nelson (1981) stressed the importance of the change in terms: The shift from junior to community college was much more than a simple name change, the newer term reflects evolving and expanding mission of the two year college, with emphasis on its community orientation. The term junior college stresses the academic transfer orientation. As the colleges expanded their activities. . .the junior college name became too restrictive and the term community college became more common. . . .The shift from junior to community college does respond to a real change in the focus of these colleges, as well as a reordering of the priorities accorded to the educational activities that make up their mission. (p. 22) After reviewing many definitions of the community college, Fields (1962) concluded that community colleges have five characteristics: (a) open admissions, (b) comprehensive program, (c) community-centered, (d) lifelong education, and (e) adaptability. In 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Committee on Education beyond the High School again reemphasized that the community college is the best instrument for expanding individuals' opportunities for higher education. The Committee stated: Communities or groups of neighboring communities faced with an impending shortage of higher education capacity will do well to consider new two-year community colleges as part of the solution. . . .Community colleges can be highly effective in affording readily available opportunities for excellent education 42 beyond the high school. (p. 12) Havighurst and Neugarten (1957) defined the community college as an ”opportunity college." They wrote: Opportunity college. . .is always characterized by low costs, easy admission standards, and a predominance of students from working- class families. . . .Opportunity college is primarily a place for youths who desire social mobility more by learning middle-class vocational skills than by learning middle-class social skills. (p. 255) In a similar vein, Gleazer (1968) stressed: In a democratic nation which holds that any citizen can become President, or chairman of the board of General Motors, or the pilot of a spacecraft on a voyage to the moon or can achieve greater status than his father, education is the means. Thus educational opportunity is more than a privilege; it is a citizen's right. (p. 14) In 1964, the National Education Association stressed the relevance of the community college to universal higher education in the United States: Unless opportunities for education beyond the high school can be made available to all, . .then the promise of individual dignity and freedom can't be extended to all. . . .Therefore, the nation's goal of universal educational opportunities must be expanded to include at least two further years of education, open to all high school graduates and designed to move each student toward intellectual freedom. (p. 12) Along with the philosophical development of junior and community college education, Cross (1970) predicted that the college- age enrollment would increase from about 25 % to 70 % by 1980. She stressed that "we are no longer concerned with whether students are ready for higher education, but rather with whether higher education is ready for them." In 1970, the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education recommended that at least 230 to 280 new community colleges be in operation by 1980. The greatest increase in the growth and public acceptance of 43 community colleges occurred during the 19603 and early 1970s. Almost every week a new community college was established. In 1963, there were 694 community and junior colleges. The number almost doubled by 1983 and in 1986 totaled 1,219. Public community college enrollments increased a striking 930 % from 1960 to 1979 as compared with a 220 % growth in enrollments for all higher education; approximately half of all first-time college students have enrolled in community colleges since 1975 (Breneman & Nelson, 1981). In 1983, more than 9.1 million students were enrolled in credit and noncredit courses at community colleges (American Association of Community and Junior Colleges, 1984). However, the factor of the baby boom after World War II, which predicted the rapid growth of community college education in the 19603 and 19703 has disappeared. With declining enrollments, accompanied by financial restraint and intense competition among institutions for students and financial support, it is crucial that community college educators consider whether the community college should continue to serve as the nexus of a community learning system as Gleazer (1980) suggested. Or, should community college educators reemphasize and strengthen the more traditional function of community college education, which focused on transfer education, as Cohen recommended (McCartan, 1983). Cross (1981) expressed the following criticism: The late 19703 and early 19803 represent a plateau between two periods of high energy and a sense of mission in the community colleges. The old ideas that sparked enthusiasm and the sense of common purpose in community colleges have receded, and new ideals have not yet emerged to take their place. After compiling the existing functions and missions of community colleges, Kerr (1980) added a desired "youth service 44 function,” i.e., to assist young persons, particularly unemployed and unemployable youths, in the transition from school to society. Also, in a 1979 report entitled Giving Youth g Bettgt gnantg, the Carnegie Council suggested that community colleges assume a residual responsibility for youth. Cohen (1982) indicated that "overall, community colleges have suffered less from goal displacement than have most other higher education institutions." They were born with a responsibility to provide learning opportunities and learning experiences that other educational institutions cannot or will not provide and to serve students whom others cannot or will not serve. Burnett (1977) indicated: The community college. . .is probably the most significant development in American higher education thus far in the 20th century. Referred to sometimes as a modern social invention or phenomenon, the community college is the people's college in the sense that it reflects the egalitarian philosophy of the 19703; moreover, programs are determined by and are constantly adjusted to the needs of people in the local community. . . .It is a part of the people rather than apart from the people. (p. 1) No matter what new direction or goals community colleges may assume, one thing must never change: the opportunity they provide for open access to higher education. McCabe (1981) stresses that retaining the open-door policy of the community college is essential only if such institutions are willing systematically to redesign their educational programs. Vaughan (1983) emphasized that open access to higher education can exist only if the following conditions are met: (a) comprehensiveness, (b) guidance and counseling, (c) low cost, (d) proximity, (e) flexibility, (f) quality, (g) developmental opportunities, and (h) changing with the times. He also said: 45 The institution in America that most nearly encompasses the philosophical and practical aspects of open access is the public community college. The community college's open door must not be allowed to close even partially if the nation is to fulfill its commitment to providing equal opportunity to all of its citizens and if the nation is to remain an international economic and political power. To fail to provide the opportunity for a single individual to achieve his or her potential is to abandon permanently some part of the potential of the nation as whole. (p. 7) V te ee ntrume 9n 9,3, annnnity Qoiiege Gonis Bushnell (1973), working on Project Focus, presented institutional goal statements to presidents, faculty, and students of 92 public and private two year colleges. The four major objectives of his study were: (a) to determine the perceptions of presidents, faculty members, and students on long-range goals to be served; (b) to find out discrepancies between desired goals and the present goals to be pinpointed; (c) to determine social and economic trends likely to influence the future direction of community and junior colleges; and (d) to study strategies for achieving greater harmony between goals and current practice. Bushnell compared not only perceptual differences among the presidents, faculty members and students concerning the institutional goals, but differences between perceptions of respondents from public and private junior colleges. In 1964, Gross and Grambsch administered the University Goals Inventory to samples of faculty and administrators at 68 universities in the United States. The Gross and Grambsch Goals Inventory consists of 47 goal statements classified under two major headings: Output Goals and Support Goals. 46 Peterson (1972) pointed out that Gross and Grambsh made the most significant early effort to examine the nature and structure of university goals. However, Gross and Grambsch intended that the University Goals Inventory be applicable only to four-year colleges and universities as a way to identify their goals. He developed the Institutional Goals Inventory (IGI) which he administered to faculty, students, administrators, trustees and members of the local communities of 116 colleges and universities in California; 69 of these were public community colleges. The IGI was based on the Gross and Grambsch response format. In 1979, the Community College Goals Inventory (CCGI) was developed by the Educational Testing Service in cooperation with the American Association of Community and Junior Colleges. The inventory was designed to help community college personnel define their educational goals, establish priorities among those goals and provide direction for present and future planning. The CCGI consists of 90 goal statements that are possible community college goals. The statements are classified within 20 goal areas, each of which has four goal statements. The remaining ten goal statements are miscellaneous ones. The 20 goal areas are equally divided into Outcome Goals and Process Goals: (See ninety goal statements and descriptions of each goal area in Appendix B, pp. 233-40.) Outcome Goals: General Education Intellectual Orientation Lifelong Learning Cultural/Aesthetic Awareness Personal Development Humanism/Altruism 47 Vocational/Technical Preparation Developmental/Remedial Preparation Community Services Social Criticism Process Goals Counseling and Advising Student Service Faculty/Staff Development Intellectual Environment Innovation College Community Freedom Accessibility Effective Management Accountability The CCGI was administered to 18 community colleges throughout the United States. Faculty members, administrators, staff, community- group members and students were asked to rate the 90 goals in regard to how important they are now perceived to be and how important they will become. Respondents rated goal statements on a Likert-type scale ranging from "of no importance" to ”of extremely high importance." The higher the goal mean, the greater the importance of that goal. The format of the CCGI is identical to that of the IGI, but the content and focus are different and relate specifically to the community college. According to Cross (1981), data from the CCGI seem to reflect accurately what people are seeing and feeling in education and in the broader society. Summaty Based on the review of selected literature on the goals of junior college education in the ROC (Taiwan) and of junior and community college education in the United States, as well as the research on the development of the research instrument on U.S. 48 institutional goals, the researcher designed the conceptual framework of the study and adopted the research pattern of the CCGI. A portion of the CCGI was selected as the main part of the research instrument. However, data were analyzed on the basis of individual goals, rather than goal areas. CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES Included in this chapter are the methodology for the study, the study population, research questions and hypotheses, the research instrument, and data-collection procedures. o uc o A descriptive approach was adopted in this study because the researcher's purpose was to analyze and describe perceptions of MOE officials and junior college administrators (JCADS) concerning junior college goals, primarily on a quantitative basis. According to McMillan and Schumacher (1984), the purpose of descriptive research is "to describe an existing phenomenon by quantitatively or qualitatively characterizing an individual or group" (p. 26). The investigation was also exploratory because it is the first survey research on junior college goals in the ROC (Taiwan). In descriptive research, two survey methods can be used: a cross-sectional survey or a longitudinal survey. A cross—sectional survey was employed in this study because data were collected at one time and were used not only for descriptive purposes but also to determine the relationship between dependent and independent variables at the time of study (Babbie, 1973) 49 50 ud at o The study population included two groups of people. One group comprised nine MOE officials: the Minister of Education, the Deputy Minister of Education, the Director of the Department of Technological and Vocational Education, the Director of Junior College administration in the Department of Technological and Vocational Education, and five Inspectors. The second group comprised 513 junior college administrators: 64 presidents, 128 deans, and 321 chairpersons. The total population included 522 people. Because the population size was manageable, it was not necessary to use a sampling process. Moreover, including the entire population instead of a sample provided more robust information on which to base conclusions and recommendations. Table 3.1 presents a breakdown of the study population according to subgroup (types of administrators, college type, college structure, position, and program duration). All of the subgroups were used in the data analysis. 51 TABLE 3.1 BREAKDOWN OF POPULATION INTO SUBGROUPS Group & Subgroups N of Population Total Group Subgroups by category Administrators Ministry of Education officials Junior College Administrators College Type Public Junior College Administrators Private Junior College Administrators College Structure Administrators at Junior Colleges With Evening School Administrators at Junior Colleges Without Evening School Position Presidents Deans Chairpersons Program Duration Two-year JCADS Three-year JCADS Five-year JCADS A combination of: Two- & Three-year JCADS; Two- & Five—year JCADS; Three- & Five-year JCADS; or Two-, Three- & Five-year JCADS 522 522 9 513 513 95 418 513 415 98 513 64 128 321 513 54 31 325 103 Source: Statistics of the Ministry of Education in the ROC (Taiwan). 52 e ues o d t e W In conducting this study, the researcher sought answers to the following questions: Research Question 1: How do the total group and the following subgroups perceive the existing and desired importance and rank ordering of junior college goals? a. respondents according to administrative category: Ministry of Education officials (MOE) and junior college administrators (JCADS), b. JCAD respondents according to their college type: public JCADS (PuJCADS) and private JCADS (PrJCADS), c. JCAD respondents according to their position: presidents, deans, and chairpersons, d. JCAD respondents according to their junior colleges' program duration: two-year, three-year, five-year, or a combination of two & three year, two & five year, three & five year, or two, three & five year program durations, e. JCAD respondents according to their college structure: junior colleges with and those without evening schools. Research Question 2: What discrepancies exist between the existing and desired importance of junior college goals as perceived by the total group and the following subgroups: a. respondents according to administrative category: Ministry of Education officials (MOE) and junior college administrators (JCADS), b. JCAD respondents according to their college type: public JCADS (PuJCADS) and private JCADS (PrJCADS), c. JCAD respondents according to their position: presidents, deans, and chairpersons, d. JCAD respondents according to their junior colleges' program duration: two-year, three-year, five-year, or a combination of two & three year, two & five year, three & five year, or two, three & five year program durations, e. JCAD respondents according to their college structure: junior colleges with and those without evening schools. Research Question 3: On which goals do significant differences exist between the MOE and JCADS regarding their perceptions of the existing and desired importance of junior college goals? Research Question 4: On which goals do significant differences exist between PuJCADS and PrJCADS regarding their perceptions of the existing and desired importance of junior college goals? Research Question 5: On which goals do significant differences exist between administrators at junior colleges with evening schools and those at junior colleges without evening schools regarding their 53 perceptions of the existing and desired importance of junior college goals? Research Question 6: On which goals do significant differences exist between any two groups (presidents, deans, and chairpersons) regarding their perceptions of the existing and desired importance of junior college goals? Research Question 7: On which goals do significant differences exist between any two groups (JCAD respondents according to their junior colleges' program duration: two-year, three-year, five-year, or a combination of two & three year, two & five year, three & five year, or two, three 6 five year program durations) regarding their perceptions of the existing and desired importance of junior college goals? Research Question 8: On which goals do significant differences exist among respondents with various ages, years of service at junior colleges, levels of education, years of service in the MOE regarding their perceptions of the existing and desired importance of junior college goals? Research Question 9: On which goals do significant differences exist among JCADS with various years of service as junior college administrators, years of service in their present positions, and years of service in business and industry regarding their perceptions of the existing and desired importance of junior college goals? 113329511132: According to Van Dalen's (1969) definition, a hypothesis is a suggested solution to a problem. It consists of elements expressed in an orderly system of relationships, which seeks to explain a condition that has not yet been verified by facts. Van Dalen also emphasized that no scientific undertaking can proceed effectively without well- conceived hypotheses. Hypotheses may be stated in either directional or null form. Null hypotheses were used in this study. Because "we never prove anything, we only fail to disprove. . . .Failure to disprove is consistent with the reality of probability in our lives" (McMillan & Schumacher, 1984, p. 249). In the null hypotheses formulated for this 54 study, dependent variables were: 1. 2. Perceptions of the existing importance of 55 junior college goals. Perceptions of the desired importance of 55 junior college goals. and independent variables were: 1. 2. 10. Administrators classified in two groups: MOE and JCADS. Position classified in three groups: presidents, deans, and chairpersons. College type classified in two groups: PuJCADS and PrJCADS. Program duration of junior colleges classified in four groups: two-year, three-year, five-year, and a combination of the following: two & three year, two & five year, three & five year, or two, three & five year program durations. Junior college structure classified in two groups: junior colleges with and those without evening schools. Age classified in five groups: 24-30, 31-45, 46-55, 56- 65, and above 65. Years of service at junior colleges classified in five groups: none, 1-5, 6-10, 11-16, and above 16. Level of education classified in 5 groups: high school, junior college, bachelor's, master's, and Ph.D. Years of service in the MOE classified in five groups: none, 1-3, 4-6, 7—10, and above 10. Years of service as junior college administrator 55 classified in four groups: 1-5, 6-10, 11-16, and above 16. 11. Years of service in their present positions at junior colleges classified in four groups: 1-3, 4-8, 9-15, and above 15. 12. Years of service in business and industry classified in four groups: none, 1-3, 4-6, 7-10, and above 10. Based on the variables and along with the nine research questions, the following 24 null hypotheses were stated: Hypothesis 1: There are no significant differences between the MOE and JCADS regarding their perceptions of the existing importance of junior college goals. Hypothesis 2: There are no significant differences between the MOE and JCADS regarding their perceptions of the desired importance of junior college goals. Hypothesis 3: There are no significant differences between PuJCADS and PrJCADS regarding their perceptions of the existing importance of junior college goals. Hypothesis 4: There are no significant differences between PuJCADS and PrJCADS regarding their perceptions of the desired importance of junior college goals. Hypothesis 5: There are no significant differences between administrators at junior colleges with evening schools and those at junior colleges without evening schools regarding their perceptions of the existing importance of junior college goals. Hypothesis 6: There are no significant differences between administrators at junior colleges with evening schools and those at junior colleges without evening schools regarding their perceptions of the desired importance of junior college goals. Hypothesis 7: There are no significant differences between any two groups (presidents, deans, and chairpersons) regarding their perceptions of the existing importance of junior college goals. Hypothesis 8: There are no significant differences between any two groups (presidents, deans, and chairpersons) regarding their perceptions of the desired importance of junior college goals. 56 Hypothesis 9: There are no significant differences between any two groups (JCAD respondents according to their junior colleges' program duration: two-year, three-year, five-year, or a combination of two & three year, two a five year, three & five year, or two, three 8 five year program durations) regarding their perceptions of the existing importance of junior college goals. Hypothesis 10: There are no significant differences between any two groups (JCAD respondents according to their junior colleges' program duration: two-year, three-year, five-year, or a combination of two & three year, two & five year, three & five year, or two, three 5 five year program durations) regarding their perceptions of the desired importance of junior college goals. Hypothesis 11: There are no significant differences among respondents in various age groups regarding their perceptions of the existing importance of junior college goals. Hypothesis 12: There are no significant differences among respondents in various age groups regarding their perceptions of the desired importance of junior college goals. Hypothesis 13: There are no significant differences among respondents with various years of service at junior colleges regarding their perceptions of the existing importance of junior college goals. Hypothesis 14: There are no significant differences among respondents with various years of service at junior colleges regarding their perceptions of the desired importance of junior college goals. Hypothesis 15: There are no significant differences among respondents with various levels of education regarding their perceptions of the existing importance of junior college goals. Hypothesis 16: There are no significant differences among respondents with various levels of education regarding their perceptions of the desired importance of junior college goals. Hypothesis 17: There are no significant differences among respondents with various years of service in the MOE regarding their perceptions of the existing importance of junior college goals. Hypothesis 18: There are no significant differences among respondents with various years of service in the MOE regarding their perceptions of the desired importance of junior college goals. 57 Hypothesis 19: There are no significant differences among JCAD respondents with various years of service as junior college administrators regarding their perceptions of the existing importance of junior college goals. Hypothesis 20: There are no significant differences among JCAD respondents with various years of service as junior college administrators regarding their perceptions of the desired importance of junior college goals. Hypothesis 21: There are no significant differences among respondents with various years of service in their present positions at junior colleges regarding their perceptions of the existing importance of junior college goals. Hypothesis 22: There are no significant differences among respondents with various years of service in their present positions at junior colleges regarding their perceptions of the desired importance of junior college goals. Hypothesis 23: There are no significant differences among respondents with various years of service in business and industry. regarding their perceptions of the existing importance of junior college goals. Hypothesis 24: There are no significant differences among respondents with various years of service in business and industry. regarding their perceptions of the desired importance of junior college goals. W The researcher found three instruments with which to study junior college goals. One is the University Goals Inventory developed by Gross and Grambsch in 1968, which Peterson (1972) viewed as the most significant early effort to examine the nature and structure of university goals. The second instrument, based on Cross and Grambsch's response format, is the Institutional Goals Inventory (IGI) developed by Peterson and Uhl in 1977, which has been widely used by educators in American colleges and universities to identify their institutional goals. The third instrument was the Community College Goals Inventory (CCGI), developed by the Educational Testing Service 58 (ETS) in cooperation with the American Association of Community and Junior Colleges in 1978 and 1979. The CCGI was designed to help community colleges personnel define their educational goals, establish priorities among those goals, and give direction to present and future planning. Community college officials are increasingly using the CCGI to identify their institutional goals. After a careful review of these three instruments, the researcher selected the CCGI as the most appropriate one for this investigation because it met one of the purposes of the study: to determine the attitudes of MOE officials and JCADS of the ROC (Taiwan) toward selected U. 8. community college goals. CCGI contains 90 goal statements (See Appendix B, pp. 233-7.), 80 of which are equally distributed in 20 goal areas; the remainder are categorized as miscellaneous goals. The 20 goal areas are evenly divided into Outcome Goals and Process Goals. (See Appendix B, pp. 238-40.) The instrument for this study was composed of two parts. The first part contained 12 demographic items; five required all participants to respond and seven necessitated responses from the junior college administrators. The second part of the instrument included 55 goal statements, 39 of which were selected from the CCGI based on cultural, political, and research considerations. (See Appendix B, pp. 241-51.) The researcher had permission from the Educational Testing Service to use these 39 goal statements in the instrument for this study. (See Appendix B, p. 252.) From the researcher's point of view, the 39 selected goal statements conceptualized aspects of the community college philosophy 59 as practiced in the United States and may be possible goals for junior colleges in the ROC (Taiwan). The researcher developed 16 goal statements with advice and counsel from academic advisers, colleagues, and junior college educators in both the United States and the ROC (Taiwan). The questionnaire was also reviewed and approved by the University Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) at Michigan State University. (See Appendix B, p. 253.) The questionnaire was translated into Chinese. (See Appendix B, pp. 254-63.) Spaces were provided for respondents to write in suggested goals not listed in the questionnaire and their existing and desired importance, and to offer comments regarding the questionnaire. Participants were asked to share their perceptions of the importance of junior college goals in two dimensions--existing and desired--on the following five-point Likert-type rating scale: 1 - of no importance, 2 - of low importance, 3 - of medium importance, 4 - of high importance, and 5 - of extremely high importance. In other words, respondents were to rate each goal with two scores, one for its present importance and the other for future importance. This two-way scaling was used to give "some protection against the danger that their perceptions of existing goals would be simply an expression of their own goal preferences” (Gross & Grambsch, 1968, p. 11). The Chinese instrument, accompanied by the English translation, was pilot tested at three junior colleges in the ROC (Taiwan), one public and two private, to reword any statement that was difficult to understand and to obtain advice on modifying, deleting, or adding goal statements. 60 o e o The researcher collected data in the ROC (Taiwan) from mid- January to mid-March 1986. A mailed questionnaire was the primary data collection instrument; personal interviews with MOE officials provided supplementary information. The chief advantages of the mailed questionnaire are its inexpensiveness and anonymity, whereas the greatest advantages of the personal interview are its greater flexibility, depth, and detail than the questionnaire (Oppenheim, 1966). First, a Chinese letter was mailed to junior college presidents (See Appendix B, p. 264. English Translation of the letter is in Appendix B, p. 265.), requesting their assistance in distributing the questionnaire and in encouraging their administrators to respond promptly. It was hoped that this procedure would increase the return rate. Ten days after the initial contact, packaged questionnaires were mailed to junior college presidents. Through their distribution channels, deans, chairpersons, and presidents received a questionnaire with both a Chinese (See Appendix B, p. 266.) and an English cover letter cosigned by the chairperson of the researcher's doctoral guidance committee (See Appendix B, pp. 267-8.), and a stamped, return-addressed envelope in which each individual was to return the completed questionnaire. The cover of each questionnaire was coded with a number in the upper right corner to identify the respondents for follow-ups. A week later, the researcher called junior college presidents to ensure that they had received and distributed the packaged questionnaire and again to ask for their help in encouraging 61 their colleagues to respond to the questionnaire as soon as possible. Two weeks after the first call, a second phone call was made to those presidents whose colleagues had not responded. One week later, a third call was made to presidents whose colleagues still had not returned their questionnaires. These efforts were made to avoid a low response rate, which often occurs with a mailed questionnaire. The researcher personally distributed questionnaires to selected MOE officials. He conducted personal interviews with the Deputy Minister of Education, the Director of the Department of Vocational and Technological Education, and the Director of Junior College Administration in the Department of Vocational and Technological Education before they responded to the questionnaire. Inspectors were interviewed collectively after they completed the questionnaire. During the personal interviews, to avoid influencing the objectivity of MOE officials' questionnaire responses, questions were limited to: (a) U.S. junior and community college education, (b) the possibility of change in the junior college educational system in the ROC (Taiwan), and (c) their attitudes toward private junior colleges. Each interview was completed within 30 minutes, in deference to the MOE officials' schedules. Unfortunately, the researcher was unable to interview the Minister of Education or to have him respond to the questionnaire. However, the researcher did have an Opportunity to interview a former Deputy Minister who greatly influenced the development of junior college education during the 19603. Interview questions concerned: (a) reasons for the rapid growth of junior college education, especially, the dramatic increase in the number of 62 private junior colleges in the 19603; (b) strengths and weaknesses of junior college education; and (c) the future of junior college education. Table 3.2 presents a profile of the response rate by total group and by subgroups (administrators, college type, position, and program duration). The response rate for the total group was 64.4% (N - 522). Among subgroups, the MOE, because of the small and personal data collection, had the highest response rate--88.9% (N - 9). The response rate for junior college administrators was 63.9% (N - 513). Presidents had the highest response rate among subgroups categorized by position--79.7% (N - 64). Public junior college administrators (PuJCADS)--73.l% (N - 68) had a higher response rate than private junior college administrators (PrJCADS). In the college-structure category, the response rate for administrators at junior colleges without evening schools was 72.7% (N - 98), which was higher than that for administrators at junior colleges with evening schools. Three- year junior college administrators had the lowest response rate among subgroups categorized by program duration--58.1% (N - 31). No subgroup's response rate was below 50%. The response rate might have been higher if data collection had not taken place during the winter break. 63 TABLE 3.2 RESPONSE RATE BY TOTAL GROUP AND BY SUBGROUPS Two- & Three-year; Two- & Five-year; Three- & Five-year; or Two-, Three- & Five-year Group & subgroups Population Respondents % Missing N N N Total Group 522 336 64.4 0 subgroups Administrators 522 316 60.5 6 MOE 9 8 88.9 JCADS 513 328 63.9 Position 513 321 62.6 7 Presidents 64 51 79.7 Deans 128 77 60.2 Chairpersons 321 193 60.1 College Type 513 322 62.8 6 Public 93 68 73.1 Private 420 254 60.5 College Structure 513 322 62.8 6 With Even. Sch. 415 241 58.1 Without Even. Sch. 98 81 72.7 Program Duration 513 325 63.4 3 Two-year 54 32 59.3 Three-year 31 18 58.1 Five-year 315 205 65.1 A Combination of: 113 70 61.9 64 Demo a h c n ormat 0 Table 3.3 shows the distribution of respondents according to age, level of education, years of service at junior colleges, and years of service in the MOE. With respect to age, 245 out of 322 respondents (72.9%) were 31 to 55. One hundred fifty-seven (46.7%) held a master's degree. One hundred twenty-four (36.7%) of the respondents had a baccalaureate degree. Table 3.3 also indicates that 80% junior college administrators had never worked in the MOE and seldom had MOE officials worked in junior colleges. The researcher hoped to learn whether age, level of education, years of service at junior colleges, and years of service in the MOE influenced respondents' perceptions regarding the importance of selected junior college goals. TABLE 3.3 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY AGE, LEVEL OF EDUCATION, YEARS OF SERVICE AT JUNIOR COLLEGES, AND YEARS OF SERVICE IN THE MOE (N - 336) Variable Frequency % Missing N Age 336 0 24-30 19 5.7 31-45 161 47.9 46-55 84 25.0 55-65 57 17.0 above 65 15 4.5 Level of education 336 0 High Sch. 0 0 Junior Coll. 12 3.6 Bachelor 124 36.9 Master 157 46.7 Ph.D. 43 12.8 65 TABLE 3.3 (cont'd.) Variable Frequency % Missing N Years at junior colleges 336 0 none 6 1.8 1-5 94 28.0 6-10 78 23.2 11-16 82 24.4 more than 16 76 22.6 Years in the MOE 318 18 none 269 80.1 1-5 9 2.7 6-10 2 .6 11-16 9 2.7 more than 16 29 8.6 As shown in Table 3.4, nearly 50% of junior college administrator respondents had had less than six years of experience at junior colleges and had held their present positions less than four years. This indicates that the mobility of top administrators was quite high because a majority of the junior colleges had a 20-year history. More than 50% of the junior college administrators had had no work experience in business and industry, and only 19% had had more than four years of such experience. Whether top junior college administrators should have employment experience in business and industry is a controversial issue. The researcher only intended to discover whether junior college administrators with varying years of service in business and industry, years of service as junior college administrators, and years of service in their present positions had 66 different perceptions regarding the importance of junior college goals. Results of the data analysis are reported in the following chapter. TABLE 3.4 DISTRIBUTION OF JCAD RESPONDENTS BY YEARS OF SERVICE AS JCADS, YEARS OF SERVICE IN PRESENT POSITION, AND YEARS OF SERVICE IN BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY (N - 328) Variable Frequency % Missing N Years As JCADS 322 6 1-5 148 45.1 6-10 86 26.2 11-16 48 14.6 more than 16 40 12.2 Years in present position 320 8 1-3 159 48.5 4-8 116 35.4 9-15 28 8.5 more than 15 17 5.2 Years in business and industry 316 12 none 186 55.4 1-3 67 19.9 4-6 26 7.7 7-10 17 5.1 more than 10 20 6.3 CHAPTER FOUR ANALYSIS OF DATA This chapter contains the results of the analysis of data collected through a survey administered in the ROC (Taiwan). Data were processed with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) program, using the Cyber 750 computer system at the Michigan State University Computer Center. Figures in this chapter were drawn with Plotit software. Statistical techniques applied were based on the research questions and hypotheses stated in Chapter III. Seven of the nine questions were matched with 24 related hypotheses. The importance of goals were calculated, based on the following scales: 1. of no importance - 1.0 to 1.499, 2. of low importance - 1.5 to 2.499, 3. of medium importance - 2.5 to 3.499, 4. of high importance - 3.5 to 4.499, 5. of extremely high importance - 4.5 to 5.0. Goals were rank ordered according to their mean importance ratings. 67 68 Rtsngngents' Petcentions Regarding the Existing and Dgsired Inportgnce and Rank Ordering of Junior College Goals Research Question 1: How do the total group and the following subgroups perceive the existing and desired importance and rank ordering of junior college goals? a. respondents according to administrative category: Ministry of Education officials (MOE) and junior college administrators (JCADS), b. JCAD respondents according to their college type: public JCADS (PuJCADS) and private JCADS (PrJCADS), c. JCAD respondents according to their positions: presidents, deans and chairpersons. d. JCAD respondents according to their junior colleges' program duration: two-year, three-year, five-year, or a combination of two & three year, two & five year, three & five year, or two, three & five year program durations, e. JCAD respondents according to their college structure: junior colleges with and those without evening schools. Tables related to this question show: (a) the frequency distribution of perceptions of all respondents concerning the existing and desired importance of goals, (b) the rank ordering of goals for the present and the future as perceived by the total group, and (c) comparisons of rank orderings of goals for the present and the future as perceived by the total group and by subgroups. Narrative discussions of the tables are limited to: (a) frequency distribution of existing and desired goals in the five levels of importance, (b) number of existing and desired goals distributed in the five levels of importance according to the total group and subgroups, (c) existing and desired goals with the highest and lowest priority, and (d) goals with large differences between their present and future rankings. Tot Grou As shown in Table 4.1 and 4.2, respondents rated the majority of existing goals as above medium importance. More than 50% of the respondents rated 17 existing goals and 40 desired goals as being of 69 high or extremely high importance. No existing goals and 8 desired goals were rated as being of extremely high importance by more than 50% of the respondents. Six out of 55 existing goals and no desired goals were rated as being of low or no importance by a majority of respondents. Table 4.3 and 4.4 show the rank ordering of 55 goals as perceived by all respondents for the present and for the future. No existing goals and 2 desired goals were perceived as being of extremely high importance (the mean > 4.499), 17 existing goals and 39 desired goals were perceived as being of high importance (4.5 > the means > 3.499), and 8 existing goals and no desired goals were seen as being of low importance (2.5 > the mean > 1.499). No goals were seen as being of no importance for either the present or the future (the mean < 1.5). The six existing goals that all respondents rated as being of low importance were: -- to award credit for knowledge and skills acquired in nonschool setting (Goal 6), -- to established an associate degree system (Goal 55), -- to offer comprehensive programs in areas of industry, business, health care, etc. in the institution (Goal 54), -- to make available to community groups college resources such as meeting rooms, computer facilities, and faculty problem-solving skills (Goal 13), -- to promote a policy of essentially open admission for all who are admitted (Goal 42), -- to provide students opportunities for participating in 70 college policy-making (Goal 19). The two desired goals that all respondents rated as being of extremely high importance were: -- to increase the desire and ability of students to undertake self-directed learning (Goal 1), -- to cultivate students' consciousness and attitudes to increase their respect for work (Goal 49). The five existing goals ranked highest by all respondents were: -- to strengthen students' consciousness of nationalism (Goal 30) . -- to cultivate students' consciousness and attitudes to increase their respect for work (Goal 49), -- to provide a general academic background for students as preparation for further, more advanced or specialized work (Goal 2), -- to increase the desire and ability of students to undertake self-directed learning (Goal 1), -- to maintain a climate in which faculty commitment to the goals and well-being of the institution is as strong as commitment to professional careers (Goal 28). The five desired goals ranked highest by all respondents were: -- to increase the desire and ability of students to undertake self-directed learning (Goal 1), -- to cultivate students' consciousness and attitudes to increase their respect for work (Goal 49), -- to instill in students a capacity for openness to new ideas and ways of thinking (Goal 5), 71 -- to strengthen students' consciousness of nationalism (Goal 30). -- to seek to instill in students a commitment to a lifelong learning (Goal 3). The five existing goals ranked lowest by all respondents were: -- to provide students opportunities for participating in college policy-making (Goal l9), -- to promote a policy of essentially open admission, and then to develop worthwhile educational experiences for all who are admitted (Goal 42), -- to make available to community groups college resources such as meeting rooms, computer facilities, and faculty problem-solving skills (Goal l3), -- to offer comprehensive programs in the areas of industry, business, health care, etc. in the institution (Goal 54), -- to establish an associate degree system (Goal 55). The five desired goals ranked lowest by all respondents were: -- to provide students opportunities for participating in college policy-making (Goal 19), -- to provide students with military training program (Goal 7). -- to offer comprehensive programs in areas of industry, business, health care, etc. in the institution (Goal 54), -- to promote a policy of essentially open admission, and then to develop worthwhile educational experiences for all who are admitted (Goal 42), -- to establish an associate degree system (Goal 55). TABLE 4.1 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PERCEPTIONS OF ALL RESPONDENTS CONCERNING THE EXISTING IMPORTANCE OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS Goal Freq. of Importance Missing Goal Freq. of Importance Missing Mo. Mo Low Medium High Extreme M No. No Low Medium High Extreme M (X) (X) (X) (X) (I) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) 1 4 20 89 130 89 4 16 25 60 115 93 37 6 (1.20)(6.00) (26.5) (38.9) (26.5) (1.2) (7.40)(17.9) (34.2) (27.7) (11.0) (1.8) 2 2 18 96 117 100 3 17 30 65 122 86 27 6 ( .60)(5.40) (28.6) (34.8) (29.8) ( .9) (8.90)(19.3) (36.3) (25.6) (8.00) (1.8) 3 12 26 84 103 106 5 18 51 83 120 58 19 5 (3.60)(7.70) (25.0) (30.7) (31.5) (1.5) (15.2)(24.7) (35.7) (17.3) (5.70) (1.5) 4 6 26 93 128 78 5 19 113 130 68 17 3 5 (1.80)(7.70) (27.7) (38.1) (23.2) (1.5) (33.6)(38.7) (20.2) (5.10) ( .90) (1.5) 5 5 24 92 117 95 3 20 15 38 121 103 SS 4 (1.50)(7.10) (27.4) (34.8) (28.3) ( .9) (4.50)(11.3) (36.0) (30.7) (16.4) (1.2) 6 99 76 103 37 13 8 21 4 31 135 118 44 4 (29.5)(22.6) (30.7) (11.0) (3.90) (2.4) (1.20)(9.20) (40.2) (35.1) (13.1) (1.2) 7 36 80 140 52 26 2 22 7 87 148 73 12 9 (10.7)(23.8) (41.7) (15.5) (7.70) ( .6) (2.10)(25.9) (44.0) (21.7) (3.60) (2.7) 8 48 103 130 43 10 2 23 9 42 105 120 50 10 (14.3)(30.7) (38.7) (12.8) (3.00) ( .6) (2.70)(12.5) (31.3) (35.7) (14.9) (3.0) 9 10 35 91 95 102 3 24 8 59 129 102 27 11 (3.00)(10.4) (27.1) (28.3) (30.4) ( .9) (2.40)(17.6) (38.4) (30.4) (8.00) (3.3) 10 14 68 124 102 26 2 25 24 51 115 99 33 14 (4.20)(20.2) (36.9) (30.4) (7.70) ( .6) (7.10)(15.2) (34.2) (29.5) (9.80) (4.2) 11 12 29 88 120 85 2 26 4 43 143 107 28 11 (3.60)(8.60) (26.2) (35.7) (25.3) ( .6) (1.20)(12.8) (42.6) (31.8) (8.30) (3.3) 12 37 55 128 82 27 7 27 34 42 105 99 46 10 (11.0)(16.4) (38.1) (24.4) (8.0) (2.1) (10.1)(12.5) (31.3) (29.5) (13.7) (3.0) 13 99 104 89 29 9 6 28 4 32 78 113 99 10 (29.5)(31.0) (26.5) (8.60) (2.70) (1.8) (1.20)(9.50) (23.2) (33.6) (29.5) (3.0) 14 20 48 106 125 33 4 29 11 38 114 108 SS 10 (6.00)(14.3) (31.5) (37.2) (9.80) (1.2) (3.30)(11.3) (33.9) (32.1) (16.4) (3.0) 15 41 60 111 86 33 S 30 0 8 69 116 133 10 (12.2)(17.9) (33.0) (25.6) (9.80) (1.5) ( .00)(2.40) (20.5) (34.5) (39.6) (3.0) TABLE 4.1 (cont'd) Goal Freq. of Importance Missing Goal Freq. of Importance Missing No. Me Low Medium High Extreme M No. No Low Medium High Extreme M (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) 31 15 45 106 117 43 10 44 24 53 133 94 27 5 (4.50)(13.4) (31.5) (34.8) (12.8) (3.0) (7.10)(15.8) (39.6) (28.0) (8.00) (1.5) 32 8 35 90 109 84 10 45 8 29 100 114 82 3 (2.40)(10.4) (26.8) (32.4) (25.0) (3.0) (2.40)(8.60) (29.8) (33.9) (24.4) ( .9) 33 7 38 95 134 52 10 46 54 92 115 54 17 4 (2.10)(11.3) (28.3) (39.9) (15.5) (3.0) (16.1)(27.4) (34.2) (16.1) (5.10) (1.2) 34 35 67 143 57 20 14 47 20 45 107 115 42 7 (10.4)(19.9) (42.6) (17.0) (6.00) (4.2) (6.00)(13.4) (31.8) (34.2) (12.5) (2.1) 35 21 31 110 124 45 5 48 42 67 116 77 26 8 (6.30)(9.20) (32.7) (36.9) (13.4) (1.5) (12.5)(19.9) (34.5) (22.9) (7.70) (2.4) 36 62 95 125 37 11 6 49 6 29 65 104 125 7 (18.5)(28.3) (37.2) (11.0) (3.30) (1.8) (1.80)(8.60) (19.3) (31.0) (37.2) (2.1) 37 20 67 121 83 42 3 50 14 38 117 102 58 7 (6.00)(19.9) (36.0) (24.7) (12.5) ( .9) (4.20)(11.3) (34.8) (30.4) (17.3) (2.1) 38 36 56 127 92 20 5 51 30 61 114 86 37 8 (10.7)(16.7) (37.7) (27.4) (6.00) (1.5) (8.90)(18.2) (33.9) (25.6) (11.0) (2.4) 39 14 30 81 114 92 5 52 11 46 102 96 73 8 (4.20)(8.90) (24.1) (33.9) (27.4) (1.5) (3.30)(13.7) (30.4) (28.6) (21.7) (2.4) 40 13 32 85 112 91 3 53 30 47 118 102 31 8 (3.90)(9.50) (25.3) (33.3) (27.1) ( .9) (8.90)(14.0) (35.1) (30.4) (9.20) (2.4) 41 44 129 102 46 8 7 54 117 70 92 35 13 9 (13.1)(38.4) (30.4) (13.7) (2.40) (2.1) (34.8)(20.8) (27.4) (10.4) (3.90) (2.7) 42 125 78 79 35 12 7 SS 119 72 70 44 21 10 (37.2)(23.2) (23.5) (10.4) (3.60) (2.1) (35.4)(21.4) (20.8) (13.1) (6.30) (3.0) 43 27 48 142 90 25 4 (8.00)(14.3) (42.3) (26.8) (7.40) (1.2) Note: The specification of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. 0f no importance < 1.5; of low importance < 2.5; of medium importance 4.5; of extreme importance 8 or > 4.5. < 3.5; of high importance < TABLE 4.2 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PERCEPTIONS OF ALL RESPONDENTS CONCERNING THE DESIRED IMPORTANCE OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS Goal Freq. of Importance Missing Goal Freq. of Importance Missing No. No Low Medium High Extreme M No. No Lou Medium High Extreme M (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) 1 0 0 25 101 205 5 16 2 19 140 85 6 ( .00)( .00) (7.40) (30.1) (61.0) (1.5) ( .60)(5.70) (25.0) (41.7) (25.3) (1.8) 2 0 2 32 133 165 4 17 3 29 80 145 72 7 ( .00)( .60) (9.50) (39.6) (49.1) (1.2) ( .90)(8.60) (23.8) (43.2) (21.4) (2.1) 3 1 4 42 95 188 6 18 15 46 134 96 39 6 ( .30)(1.20) (12.5) (28.3) (56.0) (1.8) (4.50)(13.7) (39.9) (28.6) (11.6) (1.8) 4 3 13 53 141 118 8 19 46 124 102 45 14 5 ( .90)(3.90) (15.8) (42.0) (35.1) (2.4) (13.7)(36.9) (30.4) (13.4) (4.20) (1.5) 5 0 1 30 124 177 4 20 1 7 46 148 130 4 ( .00)( .30) (8.90) (36.9) (52.7) (1.2) ( .30)(2.10) (13.7) (44.0) (38.7) (1.2) 6 31 46 145 73 32 9 21 2 5 66 163 95 5 (9.20)(13.7) (43.2) (21.7) (9.50) (2.7) ( .60)(1.50) (19.6) (48.5) (28.3) (1.5) 7 48 82 127 54 22 3 22 1 39 133 122 30 11 (14.3)(24.4) (37.8) (16.1) (6.50) ( .9) ( .30)(11.6) (39.6) (36.3) (8.90) (3.3) 8 11 54 154 86 28 3 23 1 5 47 146 127 10 (3.30)(16.1) (45.8) (25.6) (8.30) ( .9) ( .30)(1.50) (14.0) (43.5) (37.8) (3.0) 9 3 10 46 93 180 4 24 0 14 104 140 66 12 ( .90)(3.00) (13.7) (27.7) (53.6) (1.2) ( .00)(4.20) (31.0) (41.7) (19.6) (3.6) 10 2 15 94 151 71 3 25 8 18 72 135 91 12 ( .60)(4.50) (28.0) (44.9) (21.1) ( .9) (2.40)(5.40) (21.4) (40.2) (27.1) (3.6) 11 1 3 36 127 166 3 26 1 8 95 141 80 11 ( .30)( .90) (10.7) (37.8) (49.4) ( .9) ( .30)(2.40) (28.3) (42.0) (23.8) (3.3) 12 12 25 107 117 69 6 27 2 18 65 128 113 10 (3.60)(7.40) (31.8) (34.8) (20.5) (1.8) ( .60)(5.40) (19.3) (38.1) (33.6) (3.0) 13 41 68 120 76 25 6 28 1 1 39 111 174 10 (12.2)(20.2) (35.7) (22.6) (7.40) (1.8) ( .30)( .30) (11.6) (33.0) (51.8) (3.0) 14 5 9 56 145 116 5 29 0 9 80 131 106 10 (1.50)(2.70) (16.7) (43.2) (34.5) (1.5) ( .00)(2.70) (23.8) (39.0) (31.5) (3.0)_ 15 12 16 73 142 89 4 30 0 4 43 94 184 11 (3.60)(4.80) (21.7) (42.3) (26.5) (1.2) ( .00)(1.20) (12.8) (28.0) (54.8) (3.3) 31 4 17 65 159 81 10 44 3 23 109 132 63 6 (1.20)(5.10) (19.3) (47.3) (24.1) (3.0) ( .90)(6.80) (32.4) (39.3) (18.8) (1.8) 32 0 2 69 122 132 11 4S 1 4 71 137 119 4 ( .00)( .60) (20.5) (36.3) (39.3) (3.3) ( .30)(1.20) (21.1) (40.8) (35.4) (1.2) 33 2 6 68 147 102 11 46 23 59 124 84 42 4 ( .60)(1.80) (20.2) (43.8) (30.4) (3.3) (6.80)(17.6) (36.9) (25.0) (12.5) (1.2) TABLE 4.2 (cont‘d) Goal Freq. of Importance Missing Goal Freq. of Importance Missing Ho. Ho Low Medium High Extreme H Ho. Ho Low Medium High Extreme M (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) 34 23 59 129 76 35 14 47 2 12 65 146 102 9 (6.80)(17.6) (38.4) (22.6) (10.4) (4.2) (0.60)(3.60) (19.3) (43.5) (30.4) (2.7) 35 3 6 74 141 107 5 48 14 27 95 119 72 9 ( .90)(1.80) (22.0) (42.0) (31.8) (1.5) (4.20)(8.00) (28.3) (35.4) (21.4) (2.7) 36 28 75 129 70 29 5 49 0 0 26 101 201 8 (8.30)(22.3) (38.4) (20.8) (8.60) (1.5) ( .00)( .00) (7.70) (30.1) (59.8) (2.4) 37 10 45 89 121 67 4 50 3 7 64 130 124 8 (3.00)(13.4) (26.5) (36.0) (19.9) (1.2) ( .90)(2.10) (19.0) (38.7) (36.9) (2.4) 38 9 34 121 111 55 6 S1 10 30 84 118 85 9 (2.70)(10.1) (36.0) (33.0) (16.7) (1.8) (3.00)(8.90) (25.0) (35.1) (25.3) (2.7) 39 1 6 65 109 149 6 52 3 8 63 117 134 11 ( .30)(1.80) (19.3) (32.4) (44.3) (1.8) ( .90)(2.40) (18.8) (34.8) (39.9) (3.3) 40 2 3 34 118 175 4 53 9 18 71 146 83 9 ( .60)( .90) (10.1) (35.1) (52.1) (1.2) (2.70)(5.40) (21.1) (43.5) (24.7) (2.7) 41 27 96 119 62 25 7 54 82 53 84 71 36 10 (8.00)(28.6) (35.4) (18.5) (7.40) (2.1) (24.4)(15.8) (25.0) (21.1) (10.7) (3.0) 42 57 77 88 67 39 8 SS 72 60 80 64 48 12 (17.0)(22.9) (26.2) (19.9) (11.6) (2.4) (21.4)(17.9) (23.8) (19.0) (14.3) (3.6) 43 3 21 122 116 67 7 ( .90)(6.30) (36.3) (34.5) (19.9) (2.1) Mote: the specification of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. Of no importance < 1.5; of low importance < 2.5; of medium importance < 3.5; of high importance < 4.5; of extreme importance 8 or > 4.5. 76 TABLE 4.3 EXISTING RANKING OF JUNICR COLLEGE GOALS AS PERCEIVED BY ALL RESPONDENTS Goal Mo. Mean 5.0. Rank Goal Mo. Mean 5.0. Rank 30 4.147 .836 1 25 3.205 1.066 29 49 3.951 1.047 2 37 3.180 1.080 30 2 3.886 .921 3 10 3.174 .980 31 1 3.843 .929 4 53 3.174 1.082 32 28 3.831 1.010 5 16 3.173 1.090 33 5 3.820 .977 6 44 3.142 1.021 34 3 3.801 1.085 7 51 3.119 1.120 35 4 3.743 .965 8 43 3.114 1.016 36 9 3.733 1.097 9 17 3.045 1.072 37 39 3.725 1.093 10 15 3.030 1.157 38 11 3.710 1.052 11 12 3.021 1.094 39 40 3.709 1.088 12 38 3.012 1.062 40 45 3.700 1.012 13 22 2.988 .851 41 32 3.693 1.046 14 48 2.933 1.126 42 33 3.571 .964 15 34 2.876 1.028 43 52 3.530 1.086 16 7 2.856 1.059 44 21 3.503 .881 17 18 2.731 1.097 45 23 3.491 .991 18 46 2.663 1.089 46 29 3.485 1.013 19 8 2.593 .984 47 50 3.462 1.044 20 41 2.529 .972 48 20 3.437 1.040 21 36 2.515 1.026 49 35 3.426 1.043 22 6 2.357 1.140 50 31 3.393 1.028 23 55 2.313 1.267 51 47 3.347 1.060 24 54 2.257 1.168 52 26 3.345 .860 25 13 2.227 1.058 53 14 3.310 1.033 26 42 2.182 1.160 54 24 3.249 .931 27 19 1.994 .915 55 27 3.248 1.165 28 Note: The specification of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. 0f no inortance < 1.5; of low iuportance < 2.5; of mediun inportance < 3.5; of high inportance < 4.5; of extreme importance 8 or > 4.5. TABLE 4 . 4 DESIRED RANKING OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS AS PERCEIVED BY ALL RESPONDENTS Goal Mo. Mean 5.0. Rank Goal Mo. Mean 5.0. Rank 1 4.544 .633 1 16 3.870 .885 29 49 4.534 .639 2 53 3.844 .958 30 5 4.437 .668 3 15 3.843 .992 31 30 4.409 .763 4 10 3.823 .837 32 3 4.409 .779 5 24 3.796 .811 33 28 4.399 .732 6 17 3.772 .920 34 2 4.389 .684 7 51 3.728 1.043 35 40 4.389 .755 8 44 3.694 .889 36 11 4.363 .734 9 43 3.678 .900 37 9 4.316 .886 10 48 3.636 1.047 38 39 4.209 .841 11 12 3.624 1.013 39 4.206 .763 12 37 3.572 1.050 40 4.202 .776 13 38 3.512 .978 41 32 4.182 .782 14 22 3.434 .831 42 52 4.142 .878 15 18 3.297 1.000 43 50 4.113 .855 16 8 3.198 .923 44 45 4.111 .798 17 46 3.190 1.087 45 4 4.091 .870 18 34 3.127 1.062 14 4.082 .872 19 6 3.089 1.063 47 33 4.049 .807 20 36 2.991 1.063 21 4.039 .776 21 13 2.927 1.111 49 35 4.036 .838 22 41 2.884 1.050 50 29 4.025 .826 23 55 2.864 1.361 51 47 4.021 .845 24 42 2.860 1.263 52 27 4.018 .908 25 54 2.773 1.335 53 31 3.908 .872 26 7 2.760 1.093 54 26 3.895 .810 27 19 2.568 1.026 55 25 3.873 .967 28 Note: The specification of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. 0f no importance < 1.5: of low importance < 2.5; of medium importance < 3.5; of high importance < 4.5; of extreme importance 2 or > 4.5. 78 Table 4.5 shows a comparison of rankings of the present and future importance of goals. The goal "to increase the desire and ability of students to undertake self-directed learning" was ranked as the fourth priority and the goal "to strengthen students' consciousness of nationalism" was ranked as the first priority among existing goals, but their ranking among desired goals was reversed by all respondents. The goal "to provide students opportunities for participating in college policy-making" was perceived of least importance and ranked as the lowest priority among both existing and desired goals. The goal "to ensure that students acquire knowledge and skills that will enable them to live effectively in society," which all respondents ranked 8th in terms of present importance; the goal "to encourage students to prepare for technician certificate examination held by the government," which was ranked 30th; and the goal "to provide students with military training program," which was ranked the 44th, were ranked 18th, 40th, and 54th, respectively, in terms of future importance. e t o ducation MOE . Perceptions of MOE respondents regarding the importance of goals for the present and for the future are shown in Table 4.6. Only five goals for the present and three goals for the future were viewed as being of low importance (2.5 > the mean > 1.499). Twenty-two goals for the present and 32 goals for the future were seen as being of high importance (4.5 > the mean > 3.499), and 1 goal for the present and 6 goals for the future TABLE 4.5 COMPARISON OF THE EXISTING AND DESIRED RANKING OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS AS PERCEIVED BY ALL RESPONDENTS Goal Existing Desired Goal Existing Desired Mo. Mean Rank Mean Rank No. Mean Rank Mean Rank 1 3.843 4 4.544 1 29 3.485 19 4.025 23 2 3.886 3 4.389 7 30 4.147 1 4.409 4 3 3.801 7 4.409 5 31 3.393 23 3.908 26 4 3.743 8 4.091 18 32 3.693 14 4.182 14 5 3.820 6 4.437 3 33 3.571 15 4.049 20 6 2.357 50 3.089 47 34 2.876 43 3.127 46 7 2.856 44 2.760 54 35 3.426 22 4.036 22 8 2.593 47 3.198 44 36 2.515 49 2.991 48 9 3.733 9 4.316 10 37 3.180 30 3.572 40 10 3.174 31 3.823 32 38 3.012 40 3.512 41 11 3.710 11 4.363 9 39 3.725 10 4.209 11 12 3.021 39 3.624 39 40 3.709 12 4.389 8 13 2.227 53 2.927 49 41 2.529 48 2.884 50 14 3.310 26 4.082 19 42 2.182 54 2.860 52 15 3.030 38 3.843 31 43 3.114 36 3.678 37 16 3.173 33 3.870 29 44 3.142 34 3.694 36 17 3.045 37 3.772 34 45 3.700 13 4.111 17 18 2.731 45 3.297 43 46 2.663 46 3.190 45 19 1.994 55 2.568 55 47 3.347 24 4.021 24 20 3.437 21 4.202 13 48 2.933 42 3.636 38 21 3.503 17 4.039 21 49 3.951 2 4.534 2 22 2.988 41 3.434 42 50 3.462 20 4.113 16 23 3.491 18 4.206 12 51 3.119 35 3.728 35 24 3.249 27 3.796 33 52 3.530 16 4.142 15 25 3.205 29 3.873 28 53 3.174 32 3.844 30 26 3.345 25 3.895 27 54 2.257 52 2.773 53 27 3.248 28 4.018 25 55 2.313 51 2.864 51 28 3.831 5 4.399 6 Note: The specification of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. 80 TABLE 4.6 COMPARISON OF THE EXISTING AND DESIRED RANKING OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS AS PERCEIVED BY THE MOE Goal Existing Desired Goal Existing Desired No. Mean S.D. Rank Mean 8.0. Rank Mo. Mean s.o. Rank Mean 5.0. Rank 1 3.8750 .9910 5 4.5000 .7559 3 29 3.5000 1.0690 8 4.1250 1.1260 7 2 3.7500 .8864 6 4.3750 .7440 4 30 4.2500 .7071 2 4.5000 .5345 3 3 3.8750 .6409 5 4.0000 .7559 8 31 3.7500 .7071 6 3.8750 .8345 9 4 3.8750 .8345 5 3.8750 .3536 9 32 3.8750 1.1260 5 4.1250 .8345 7 5 3.8750 .9910 5 4.1250 .8345 7 33 3.5000 1.1952 8 4.1250 1.1260 7 6 2.6250 .5175 16 3.1250 1.2464 15 34 3.3750 .9161 9 3.6250 .7440 11 7 2.7500 1.3887 15 2.6250 1.4079 19 35 3.8750 1.4577 5 4.3750 .9161 4 8 3.0000 .5345 13 3.2500 .4629 14 36 2.6250 1.0607 16 2.8750 1.1260 17 9 4.2500 1.0351 2 4.6250 .5175 2 37 3.2500 1.0351 10 3.2500 1.1650 14 10 3.5000 1.1952 8 4.0000 1.1952 8 38 2.7500 .8864 15 3.1250 1.1260 15 11 4.1250 1.1260 3 4.6250 .5175 2 39 4.0000 1.3093 4 4.3750 1.1607 4 12 3.0000 1.0696 13 3.2500 1.2817 14 40 3.8750 .9910 5 4.5000 .7559 3 13 2.2500 .7071 18 3.0000 .7559 16 41 2.0000 .7559 20 2.1250 .6409 22 14 3.3750 .9161 9 4.0000 .7559 8 .42 1.8571 .8997 21 2.5714 .9759 20 15 3.8750 1.1260 5 4.1250 .8345 7 43 3.1429 1.3452 11 4.2857 1.2536 5 16 2.8750 .8345 14 3.6250 1.0607 11 44 3.2500 1.2817 10 3.8750 1.1260 9 17 2.6250 .7440 16 3.3750 1.1877 13 45 3.8750 1.1260 5 4.1250 .8345 7 18 2.7500 1.0351 15 3.2500 1.1650 14 46 3.3750 1.0607 9 4.1250 .8345 7 19 2.0000 .5345 20 2.3750 .5175 21 47 3.2500 .8864 10 3.8750 .8345 9 20 3.1250 1.1260 12 3.8750 .9910 9 48 3.3750 .7440 9 3.8750 .8345 9 21 3.6250 1.0607 7 4.2500 .8864 6 49 4.5000 .9258 1 4.7500 .7071 1 22 2.8750 1.1260 14 3.5000 .7559 12 50 3.3750 1.0607 9 4.0000 1.0690 8 23 3.6250 .9161 7 3.7500 .8864 10 51 3.3750 1.0607 9 3.7500 1.1650 10 24 3.7500 1.0351 6 4.0000 .7559 8 52 2.5000 .9258 17 3.1250 1.3562 15 25 3.3750 1.1877 9 4.2500 1.1650 6 53 3.0000 1.0690 13 3.6250 1.4079 11 26 3.2500 1.0351 10 3.8750 .8345 9 54 1.3750 .7440 22 2.0000 1.4142 23 27 2.7500 .7071 15 3.2500 1.0351 14 55 2.1250 .3536 19 2.7500 1.1650 18 28 3.7500 1.2817 6 4.1250 1.1260 7 Note: The specification of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. Same ranking number is on tied scores. 81 were perceived as being of extremely high importance (the mean > 4.499). Only one goal for the present was rated as not important (the mean < 1.5). MOE respondents rated "to cultivate students' consciousness and attitudes to increase their respect for work" as the highest priority goal, and they rated "to prepare students for taking transfer or entrance examination for graduate school at college or university" as the lowest priority goal for both the present and the future. MOE respondents ranked "To engage in systematic evaluation of all college programs" 11th in priority among goals for the present, whereas they ranked it 5th in priority among goals for the future. J 'o co e adm ' trator JCADS . As shown in Table 4.7, JCAD respondents rated 17 out of 55 goals for the present and 39 out of 55 goals for the future as being of high importance (4.5 > the mean > 3.499). None of the existing goals and two of desired goals were rated as being of extremely high importance (the mean > 4.499), and six existing goals and no desired goals were perceived as being of low importance (2.5 > the mean > 1.499). No goals were rated as not important for either the present or the future (the mean < 1.5). The goal "to strengthen students' consciousness of nationalism" was ranked as the first priority for the present but was ranked fourth for the future. "To cultivate students' consciousness and attitudes to increase their respect for work" rose from second priority for the present to first priority for the future. The goal "to provide students opportunities for participating in college policy-making" was ranked lowest in priority for both the present and the future. 82 TABLE 4.7 COMPARISON OF THE EXISTING AND DESIRED RANKING OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS AS PERCEIVED BY JCADS Goal Existing Desired Goal Existing Desired Mo. Mean s.o. Rank Mean 8.0. Rank Mo. Mean S.D. Rank Mean 5.0. Rank 1 3.8426 .9293 4 4.5449 .6307 2 29 3.4843 1.0132 19 4.0220 .8194 25 2 3.8892 .9230 3 4.3889 .6837 7 30 4.1447 .8394 1 4.4069 .7682 4 3 3.7988 1.0948 7 4.4193 .7782 6 31 3.3836 1.0344 23 3.9088 .8744 26 4 3.7399 .9687 8 4.0969 .8782 18 32 3.6887 1.0450 14 4.1830 .7823 14 5 3.8185 .9786 6 4.4444 .6630 3 33 3.5723 .9595 15 4.0473 .8001 20 6 2.3500 1.1513 50 3.0878 1.0604 47 34 2.8631 1.0285 43 3.1146 1.0663 46 7 2.8589 1.0518 44 2.7631 1.0869 54 35 3.4149 1.0312 22 4.0279 .8355 23 8 2.5828 .9911 47 3.1969 .9319 44 36 2.5124 1.0268 49 2.9938 1.0632 48 9 3.7200 1.0965 9 4.3086 .8922 10 37 3.1785 1.0825 31 3.5802 1.0482 40 10 3.1656 .9752 33 3.8185 .8283 32 38 3.0186 1.0660 39 3.5217 .9737 41 11 3.6994 1.0503 12 4.3569 .7383 9 39 3.7183 1.0883 10 4.2050 .8362 13 12 3.0218 1.0967 38 3.6335 1.0058 38 40 3.7046 1.0910 11 4.3858 .7563 8 13 2.2267 1.0655 53 2.9255 1.1194 49 41 2.5421 .9742 48 2.9034 1.0518 50 14 3.3086 1.0367 26 4.0836 .8754 19 42 2.1894 1.1647 54 2.8660 1.2689 52 15 3.0093 1.1515 40 3.8364 .9959 31 43 3.1138 1.0104 35 3.6646 .8891 37 16 3.1801 1.0959 30 3.8758 .8808 28 44 3.1393 1.0165 34 3.6894 .8842 36 17 3.0559 1.0779 37 3.7819 .9130 34 45 3.6954 1.0105 13 4.1111 .7986 17 18 2.7307 1.0999 45 3.2981 .9975 43 46 2.6451 1.0849 46 3.1667 1.0832 45 19 1.9938 .9224 55 2.5728 1.0352 55 47 3.3489 1.0650 24 4.0251 .8464 24 20 3.4444 1.0380 21 4.2099 .7704 12 48 2.9219 1.1324 42 3.6301 1.0526 39 21 3.5000 .8780 17 4.0341 .7734 22 49 3.9377 1.0470 2 4.5281 .6378 1 22 2.9906 0.8448 41 3.4322 .8340 42 50 3.4642 1.0456 20 4.1156 .8505 16 23 3.4874 .9944 18 4.2170 7578 11 51 3.1125 1.1225 36 3.7273 1.0420 35 24 3.2366 .9265 28 3.7911 .8130 33 52 3.5562 1.0784 16 4.1672 .8497 15 25 3.2006 1.0640 29 3.8639 .9614 29 53 3.1781 1.0840 32 3.8495 .9463 30 26 3.3470 .8565 25 3.8959 .8105 27 54 2.2790 1.1685 52 2.7925 1.3295 53 27 3.2610 1.1719 27 4.0377 .8979 21 55 2.3176 1.2819 51 2.8671 1.3667 51 28 3.8333 1.0050 5 4.4057 .7207 5 Note: The specification of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. Same ranking number is on tied scores. 83 JCADS ranked "to ensure that students acquire knowledge and skills that will enable them to live effectively in society” 8th, ”to encourage students to prepare for technician certificate examination held by the government” 3lst and the goal "to provide students with military training program" 44th in priority among existing goals. These goals sliped to 18th, 40th, and 54th in priority among desired goals. In contrast, the goal "to commit college resources to faculty and staff development activities," which was ranked let among existing goals, and the goal "to provide opportunities for professional development for faculty and staff through special seminars, workshops, or training programs," 18th, moved up to 12th and 11th in priority, respectively, among desired goals. es de d ch i er ons. As shown in Table 4.8 presidents perceived 23 existing goals and 37 desired goals as being of high importance (4.5 > the mean > 3.499), no existing goals and 3 desired goals as being of extremely high importance (the mean > 4.499), and 6 existing goals and no desired goals to be of low importance (2.5 > the mean > 1.499). Presidents viewed no goals as not important (the mean < 1.5). The goal ”to strengthen students' consciousness of nationalism,” which was ranked as first priority for the present fell to fourth priority for the future. The goal "to cultivate students' consciousness and attitudes to increase their respect for work" rose from second priority among existing goals to first priority among desired goals. "To provide students opportunities for participating in college policy-making" was ranked in lowest priority for both the present and the future. 84 TABLE 4.8 COMPARISON EXISTING AND DESIRED RANKING OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS AS PERCEIVED BY PRESIDENTS Goal Existing Desired Goal Existing Desired Mo. Mean 8.0. Rank Mean S.D. Rank Mo. Mean 8.0. Rank Mean 8.0. Rank 1 3.9020 .8063 6 4.6275 .5987 2 29 3.5400 1.0343 17 4.0400 .8071 20 2 3.8627 .9802 8 4.4706 .6435 5 30 4.3400 .8234 1 4.5800 .7025 4 3 3.8235 1.6212 10 4.4510 .7567 6 31 3.4600 .9082 19 4.0800 .6952 18 4 3.9216 1.0362 5 4.3137 .7872 9 32 3.8800 .9832 7 4.3000 .7354 10 5 3.8431 1.0653 9 4.4510 .6727 6 33 3.6200 1.0079 14 4.0600 .7669 19 6 2.5882 1.1862 40 3.2941 .9653 38 34 2.8571 .9574 37 3.0816 .9539 40 7 3.0392 .9157 34 3.1569 .9669 39 35 3.6667 .9092 13 4.2745 .6657 11 8 2.8235 .8650 38 3.3137 .7068 36 36 2.5000 .9091 41 2.9412 .9255 42 9 3.9216 1.1286 5 4.4706 .8568 5 37 3.3529 1.0738 23 3.7647 .9505 29 10 3.2157 .9014 26 3.8627 .7751 24 38 3.0980 .9221 32 3.6275 .7990 31 11 3.8627 1.0587 8 4.4118 .6686 8 39 4.0000 1.0198 4 4.5098 .7582 7 12 3.0800 .8769 33 3.5400 .8855 33 40 3.8431 1.0271 9 4.4118 .6686 8 13 2.2000 .8806 45 2.9600 1.0294 41 41 2.4706 1.0836 42 2.8627 1.0396 45 14 3.5000 .8864 18 4.3000 .6468 10 42 2.1400 .9899 46 2.8000 1.0302 46 15 3.0800 1.1400 33 3.8600 .9691 25 43 3.1765 1.0527 27 3.8400 .7103 26 16 3.2857 1.1547 25 3.8980 .8477 23 44 3.1765 .9941 27 3.6667 .8406 30 17 3.1600 1.1493 28 3.8200 .9190 27 45 3.8039 .9596 11 4.2549 .6883 12 18 2.9200 1.1200 36 3.4200 .9916 33 46 2.8000 1.6900 39 3.3000 1.0351 37 19 2.0200 .9998 47 2.6400 1.0645 47 47 3.3800 1.0079 22 3.9000 .8391 22 20 3.4200 1.0708 20 4.1200 .7990 16 48 3.1224 1.1838 29 3.7959 1.1543 28 21 3.5800 .9708 15 4.1600 .7103 15 49 4.1600 1.0373 2 4.6600 .5573 1 22 2.9800 .7690 35 3.4800 .7624 34 50 3.6800 1.0388 12 4.2400 .7440 13 23 3.5000 .8864 18 4.2200 .6788 14 51 3.3800 1.1933 22 3.9800 .9792 21 24 3.3400 .8715 24 3.8600 .7827 25 52 3.6200 1.0280 14 4.0800 .8533 18 25 3.4082 .9983 21 4.0816 .7593 17 53 3.1200 1.0812 30 3.6400 .9424 31 26 3.5600 .9930 16 4.1600 .8418 15 54 2.4082 1.2234 43 2.9388 1.3603 44 27 3.1000 1.0546 31 3.8200 .9624 26 55 2.4000 1.2122 44 2.9400 1.3157 43 28 4.0400 .9681 3 4.6000 .6061 3 Note: The specification of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. Same ranking number is on tied scores. 0f no importance < 1.5; of low importance < 2.5; of medium importance < 3.5; of high importance < 4.5; of extremely high importance = or > 4.5. 85 Presidents ranked the goal "to increase the desire and ability of students to undertake self—directed learning" 6th in priority and the goal "to maintain support services for students with special needs, such as disadvantaged, or handicapped" 18th in priority among existing goals; these goals were ranked second and tenth in priority among desired goals. Table 4.9 shows that deans perceived 25 existing goals and 38 desired goals to be of high importance (4.5 > the mean > 3.499), no existing goals and 2 desired goals to be of extremely high importance (the mean > 4,499), 6 existing goals and 1 desired goal to be of low importance (2.5 > the mean > 1.499), and no existing or desired goals to be of no importance (the mean < 1.5). Deans ranked the goals "to strengthen students' consciousness of nationalism," "to cultivate students' consciousness and attitudes to increase their respect for work" and "to maintain a climate in which faculty commitment to the goals and well-being of the institution is as strong as commitment to professional careers" first, second and third in priority, respectively, among both existing goals and desired goals. Like the presidents, deans rated the goal "to provide students opportunities for participating in college policy- making" as the lowest priority for both the present and the future. The goal "to offer students alternative developmental (basic skills) programs that recognize different learning style" was ranked 38th in priority for the present but rose to 25th priority for the future. Table 4.10 shows that chairpersons perceived 15 existing goals and 40 desired goals to be of high importance (4.5 > the mean > COMPARISON OF TNE EXISTING AND DESIRED RANKING OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS AS PERCEIVED BY DEANS 86 TABLE 4.9 Goal Existing Desired Goal Existing Desired Mo. Mean S.D. Rank Mean S.D. Rank Mo. Mean s.o. Rank Mean 5.0. Rank 1 4.0130 .9247 5 4.4675 .7179 4 29 3.7027 .8872 18 3.9459 .8422 22 2 3.9091 .8912 10 4.2632 .7187 10 30 4.3649 .7508 1 4.5616 .6869 1 3 3.8684 1.0751 12 4.3333 .8436 7 31 3.5270 .9962 24 3.8919 .8847 24 4 3.7867 .9627 15 4.0685 .8713 15 32 3.9595 .8981 7 4.2740 .8038 9 5 3.9474 .9222 8 4.3733 .7493 6 33 3.7703 .8844 16 3.9726 .8971 21 6 2.3514 1.1985 50 2.9178 1.1756 46 34 2.8732 1.0410 44 2.9859 1.0350 45 7 3.0649 1.0679 42 3.0132 1.0770 43 35 3.7222 .8088 17 4.0417 .8791 17 8 2.6753 .9926 47 3.2368 1.0049 41 36 2.3151 .9556 52 2.5972 .9881 50 9 4.0390 .9926 4 4.3947 .8339 5 37 3.2973 1.1070 32 3.5890 1.0780 34 10 3.3896 .8608 30 3.7632 .7978 29 38 3.1644 .9282 40 3.4444 .8540 38 11 3.8182 1.0095 13 4.3026 .7307 8 39 4.0000 .8975 6 4.2500 .7645 11 12 3.1667 1.1628 39 3.6111 1.0285 32 40 3.9459 .8091 9 4.2192 .8374 13 13 2.1944 1.1214 53 2.7917 1.1251 49 41 2.5753 .9416 48 2.8356 1.0002 49 14 3.3919 1.0704 29 3.8784 .9356 25 42 2.3243 1.2726 51 3.0000 1.3540 44 15 3.1757 1.0515 38 3.8108 .9167 27 43 3.2027 .8910 37 3.5694 .9468 35 16 3.4521 1.0006 26 3.9041 .8193 23 44 3.1486 .9317 41 3.5068 .9877 37 17 3.2603 1.0004 34 3.7945 .8429 28 45 3.9054 .8940 11 4.0411 .8239 18 18 3.0137 .9929 43 3.3472 .8906 39 46 2.6933 1.0263 46 3.0676 1.0769 42 19 1.9589 .9043 55 2.3151 1.0656 52 47 3.4156 .9914 28 3.8421 .8649 26 20 3.6757 1.0083 20 4.2432 .7551 12 48 2.8052 1.0765 45 3.2632 1.1120 40 21 3.6892 .7751 19 4.0000 .7265 19 49 4.1558 .8895 2 4.5132 .6217 2 22 3.2667 .8904 33 3.5205 .8992 36 50 3.6753 .9793 21 3.9868 .9164 20 23 3.6622 .8802 22 4.0000 .7764 19 51 3.2500 1.0847 35 3.6133 .9986 31 24 3.4324 .8453 27 3.7568 .8245 30 52 3.7922 1.0174 14 4.0526 .9222 16 25 3.3243 1.1239 31 3.7568 1.1203 30 53 3.2208 1.0591 36 3.6053 1.1205 33 26 3.5000 .7071 25 3.8784 .7394 25 54 2.1447 1.1279 54 2.5333 1.3083 51 27 3.6486 .9853 23 4.1351 .7643 14 55 2.5067 1.3791 49 2.7945 1.3119 48 28 4.0541 .8258 3 4.4865 .6462 3 Note: The specification of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. Same ranking number is on tied scores. 0f no importance < 1.5; of low importance < 2.5; of medium importance < 3.5; of high importance < 4.5; of extremely high importance = or > 4.5. 87 3.499), no existing goals and only 1 desired goal to be of extremely high importance (the mean > 4.499), 6 existing goals and no desired goals to be of low importance (2.5 > the mean > 1.499) and no existing or desired goals to be of no importance (the mean < 1.5). The goal "to strengthen students' consciousness of nationalism," which was ranked first in priority among existing goals, fell to tenth in priority among desired goals. The goal "to increase the desire and ability of students to undertake self-directed learning" was ranked sixth in priority for the present but was promoted to first priority for the future. The lowest priority goal for both the present and the future was perceived by chairpersons, as well as by presidents and deans, which was "to provide students opportunities for participating in college policy-making." Chairpersons ranked the goal "to maintain support services for students with special needs, such as disadvantaged, or handicapped" 17th in priority, the goal ”to strengthen cooperative programs with business and industry" 22nd, the goal "to provide facilities and equipment to create desired research environment for faculty” tenth, the goal "to offer students educational programs geared to new and emerging career field" 25th, the goal "to offer students alternative developmental (basic skills) programs that recognize different learning styles" 39th and the goal "to provide opportunities for those individuals seeking to update or upgrade present job skills” 34th among existing goals and raised them, respectively, to 9th, 14th, 4th, 18th, 29th, and 26th in priority among desired goals. The goal "to ensure that students acquire knowledge and skills that will enable them to live effectively in society" was ranked 8th and the goal ”to COMPARISON OF THE EXISTING AND DESIRED RANKING OF JUNIOR COLLEGE 88 TABLE 4.10 AS PERCEIVED BY CHAIRPERSONS GOALS Goal Existing Desired Goal Existing Desired Mo. Mean S.D. Rank Mean S.D. Rank No Mean S.D. Rank Mean S.D. Rank 1 3.7407 .9573 6 4.5479 .6055 1 29 3.3830 1.0456 19 4.0319 .8202 23 2 3.8789 .9264 2 4.4158 .6752 6 30 4.0106 .8527 1 4.2979 .8055 10 3 3.7566 1.1080 5 4.4497 .7606 5 31 3.2926 1.0869 23 3.8670 .9183 28 4 3.6737 .9589 8 4.0582 .9002 21 32 3.5266 1.0868 13 4.1170 .7788 17 5 3.7592 .9758 4 4.4764 .6226 3 33 3.4787 .9671 15 4.0691 .7673 20 6 2.2553 1.1036 49 3.0851 1.0358 48 34 2.8408 1.0476 41 3.1436 1.1069 46 7 2.7016 1.0563 42 2.5288 1.0652 55 35 3.2176 1.0965 25 3.9585 .8468 26 8 2.4660 1.0144 47 3.1414 .9657 47 36 2.5938 1.0885 44 3.1554 1.0881 45 9 3.5263 1.0968 14 4.2263 .9237 13 37 3.0777 1.0797 31 3.5337 1.0705 40 10 3.0733 1.0336 32 3.8429 .8562 31 38 2.9375 1.1515 36 3.5208 1.0632 41 11 3.6073 1.0602 9 4.3613 .7611 7 39 3.5365 1.1481 12 4.1198 .8630 16 12 2.9271 1.1186 37 3.6528 1.0352 38 40 3.5855 1.1964 10 4.4508 .7352 4 13 2.2487 1.0946 50 2.9585 1.1403 49 41 2.5526 .9622 46 2.9474 1.0727 50 14 3.2176 1.0677 25 4.1042 .8977 18‘ 42 2.1623 1.1697 52 2.8534 1.3016 52 15 2.9063 1.1984 38 3.8497 1.0374 30 43 3.0674 1.0411 33 3.6477 .9073 39 16 3.0674 1.1090 33 3.8860 .9114 27 44 3.1204 1.0569 29 3.7539 .8505 35 17 2.9688 1.0825 35 3.8010 .9246 33 45 3.5751 1.0487 11 4.1036 .8034 19 18 2.5959 1.1145 43 3.2642 1.0346 43 46 2.5729 1.0949 45 3.1606 1.0898 44 19 2.0104 .9185 53 2.6528 1.0045 54 47 3.3209 1.0992 21 4.1237 .8323 15 20 3.3731 1.0487 20 4.2280 .7772 12 48 2.9037 1.1366 39 3.7380 .9621 36 21 3.3990 .8847 18 4.0104 .8100 24 49 3.7861 1.0911 3 4.4973 6670 2 22 2.8723 .8239 40 3.3723 .8336 42 50 3.3102 1.0626 22 4.1390 .8437 14 23 3.4096 1.0684 17 4.3032 .7660 9 51 3.0000 1.1072 34 3.7166 1.0625 37 24 3.1283 .9586 28 3.7742 .8204 34 52 3.4355 1.1143 16 4.2500 8182 11 25 3.0919 1.0618 30 3.8503 .9498 29 53 3.1559 1.1015 26 4.0054 .8415 25 26 3.2193 .8614 24 3.8075 .8134 32 54 2.2727 1.1619 48 2.8342 1.3277 53 27 3.1330 1.2360 27 4.0426 .9298 22 55 2.2043 1.2482 51 2.8710 1.0444 51 28 3.6755 1.0577 7 4.3191 .7699 8 Note: The specification of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. 0f no importance < 1.5; of low importance < 2.5; of medium importance < 3.5; of high importance < Same ranking number is on tied scores. 4.5; of extremely high importance = or > 4.5. 89 provide students with military training program" 44th in priority among existing goals and fell, respectively, to let and 54th in priority among desired goals. b JC S C S and rivate JC 3 PrJCADS . As Table 4.11 indicates, PuJCADS perceived 19 existing goal and 40 desired goals to be of high importance (4.5 > the mean > 3.499), I desired goal to be of extremely high importance (the mean > 4.499), and 6 existing goals to be of low importance (2.5 > the mean > 1.499). No goals were perceived to be of no importance for either the present or the future (the mean < 1.5). PuJCADS ranked the goal "to strengthen students' consciousness of nationalism" first in priority among existing goals but sixth among desired goals. The goal "to increase the desire and ability of students to undertake self-directed learning" was ranked first in priority among desired goals, whereas it was ranked fourth among existing goals. The goal "to provide students opportunities for participating in college policy-making" was ranked lowest in priority for both the present and the future. The goal "to create procedures by which curricular and instructional innovations may be readily initiated" was ranked 14th in priority and the goal "to maintain a climate in which communication throughout the organizational structure is open and candid" was ranked 8th in priority among existing goals; they fell, respectively, to 22nd and 16th in priority among desired goals. The goal "to offer students alternative developmental (basic skills) programs that recognize different learning styles" moved up from 36th in priority among existing goals to 28th in priority among desired goals. 90 TABLE 4.11 COMPARISON OF THE EXISTING AND DESIRED RANKING OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS AS PERCEIVED BY PuJCADS Goal Existing Desired Goal Existing Desired Mo. Mean S.D. Rank Mean S.D. Rank Ho. Mean S.D. Rank Mean S.D. Rank 1 3.8060 1.0036 4 4.5224 .6596 1 29 3.5552 1.0486 13 4.0299 .8523 16 2 3.7612 .9060 5 4.3134 .6327 5 30 4.1493 .7638 1 4.2836 .7747 6 3 3.6866 1.1443 8 4.4328 .8743 4 31 3.2537 1.0349 24 3.7910 .8797 26 4 3.7164 .9662 6 4.1364 .7822 12 32 3.6866 .9408 8 4.0299 .7972 16 5 3.8060 .9085 4 4.4478 .6579 2 33 3.5522 .9258 14 3.8806 .8261 22 6 2.4615 1.2384 44 3.2462 1.1461 40 34 2.8955 1.0318 39 3.1194 1.1217 42 7 2.8657 1.0574 40 2.7910 1.0522 46 35 3.2647 1.0737 22 3.9559 .8364 18 8 2.5224 1.0496 42 3.1791 1.0288 41 36 2.5147 1.1394 43 3.0882 1.1811 43 9 3.6119 1.1140 11 4.2836 .9662 6 37 3.1912 1.0112 27 3.5294 1.0855 34 10 3.1642 .9785 29 3.7015 .9537 29 38 3.0441 1.0850 34 3.6324 .9759 32 11 3.5373 1.1055 15 4.1493 .8025 10 39 3.6765 1.0712 9 4.1471 .9021 11 12 3.1791 .9989 28 3.6866 1.0032 30 40 3.6912 1.0686 7 4.2500 .8353 8 13 2.6269 1.1259 41 3.2537 1.0638 39 41 2.3731 .9018 45 2.5373 .9265 49 14 3.3582 1.0255 19 4.0896 .8830 13 42 2.2687 1.2502 47 2.6866 1.3167 47 15 2.9552 1.2115 36 3.7313 1.0672 28 43 3.0147 .9999 35 3.6029 .8311 33 16 3.3134 .9879 21 3.8657 .8858 24 44 3.1029 .8333 30 3.5294 .8006 34 17 3.2537 1.0638 24 3.8358 .9470 25 45 3.6765 .8715 9 4.0441 .7810 15 18 2.8955 1.1824 38 3.3881 1.0438 38 46 3.0746 1.0633 31 3.4412 1.0704 36 19 2.1194 .9617 49 2.6567 1.0667 48 47 3.3692 1.0242 18 3.9063 .8858 21 20 3.3582 1.0106 19 3.9254 .9263 20 48 2.9077 1.1000 37 3.5077 1.0019 35 21 3.5373 .8932 15 3.9552 .7474 19 49 3.8615 1.0136 2 4.4462 .7506 3 22 3.0448 .8059 33 3.4328 .7431 37 50 3.5846 .8641 12 4.2154 .7602 9 23 3.4030 1.0009 17 4.0896 .7733 13 51 3.3231 1.1607 20 3.8769 .9923 23 24 3.2090 .9776 26 3.6716 .8771 31 52 3.6154 .9794 10 4.0462 .9426 14 25 3.0597 1.1919 32 3.7612 1.0312 27 53 3.2615 1.1629 23 3.9846 .8925 17 26 3.4179 .8376 16 3.8358 .8275 25 54 2.2308 1.2218 48 2.8154 1.3795 45 27 3.2388 1.1818 25 3.8358 1.0239 25 55 2.3231 1.3591 46 3.0156 1.4197 44 28 3.8358 .9309 3 4.2537 .7456 7 Note: The specification of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. Same ranking number is on tied scores. 0f no importance < 1.5; of low importance < 2.5; of medium importance < 3.5; of high importance < 4.5; of extremely high importance 3 or > 4.5. 91 Table 4.12 shows that PrJCADS perceived l7 existing goals and 38 desired goals to be of high importance, 2 desired goals to be of extremely high importance, and 6 existing goals to be of low importance. They ranked the goal "to strengthen students' consciousness of nationalism" first in priority among existing goals but ranked it fifth in priority among desired goals. The goal "to cultivate students' consciousness and attitudes to increase their respect for work" was promoted from second in priority among existing goals to first in priority among desired goals. The PrJCADS' lowest priority goal for both the present and the future was the same as the PuJCADS'. PrJCADS ranked the goal "to offer students alternative developmental programs (basic skills) that recognize different learning styles" 38th in priority and the goal "to commit college resources to faculty and staff development activities" 23rd in priority among existing goals; these goals rose to 29th and 11th in priority, respectively, among desired goals. o nio 01 e e with two-year, three-year, v - e a b natio of to ram du atio two ee :39 Q fivg, ghzgg Q five. or two. three a five year program). Table 4.13 shows that administrators at two-year junior colleges perceived 11 existing goals and 39 desired goals to be of high importance (4.5 > the mean > 3.499), 6 existing goals and no desired goals to be of low importance (2.5 > the mean > 1.499), no existing goals or desired goals to be of extremely high importance (the mean > 4.499), and no goals to be of no importance (the mean < 1.5) for either the present or the future. The goal ”to increase the desire and ability of students to 92 TABLE 4.12 COMPARISON OF EXISTING AND DESIRED RANKING OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS AS PERCEIVED BY PrJCADS Goal Existing Desired Goal Existing Desired Mo. Mean S.D. Rank Mean S.D. Rank Ho. Mean S.D. Rank Mean S.D. Rank 1 3.8367 .9128 4 4.5480 .6271 2 29 3.4593 1.0083 19 4.0122 .8156 24 2 3.9127 .9278 3 4.4104 .6949 9 30 4.1423 .8619 1 4.4408 .7693 5 3 3.8200 1.0883 6 4.4217 .7533 7 31 3.4106 1.0411 22 3.9390 .8762 25 4 3.7520 .9789 8 4.0968 .9036 17 32 3.6789 1.0760 14 4.2286 .7714 14 5 3.8214 .9959 5 4.4502 .6637 3 33 3.5732 .9693 15 4.0939 .7863 18 6 2.3092 1.1274 50 3.0444 1.0426 46 34 2.8430 1.0307 44 3.0950 1.0522 44 7 2.8458 1.0560 43 2.7421 1.1009 53 35 3.4418 1.0188 20 4.0482 .8314 23 8 2.5889 .9784 47 3.1984 .9149 43 36 2.5121 1.0060 49 2.9759 1.0354 48 9 3.7381 1.0946 9 4.3147 .8767 10 37 3.1713 1.1093 31 3.6000 1.0452 39 10 3.1739 .9807 30 3.8651 .7919 30 38 3.0080 1.0663 39 3.4919 .9774 40 11 3.7352 1.0375 10 4.4127 .7115 8 39 3.7309 1.1016 11 4.2298 .8146 13 12 2.9677 1.1234 41 3.6145 1.0140 38 40 3.7131 1.1088 12 4.4320 .7263 6 13 2.1165 1.0271 54 2.8233 1.1220 50 41 2.5968 .9933 46 3.0161 1.0646 47 14 3.2908 1.0503 26 4.0840 .8809 20 42 2.1727 1.1458 53 2.9234 1.2623 49 15 3.0120 1.1459 38 3.8765 .9781 29 43 3.1355 1.0186 35 3.6774 .9048 36 16 3.1566 1.1268 32 3.8956 .8782 27 44 3.1365 1.0575 34 3.7298 .9063 34 17 3.0161 1.0775 37 3.7903 .8933 33 45 3.6853 1.0472 13 4.1320 .7932 16 18 2.6960 1.0809 45 3.2892 .9821 42 46 2.5139 1.0520 48 3.0760 1.0746 45 19 1.9720 .9157 55 2.5560 1.0291 54 47 3.3400 1.0757 24 4.0482 .8362 23 20 3.3743 1.0556 23 4.2948 .7104 11 48 2.9076 1.1445 42 3.6532 1.0726 37 21 3.4900 .8826 18 4.0560 .7844 22 49 3.9520 1.0593 2 4.5502 .6078 1 22 2.9697 .8548 40 3.4204 .8629 41 50 3.4240 1.0922 21 4.0924 .8681 19 23 3.5041 1.0010 17 4.2561 .7583 12 51 3.0602 1.1146 36 3.6855 1.0599 35 24 3.2367 .9150 28 3.8156 .7927 31 52 3.5341 1.1107 16 4.2033 .8277 15 25 3.2335 1.0338 29 3.8934 .9498 28 53 3.1446 1.0641 33 3.8145 .9596 32 26 3.3224 .8673 25 3.8980 .8058 26 54 2.2782 1.1520 52 2.7733 1.3210 52 27 3.2480 1.1709 27 4.0813 .8580 21 55 2.2996 1.2588 51 2.8171 1.3534 51 28 3.8171 1.0277 7 4.4472 .7138 4 Note: The specification of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. Same ranking number is on tied scores. 0f no importance < 1.5; of low importance < 2.5; of medium importance < 3.5; of high importance < 4.5; of extremely high importance = or > 4.5. 93 TABLE 4.13 COMPARISON OF THE EXISTING AND DESIRE RANKING OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS AS PERCEIVED BY ADMINISTRATORS AT THO-YEAR JUNIOR COLLEGES Goal Existing Desired Goal Existing Desired Mo. Mean S.D. Rank Mean S.D. Rank Mo. Mean S.D. Rank Mean S.D. Rank 1 3.6129 .8823 6 4.4839 .7244 1 29 3.2903 1.0706 12 3.9677 .8360 15 2 3.8387 1.0032 2 4.3548 .7094 5 30 3.9677 .9826 1 4.3548 .7978 5 3 3.7000 1.0875 4 4.4667 .6814 2 31 3.2258 1.0234 14 3.8710 .8462 19 4 3.5484 1.0905 7 4.0323 .7951 12 32 3.3871 .9892 11 4.0323 .7951 12 5 3.6452 1.0503 5 4.3871 .7606 4 33 3.4839 1.0286 9 4.0645 .8538 11 6 2.3333 1.2411 37 3.3333 .9223 36 34 2.8621 .8752 29 3.3448 .8567 35 7 2.9677 1.0796 23 3.0000 1.0646 43 35 3.2258 .8450 14 3.8387 .8204 21 8 2.6129 1.1159 34 3.0645 1.0626 40 36 2.5862 .7328 36 3.0968 9076 39 9 3.4839 1.2615 9 4.1290 1.2039 8 37 2.6774 .9947 32 3.2903 .8638 37 10 3.0645 .8538 19 3.8065 .7924 23 38 2.7742 .9903 31 3.3871 .9193 33 11 3.5484 1.0595 7 4.3548 .7978 5 39 3.5161 1.0605 8 4.1290 .9217 8 12 2.7813 .9064 30 3.5938 1.0429 32 40 3.6129 1.1741 6 4.3226 .9018 6 13 2.0968 .9436 40 3.1290 1.0876 38 41 2.6774 .9794 32 3.0323 1.0160 42 14 2.9375 .8776 24 4.0000 .7746 13 42 2.3333 1.0613 37 3.3333 1.2130 36 15 2.8750 1.0999 28 3.6875 .9311 28 43 2.9677 .9826 23 3.7419 .9989 25 16 2.9333 1.1427 26 3.8333 .7915 22 44 3.0000 .9309 22 3.7742 .9560 24 17 2.6774 .9794 32 3.7000 .9154 27 45 3.5484 1.0905 7 4.0968 .7897 10 18 2.6563 1.0035 33 3.3750 .9755 34 46 2.5938 1.0115 35 3.0625 1.0758 41 19 1.9688 .9667 41 2.7188 1.0545 45 47 3.0938 1.1176 18 3.8438 .9197 20 20 3.1875 1.2297 15 4.1250 .7931 9 48 3.0000 1.0473 22 3.6875 .8206 28 21 3.1875 .8958 15 3.8750 .7071 18 49 3.7188 1.0846 3 4.4063 .7121 3 22 2.7742 .7169 31 3.3871 .8823 33 50 3.0625 .9136 20 3.9063 .5880 17 23 3.2581 .9298 13 4.0968 .7463 10 51 2.9375 1.0453 24 3.7188 .9583 26 24 2.9355 .7718 25 3.6452 .7978 31 52 3.1250 1.1288 16 3.9688 .8975 14 25 3.0968 1.0118 17 3.6774 1.1072 29 53 3.0313 1.0621 21 3.8750 .9755 18 26 2.9000 .8449 27 3.6667 .6609 30 54 2.2188 1.0994 39 2.9375 1.3664 44 27 2.9677 1.2243 23 3.9355 .8139 16 55 2.2258 1.2835 38 2.6774 1.1658 46 28 3.4194 .9583 10 4.2258 .8835 7 Note: The specification of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. Same ranking number is on tied scores. Of no importance < 1.5; of low importance < 2.5; of medium importance < 3.5; of high importance < 4.5; of extremely high importance = or > 4.5. 94 undertake self-directed learning" was ranked sixth in priority among existing goals and was promoted to first place among desired goals. The goal "to strengthen students' consciousness of nationalism" was ranked first among existing goals but fell to fifth in priority among desired goals. The lowest priority goal for the present was "to provide students opportunities for participating in college policy- making," and the lowest priority goal for the future was "to establish an associate degree system." Administrators at two-year junior colleges also ranked the goal "to provide students with military training program" 23th in priorities among existing goals and ranked it 44th in priority among desired goals. The goal "to offer students educational programs geared to new and emerging career fields" was ranked 24th in priority among existing goals and rose to 13th in priority among desired goals. Examination of the data in Table 4.14 reveals that administrators at three-year junior colleges perceived 32 existing goals and 40 desired goals to be of high importance (4.5 > the mean > 3.499), no existing goals and 6 desired goals to be of extremely high importance (the mean > 4.499), 5 existing goals and 2 desired goals to be of low importance (2.5 > the mean > 1.499) and no existing or desired goals to be of no importance (the mean < 1.5). The goals "to cultivate students' consciousness and attitudes to increase their respect for work" and "to strengthen cooperative programs with business and industry" were ranked first in priority for both the present and the future. The lowest priority goals for the present and future were, respectively, the goal "to maintain or move to a policy of essentially open admission, and then to develop 95 TABLE 4.14 COMPARISON OF THE EXISTING AND DESIRED RANKING OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS AS PERCEIVED BY ADMINISTRATORS AT THREE-YEAR JUNIOR COLLEGES Goal Existing Desired Goal Existing Desired Mo. Mean S.D. Rank Mean S.D. Rank Mo. Mean S.D. Rank Mean S.D. Rank 1 4.1111 .6764 4 4.6111 .6077 2 29 3.8889 .9634 9 4.1111 .8324 14 2 4.1667 .8575 3 4.5000 .7071 4 30 4.2778 .8264 1 4.5000 .7859 4 3 3.7778 .9428 11 4.2222 .8782 12 31 3.4444 1.0416 17 3.8333 .9852 18 4 3.6667 1.1882 14 4.0588 1.2485 15 32 3.7222 1.1275 13 4.1667 .8575 13 5 3.8333 .8575 10 4.3333 .6860 9 33 3.5000 1.0432 16 4.0000 .9701 17 6 2.4444 1.3815 30 3.3333 1.3720 29 34 3.2778 1.0178 20 3.6667 1.1882 21 7 2.3889 1.0922 31 2.2778 1.1785 35 35 3.8333 .7859 10 4.1111 .8324 14 8 2.6667 .9701 29 3.1667 1.2485 31 36 2.7778 1.0603 28 3.1111 1.0786 32 9 3.7778 1.2628 11 4.3889 1.1950 8 37 3.3333 .9701 19 3.7222 1.0178 20 10 3.0000 .9701 24 3.6111 1.1950 23 38 3.1111 1.2314 22 3.3889 1.0369 28 11 3.9444 .9376 8 4.2778 .7519 10 39 4.0556 .9376 6 4.3333 .9701 9 12 3.6667 1.0290 14 4.2222 .7321 12 40 4.0000 .9075 7 4.3889 .8498 8 13 2.8889 1.2783 26 3.3333 1.2834 29 41 2.0588 .6587 33 2.1765 1.0146 36 14 4.0000 .7670 7 4.4444 .7048 6 42 2.0000 1.2247 34 2.7059 1.4476 33 15 3.0556 1.2590 23 3.5556 1.2472 25 43 3.4444 .8556 17 3.8333 .9235 18 16 3.8889 .9634 9 4.2222 .8782 12 44 3.5556 1.0416 15 3.6667 .9701 21 17 3.7778 1.0603 11 4.2222 .8085 12 45 4.0556 .8024 6 4.2778 .7519 10 18 3.0556 1.3492 23 3.5556 1.2472 25 46 3.6667 1.1376 14 4.0556 .9376 16 19 2.1111 1.0786 32 2.5556 1.2935 34 47 4.0588 .7475 5 4.4118 .7952 7 20 3.4444 1.0966 17 3.7222 1.1785 20 48 3.3529 1.1147 18 3.7647 1.3933 19 21 3.7778 .8782 11 4.1667 .9852 13 49 4.2353 .9034 2 4.7647 .5623 1 22 3.1667 1.0432 21 3.5000 .9852 27 50 4.2353 .8314 2 4.7647 .4372 1 23 3.6667 .9701 14 4.2778 .8264 10 51 4.0588 .9663 5 4.5294 .6243 3 24 3.2778 .8948 20 3.6667 .9075 21 52 4.0588 1.0880 5 4.4706 .7998 5 25 3.2778 1.1785 20 3.8333 1.1504 18 53 3.7647 .9034 12 4.2353 .7524 11 26 3.5556 .8556 15 4.0000 .9075 17 54 2.9412 1.5195 25 3.1765 1.5098 30 27 3.5000 1.0981 16 4.0556 .9984 16 55 2.8824 1.5363 27 3.6471 1.5387 22 28 4.0000 .9075 7 4.2778 .8264 10 Note: The specification of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. Of no importance < 1.5; of low importance < 2.5; of medium importance < 3.5; of Same ranking number is on tied scores. 4.5; of extremely high importance = or > 4.5. high importance < 96 worthwhile educational experiences for all who are admitted" and the goal ”to prepare students for taking transfer or entrance examination for graduate school at college or university." The goal "to experiment with different methods of evaluating and grading student performance," which was ranked eighth in priority among existing goals, fell to 17th place among desired goals. The goal "to establish an associate degree system," which was ranked 27th in priority for the present rose to 20th in priority for the future. Table 4.15 indicates that JCADS at five-year junior colleges perceived 18 existing goals and 39 desired goals to be of high importance (4.5 > the mean > 3.499), no existing goals and 2 desired goals to be of extremely high importance (the mean > 4.499), 6 existing goals and no desired goals to be of low importance (2.5 > the mean > 1.499), and no existing or desired goals to be of no importance (the mean < 1.5). The goal "to increase the desire and ability of students to undertake self-directed learning," which JCADS at five-year junior colleges ranked 6th in priority among existing goals, was promoted to first in priority among goals for the future. The goal “to strengthen students' consciousness of nationalism," was ranked first in priority among present junior college goals but slipped to 5th place among desired goals. "To provide students opportunities for participating in college policy-making" was rated lowest among both present and future goals. The goal "to ensure that students acquire knowledge and skills that will enable them to live effectively in society," which was ranked 7th; the goal "to provide students with military training 97 TABLE 4.15 COMPARISON OF THE EXISTING AND DESIRED RANKING OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS AS PERCEIVED BY ADMINISTRATORS AT FIVE-YEAR JUNIOR COLLEGES Goal Existing Desired Goal Existing Desired Mo. Mean S.D. Rank Mean S.D. Rank Ho. Mean S.D. Rank Mean S.D. Rank 1 43.8670 .9104 6 4.5594 .6059 1 29 3.4874 .9942 20 4.0201 .8346 25 2 3.9167 .9086 3 4.4138 .6867 7 30 4.2010 .8225 1 4.4596 .7512 5 3 3.8424 1.0600 8 4.4307 .7515 6 31 3.3920 1.0670 23 3.9397 .9081 27 4 3.8473 .9499 7 4.1832 .8529 16 32 3.7638 1.0586 11 4.2677 .7700 12 5 3.8775 .9824 5 4.4631 .6618 4 33 3.5829 .9598 16 4.1061 .7633 20 6 2.3663 1.1349 50 3.0846 1.0760 47 34 2.7868 1.0377 44 3.0914 1.0458 46 7 2.9122 1.0395 42 2.7598 1.1036 53 35 3.4505 1.0367 22 4.0594 .8502 23 8 2.5707 .9554 47 3.2059 .8915 44 36 2.5320 1.0209 49 2.9901 1.0603 49 9 3.7843 1.0516 10 4.3596 .7984 10 37 3.2990 1.1159 28 3.7143 1.0327 36 10 3.1951 1.0005 31 3.8873 .8015 31 38 3.0443 1.0498 39 3.5297 .9933 41 11 3.7317 1.0200 12 4.4020 .6770 9 39 3.7882 1.0943 9 4.2673 .7841 13 12 3.0000 1.1533 40 3.6238 1.0158 40 40 3.7255 1.0659 14 4.4089 .7742 8 13 2.1782 1.0356 53 2.8713 1.1212 50 41 2.6318 1.0168 46 3.0149 1.0653 48 14 3.2906 1.0524 29 4.0739 .9007 22 42 2.1675 1.1308 54 2.8564 1.2555 51 15 3.0545 1.1513 38 3.9064 .9730 29 43 3.1176 1.0248 35 3.6866 .8923 37 16 3.1675 1.0907 32 3.8966 .8584 30 44 3.1485 1.0403 33 3.7413 .8904 35 17 3.0594 1.0540 37 3.8069 .8507 34 45 3.7304 1.0271 13 4.1576 .7990 17 18 2.7044 1.0815 45 3.2475 .9713 43 46 2.5567 1.0811 48 3.1089 1.0964 45 19 2.0000 .9120 55 2.5665 1.0385 55 47 3.3020 1.0757 27 4.0398 .8357 24 20 3.4828 1.0213 21 4.2906 .7031 11 48 2.8706 1.1105 43 3.6400 1.0799 39 21 3.5271 .9027 17 4.1040 .7492 21 49 3.9752 1.0339 2 4.5224 .6170 2 22 2.9700 .8501 41 3.3990 .8711 42 50 3.4950 1.0984 19 4.1393 .8663 19 23 3.5176 .9632 18 4.2663 .7278 14 51 3.0697 1.1292 36 3.6750 1.0841 38 24 3.3131 .9468 26 3.8832 .8154 32 52 3.6089 1.0792 15 4.2418 .8054 15 25 3.2462 1.0458 30 3.9289 .9503 28 53 3.1436 1.0809 34 3.8109 .9768 33 26 3.3769 .8840 24 3.9648 .8064 26 54 2.2090 1.1297 52 2.6850 1.3359 54 27 3.3417 1.1476 25 4.1407 .8470 18 55 2.2488 1.2279 51 2.7638 1.3482 52 28 3.8945 1.0367 4 4.4925 .6881 3 Note: The specification of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. Same ranking number is on tied scores. 0f no importance < 1.5; of low importance < 2.5; of medium importance < 3.5; of high importance < 4.5; of extremely high importance 3 or > 4.5. 98 program," which was ranked 42nd; and the goal "to encourage students to prepare for technician certificate examination held by the government," which was ranked 28th in priorities among existing goals, fell, respectively to 16th, 36th, and 53rd in priority among desired goals. The goal "to commit college resources to faculty and staff development activities” was ranked let and the goal "to offer students alternative developmental (basic skills) programs that recognize different learning styles" was ranked 38th in priority among existing goals but moved up, respectively, to 11th and 29th place among desired goals. JCADS at junior colleges with a combination of program durations perceived 15 existing goals and 39 desired goals to be of high importance (4.5 > the mean > 3.499), no existing goals and 2 desired goals to be of extremely high importance (the mean > 4.499), 8 existing goals and no desired goals to be of low importance (2.5 > the mean > 1.499), and no existing or desired goals to be of no importance (the mean < 1.5). (See Table 4.16.) This respondent group ranked the goal "to strengthen students' consciousness of nationalism” first in priority among existing goals but 8th in priority among desired goals. The goal ”to cultivate students' consciousness and attitudes to increase their respect for work" was ranked second in priority among existing goals and was promoted to the first place among desired goals. "To provide students opportunities for participating in college policy-making" was the lowest priority goal for both the present and the future. The goal "to ensure that students acquire knowledge and skills that will enable them to live effectively in society" was ranked 15th 99 TABLE 4.16 COMPARISON OF THE EXISTING AND DESIRED RANKING OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS AS PERCEIVED BY ADMINISTRATORS AT JUNIOR COLLEGES UITH A COMBINATION OF PROGRAM DURATIONS Goal Existing Desired Goal Existing Desired Mo. Mean S.D. Rank Mean S.D. Rank Mo. Mean S.D. Rank Mean S.D. Rank 1 3.7391 1.0383 4 4.5072 .6779 2 29 3.4412 1.0421 19 4.0294 .7912 16 2 3.6957 .9284 7 4.2754 .6616 7 30 4.0294 .8098 1 4.2647 .8033 8 3 3.7101 1.2496 6 4.4348 .8657 4 31 3.4265 .9822 21 3.8676 .7708 25 4 3.5373 .8883 15 3.9104 .8657 23 32 3.6029 1.0095 10 4.0441 .7617 15 5 3.7246 .9835 5 4.4638 .6320 3 33 3.5882 .9181 12 3.9118 .8238 22 6 2.2537 1.1193 52 2.9104 .9806 47 34 2.9412 1.0349 40 2.9118 1.1162 46 7 2.7391 1.0383 44 2.7536 .9912 50 35 3.2609 1.1200 26 4.0145 .7764 18 8 2.5652 1.0638 47 3.2319 .9259 42 36 2.3623 1.1501 49 2.9420 1.1490 45 9 3.6087 1.1143 9 4.2174 .9215 10 37 3.0145 1.0072 38 3.3043 1.1155 41 10 3.1739 .9845 28 3.7246 .8204 30 38 3.0441 1.1121 36 3.6029 .9327 34 11 3.5942 1.1672 11 4.2464 .8813 9 39 3.5441 1.1255 14 4.0735 .8863 13 12 2.9851 .9769 39 3.5075 1.0056 38 40 3.6232 1.1894 8 4.3913 .6906 5 13 2.2500 1.1113 53 2.8382 1.0736 49 41 2.3333 .8689 50 2.6957 .9747 S1 14 3.3382 1.0596 25 4.0588 .8958 14 42 2.6464 1.2994 46 2.7536 1.2766 50 15 2.9265 1.2009 41 3.8235 1.0213 27 43 3.0870 1.0253 32 3.5362 .8149 35 16 3.1765 1.0782 27 3.7941 .9551 28 44 3.0435 .9767 37 3.5072 .8157 39 17 3.0588 1.1314 35 3.6912 1.0546 31 45 3.5507 .9631 13 3.9710 .7664 20 18 2.7761 1.1523 43 3.3731 .9975 40 46 2.6471 .9890 45 3.1304 .9987 43 19 2.0000 .9211 54 2.5522 .9420 52 47 3.4030 1.0307 22 3.9394 .8390 21 20 3.4853 1.0247 17 4.1765 .7906 11 48 2.8806 1.2250 42 3.5224 .9902 36 21 3.5000 .7823 16 3.8824 .8017 24 49 3.8507 1.1045 2 4.5522 .6805 1 22 3.0882 .8238 31 3.5147 .6577 37 50 3.3433 .8799 24 4.0149 .8960 17 23 3.4559 1.1255 18 4.1176 .8381 12 51 3.0746 1.0915 33 3.6567 .9778 32 24 3.1471 .9185 30 3.6176 .7537 33 52 3.4394 .9943 20 3.9848 .9363 19 25 3.0735 1.1239 34 3.7941 .8904 28 53 3.1515 1.0988 29 3.8636 .8751 26 26 3.3824 .7336 23 3.7353 .8217 29 54 2.2879 1.1604 51 2.8788 1.2218 48 27 3.0441 1.1899 36 3.7353 1.0018 29 55 2.3636 1.3317 48 3.0152 1.3867 44 28 3.7794 .9279 3 4.2794 .6878 6 Note: The specification of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. Same ranking number is on tied scores. 0f no importance < 1.5; of low importance < 2.5; of medium importance < 3.5; of high importance < 4.5; of extremely high importance 8 or > 4.5. 100 in priority, and the goal "to create procedures by which curricular and instructional innovations may be readily initiated" was ranked 12th in priority among existing goals; they fell, respectively, to 23rd and 22nd in priority among desired goals. The goal ”to offer students educational programs geared to new and emerging career fields," which was ranked 25th, and the goal "to offer students alternative developmental (basic skills) programs that recognize different learning styles," which was ranked 4lst in priority among existing goals, were moved up, respectively, to 14th and 27th place among desired goals. dm t at t un or col e es w t d t ose w t out ev c . Administrators at junior colleges with evening schools perceived no existing goals and I desired goal to be of extremely high importance (the mean > 4.499), 17 existing goals and 39 desired goals to be of high importance (4.5 > the mean > 3.499), and 8 existing goals and no desired goals to be of low importance (2.5 > the mean > 1.499), and no existing or desired goals to be of no importance (the mean < 1.5). (See Table 4.17.) The goal ”to strengthen students' consciousness of nationalism," which was first in priority among existing goals, and the goal "to increase the desire and ability of students to undertake self-directed learning," which was fifth, were reversed among desired goals. This respondent group ranked "to provide students opportunities for participating in college policy-making" as the lowest priority goal for both the present and the future. The goal "to provide opportunities for professional development for faculty and staff through special seminars, workshops, 101 TABLE 4.17 COMPARISON OF THE EXISTING AND DESIRED RANKING OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS AS PERCEIVED BY ADMINISTRATORS AT JUNIOR COLLEGES NITH EVENING SCHOOLS Goal Existing Desired Goal Existing Desired Mo. Mean S.D. Rank Mean S.D. Rank Ho. Mean S.D. Rank Mean S.D. Rank 1 3.8228 .9126 5 4.5720 .5971 1 29 3.5107 1.0005 17 3.9957 .8121 24 2 3.8870 .9027 2 4.3866 .6764 6 30 4.1502 .8452 1 4.3922 .7876 5 3 3.8178 1.0582 6 4.4128 .8085 4 31 3.3777 1.0355 24 3.8884 .8786 27 4 3.7342 .9661 9 4.0940 .9123 18 32 3.7167 1.0283 11 4.1767 .7998 13 5 3.8866 .9456 3 4.4768 .6546 3 33 3.5665 .9587 15 4.0216 .8189 21 6 2.3617 1.1440 49 3.0684 1.0823 47 34 2.8996 1.0275 42 3.1179 1.0468 45 7 2.8745 1.0616 43 2.7815 1.0920 53 35 3.4093 1.0278 22 4.0422 .8527 20 8 2.5732 1.0052 46 3.1513 .9690 46 36 2.4958 1.0376 48 3.0084 1.0735 48 9 3.6904 1.1021 12 4.2647 .9465 10 37 3.0962 1.0939 35 3.5084 1.0703 40 10 3.2134 .9485 29 3.8571 .8038 29 38 2.9747 1.0733 40 3.4703 .9910 41 11 3.7364 1.0619 8 4.3403 .7615 9 39 3.6807 1.0942 13 4.1392 .8646 16 12 3.0766 1.0951 37 3.6468 1.0288 38 40 3.7322 1.1206 10 4.3824 .7412 7 13 2.2426 1.0483 53 2.9362 1.1399 50 41 2.5274 .9635 47 2.9030 1.0512 52 14 3.3291 1.0091 25 4.1017 .8444 17 42 2.2500 1.1926 52 2.9532 1.3050 49 15 3.0506 1.1814 38 3.8101 1.0586 32 43 3.0879 .9898 36 3.6540 .8773 37 16 3.2638 1.0287 27 3.9191 .8610 26 44 3.1544 1.0027 32 3.6807 .8947 36 17 3.1191 1.0225 33 3.8504 .8685 30 45 3.6695 1.0144 14 4.0756 .8130 19 18 2.8390 1.1068 44 3.3532 .9777 43 46 2.7101 1.0534 45 3.2227 1.0893 44 19 2.0466 .9237 54 2.5890 1.0003 55 47 3.3803 1.0423 23 4.0172 .8321 22 20 3.4852 1.0601 18 4.2236 .7788 11 48 2.9399 1.1203 41 3.6293 1.0447 39 21 3.4768 .8614 19 3.9958 .7909 23 49 3.9316 1.0168 4 4.4807 .6571 2 22 3.0214 .8047 39 3.4095 .8325 42 50 3.4701 1.0406 20 4.1502 .8452 15 23 3.4506 1.0036 21 4.1803 .7945 12 51 3.1159 1.1293 34 3.7284 1.0484 35 24 3.2060 .9005 30 3.7382 .8015 34 52 3.5451 1.0743 16 4.1595 .8403 14 25 3.1948 1.0718 31 3.8190 1.0159 31 53 3.2060 1.0589 30 3.8578 .9171 28 26 3.2759 .8383 26 3.7888 .7913 33 54 2.2629 1.1861 51 2.7706 1.3559 54 27 3.2532 1.1516 28 3.9700 .9163 25 55 2.3593 1.2806 50 2.9043 1.3411 51 28 3.7897 .9797 7 4.3648 .7485 8 Note: 0f no iuportance < 1.5; of low iuportance < 2.5; of medium inportance < 3. The specification of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228° Same ranking number is on tied scores. 4.5; of extremely high importance = or > 4.5. 31. 5; of high importance < 102 or training programs," which was ranked 2lst in priority among existing goals, and the goal "to offer students educational programs geared to new and emerging career fields," which was ranked 25th, rose, respectively, to 12th and 17th place among desired goals. However, the goal "to ensure that students acquire knowledge and skills that will enable them to live effectively in society," ranked 9th and the goal "to provide students with military training program," ranked 43rd in priority among existing goals, fell, respectively, to 18th and 53rd place among desired goals. Table 4.18 shows that administrators at junior colleges without evening schools perceived 2 desired goals to be of extremely high importance (the mean > 4.499), 19 existing goals and 39 desired goals to be of high importance (4.5 > the mean > 3.499), and 8 existing goals to be of low importance (2.5 > the mean > 1.499), and no existing or desired goals to be of no importance (the mean < 1.5). These respondents perceived the first priority among existing goals the same as did administrators at junior colleges with evening schools. However, the first priority among desired goals was different; it was "to cultivate students' consciousness and attitudes to increase their respect for work." This group ranked the goal "to provide students opportunities for participating in college policy- making" lowest in priority for both the present and the future. The goal "to ensure that students acquire knowledge and skills that will enable them to live effectively in society," which was ranked 7th in priority among existing goals; the goal "to provide students with military training program," which was ranked 37th; and the goal "to renew the contract of administrators based upon their 103 TABLE 4.18 COMPARISON OF THE EXISTING AND DESIRED RANKING OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS AS PERCEIVED BY ADMINISTRATORS AT JUNIOR COLLEGES UITHOUT EVENING SCHOOLS Goal Existing Desired Goal Existing Desired Mo. Mean S.D. Rank Mean S.D Rank No. Mean S.D. Rank Mean S.D. Rank 1 3.8519 .9888 5 4.4568 .7254 3 29 3.3875 1.0613 17 4.0750 .8535 21 2 3.8625 .9904 4 4.4000 .7044 9 30 4.1250 .8325 1 4.4500 .7274 4 3 3.7160 1.2169 9 4.4568 .6901 3 31 3.3750 1.0599 18 3.9625 .8779 26 4 3.7750 1.0060 7 4.1375 .7753 19 32 3.5750 1.0998 12 4.2125 .7238 14 5 3.6173 1.0436 11 4.3704 .6791 10 33 3.5750 .9649 12 4.1250 .7356 20 6 2.2785 1.1760 45 3.1392 1.0220 43 34 2.7250 1.0309 38 3.0500 1.1240 44 7 2.7778 1.0368 37 2.6667 1.0840 51 35 3.3875 1.0493 17 3.9875 .7712 25 8 2.5802 .9600 40 3.3210 .8341 41 36 2.5625 1.0292 41 2.9750 1.0551 45 9 3.7750 1.0905 7 4.4375 .7088 5 37 3.4125 1.0396 16 3.8125 .9691 30 10 3.0494 1.0595 30 3.7531 .9018 32 38 3.1375 1.0523 26 3.6750 .9247 36 11 3.5679 1.0239 13 4.4074 .6667 8 39 3.8354 1.0911 6 4.4304 .6921 6 12 2.8250 1.0998 35 3.5802 .9600 39 40 3.6375 1.0341 10 4.4250 .7920 7 13 2.1728 1.1268 46 2.8519 1.0737 48 41 2.6154 1.0222 39 2.9487 1.0678 47 14 3.2346 1.1431 22 4.0370 .9804 22 42 2.0250 1.0789 48 2.6375 1.1610 52 15 2.8500 1.0803 34 3.9506 .7890 27 43 3.1750 1.0882 25 3.6835 .9274 35 16 2.9753 1.2647 31 3.8025 .9276 31 44 3.0513 1.0799 29 3.7051 .8695 34 17 2.9136 1.2165 32 3.6543 .9895 37 45 3.7250 1.0060 8 4.2250 .7111 12 18 2.4444 1.0488 42 3.1852 1.0382 42 46 2.4000 1.1206 43 2.9500 1.0421 46 19 1.8765 .9271 49 2.5432 1.1407 53 47 3.2469 1.1240 21 4.0247 .8941 23 20 3.3457 1.0020 19 4.1975 .7652 16 48 2.8148 1.1738 36 3.6049 1.1032 39 21 3.5679 .9479 13 4.1481 .7265 18 49 3.9383 1.1440 2 4.6667 .5701 1 22 2.8750 .9463 33 3.4625 .8560 40 50 3.4198 1.0824 15 4.0247 .8511 23 23 3.5750 .9908 12 4.3375 .6549 11 51 3.1111 1.1292 27 3.7160 1.0516 33 24 3.3038 1.0045 20 3.9231 .8338 28 52 3.5679 1.1173 13 4.2025 .8970 15 25 3.2051 1.0734 24 4.0000 .8006 24 53 3.0617 1.1548 28 3.8272 1.0343 29 26 3.5375 .8993 14 4.1625 .8026 17 54 2.2840 1.1094 44 2.8148 1.2660 49 27 3.2250 1.2219 23 4.2200 .8329 13 55 2.1481 1.2660 47 2.7250 1.4406 50 28 3.9125 1.0814 3 4.5250 .6359 2 Note: The specification of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. Same ranking number is on tied scores. Of no importance < 1.5; of low importance < 2.5; of medium importance < 3.5; of high importance < 4.5; of extremely high importance 2 or > 4.5. 104 services to assist teaching and learning,” which was ranked 26th, moved, respectively, to the 19th, Slst, and 36th place among desired goals. A comparison of the present and the future importance of goals reveals that both the total group and all subgroups except the MOE perceived the goal "to strengthen students' consciousness of nationalism" as being the most important goal. The goal "to provide students opportunities for participating in college policy-making" was perceived as being the least important goal for both the present and the future. A summary of total numbers of existing and desired goals at different levels of importance, according to the total group and subgroup perceptions, is shown in Tables 4.19 and 4.20. Tables 4.21 and 4.22 show the top five and bottom five ranked goals as perceived by the total group and subgroups. In general, rankings of junior college goals for both the present and the future did not differ appreciably. 105 TABLE 4.19 TOTAL NUMBER OF EXISTING GOALS AT DIFFERENT LEVELS OF IMPORTANCE, ACCORDING TO PERCEPTIONS OF TOTAL GROUP AND SUBGROUPS Groups Importance No Low Medium High Extreme All respondents 0 6 32 17 0 MOE 0 6 26 22 1 JCADS 0 6 32 17 0 Presidents O 6 26 23 0 Deans 0 6 24 25 O Chairpersons 0 6 34 17 0 PuJCADS 0 6 30 19 0 PrJCADS 0 6 32 17 0 two-yeara o 6 38 11 o three-year 0 5 18 32 0 five-year 0 6 31 18 0 Combination 0 8 28 19 0 With evening schoolsb 0 7 31 17 0 Without evening schools 0 8 28 19 0 aAdministrators at two-year, three-year, five-year junior colleges or at junior colleges with a combination of two 8 three, two 8 five, three 8 five, or two, three 8 five year program durations. bAdministrators at junior colleges with or those without evening schools. 106 TABLE 4.20 TOTAL NUMBER OF DESIRED GOALS AT DIFFERENT LEVELS OF IMPORTANCE, ACCORDING TO PERCEPTIONS OF TOTAL GROUP AND SUBGROUPS Groups Importance No Low Medium High Extreme All respondents 0 0 14 39 2 MOE 0 3 14 32 6 JCADS 0 0 14 39 2 Presidents 0 0 15 37 3 Deans 0 l 14 38 2 Chairpersons 0 0 14 40 l PuJCADS 0 14 40 1 PrJCADS 0 15 38 2 two-yeara 0 0 16 39 0 three-year 0 2 7 4O 6 five-year O 0 14 39 2 Combination 0 0 14 39 2 With evening schoolsb 0 0 15 39 1 Without evening schools 0 0 14 39 2 aAdministrators at two-year, three-year, five-year junior colleges or at junior colleges with a combination of two 8 three, two 8 five, three 8 five, or two, three 8 five year program durations. bAdministrators at junior colleges with or those without evening schools. 107 TABLE 4.21 TOP FIVE AND BOTTOM FIVE EXISTING GOALS RANKED BY TOTAL GROUP AND SUBGROUPS Groups Top Five Ranked Goals Bottom Five Ranked Goals No. No All respondents 30, 49, 2, 1, 28 19, 42, 13, 54, 55 MOE 49, 30, 11, 39, l, 54, 42, 41, 19, 55, 3, 4, 5, 15, 32, 13 35, 40, 45 JCADS 30, 49, 2, 1, 28 19, 42, 13, 54, 55 Presidents 30, 49, 28, 39, 4 19, 42, 13, 55, 54 Deans 30, 49, 28, 9, 1 19, 54, 13, 36, 42 Chairpersons 30, 2, 49, 5, 3 19, 42, 55, 13, 6 PuJCADS 30, 49, 28, 5, 1 19, 54, 42, 55, 41 2 PrJCADS 30, 49, 2, l, 5 19, 13, 42, 54, 55 two-yeara a 30, 2, 49, 3, 5 19, 13, 54, 55, 42 three-year 49, 50, 30, 2, l 42, 41, 19, 7, 6 47 five-yeara a 30, a9, 2, 28, s 19, 42, 13, 54, 55 Combination 30, 49, 28, l, 5 19, 13, 54, 55, 41 With evening sch.b 30, 2, 5, 49, 1 l9, 13, 42, 54, 55 Without evening sch. 30, 49, 28, 2, 1 19, 42, 55, 13, 6 Note: More than five numbers in either top five or bottom five ranked goals because of tied scores; number ordered from top one to top five; and from bottom one to bottom five. aAdministrators at two-year, three-year, five-year junior colleges or at junior colleges with a combination of two 8 three, two 8 five, three 8 five, or two, three 8 five year program durations. Administrators at junior colleges with or those without evening schools. 108 TABLE 4.22 TOP FIVE AND BOTTOM FIVE DESIRED GOALS RANKED BY TOTAL GROUP AND SUBGROUPS Groups Top Five Ranked Goals Bottom Five Ranked Goals No. No All respondents l, 49, 5, 30, 3 19, 7, 54, 42, 55 MOE 49, 9, l, 30, 40, 54, 41, 19, 42, 7 35, 39, 2, 43 JCADS 49, l, 5, 30, 28 19, 7, 54, 42, 55 Presidents l, 30, 39, 9, 2, 19, 42, 41, 54, 55 28, 49 Deans 30, 49, 28, l, 9 19, 54, 36, 13, 55 Chairpersons l, 49, 5, 40, 3 7, 19, 54, 42, 55 PuJCADS l, 5, 49, 3, 2 41, 19, 42, 7, 54 PrJCADS 49, 1, 5, 28, 30 19, 7, 54, 55, 13 two-yeara 1, 3, 49, 5, 2, 55, 19, 54, 7, 41 a 11, 30 three-year 49, 50, 1, 51, 2, 41, 7, 19, 42, 36 52 five-yeara a 1, 49, 28, 5, 3o 19, 54, 7, 55, 42 Combination 49, l, 5, 3, 4O 19, 41, 42, 7, 13, 54 With even. sch.b b l, 49, 5, 3, 30 19, 54, 7, 41, 55 Without even. sch. 49, 28, l, 3, 30 19, 42, 7, 55, 54 9 Note: More than five numbers in either top five or bottom five ranked goals because of tied scores; number ordered from top one to top five and from bottom one to bottom five. aAdministrators at two-year, three-year, five-year junior colleges or at junior colleges with a combination of two 8 three, two 8 five, three 8 five, or two, three 8 five year program durations. bAdministrators at junior colleges with or those without evening schools. 109 WW 0 e ved b s 0 de t Research Question 2: What discrepancies exist between the existing and desired importance of junior college goals as perceived by the total group and the following subgroups: a. respondents according to administrative category: Ministry of Education officials (MOE) and junior college administrators (JCADS). b. JCAD respondents according to their college type: public JCADS (PuJCADS) and private JCADS (PrJCADS). c. JCAD respondents according to their position: presidents, deans, and chairpersons. d. JCAD respondents according to their junior colleges' program duration: two-year, three-year, five-year, or a combination of two 8 three year, two 8 five year, three 8 five year, or two, three 8 five year program durations. e. JCAD respondents according to their college structure: junior colleges with and those without evening schools. All discrepancies between existing and desired dimensions were tested by means of a t-test. Statistical significance was set at the .05 level. Iota; Group apd Subgroups of JCADS, Chaigpgrsons, and PrJCADS As shown in Tables 4.23, 4.24, 4.25 and 4.26, nearly all discrepancies between the existing and desired importance of goals, as perceived by all respondents, JCADS, chairpersons, and PrJCADS, were statistically significant at the .001 level, except the discrepancy for Goal 7, which was significant at the .05 level. Visual representations of the discrepancies are shown in Figures 4.1 to 4.4. Rises and falls of the curves, which stand for level of importance, were very consistent. This means that when respondents in these groups rated goals as less important for the present, they also rated them less important for the future. Likewise, when they rated the goals as being of higher importance for the present, they also saw them as being of higher importance for the future. The figures also clearly show that there is a wide gap between the two curves; this 110 TABLE 4.23 DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE EXISTING AND DESIRED IMPORTANCE OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS AS PERCEIVED BY ALL RESPONDENTS Goal Case Mean Scores Discrepancy P Goal Case Mean Scores Discrepancy P Mo. M Existing Desired Mo. M Existing Desired 1 331 3.843 4.544 .701 .000 29 326 3.485 4.025 .540 .000 2 332 3.886 4.389 .503 .000 30 325 4.147 4.409 .262 .000 3 330 3.801 4.409 .608 .000 31 326 3.393 3.908 .515 .000 4 328 3.743 4.091 .348 .000 32 325 3.693 4.182 .489 .000 5 332 3.820 4.437 .617 .000 33 325 3.571 4.049 .478 .000 6 327 2.357 3.089 .732 .000 34 321 2.876 3.127 .251 .000 7 333 2.856 2.760 -.096 .028 35 330 3.426 4.036 .610 .000 8 333 2.593 3.198 .605 .000 36 329 2.515 2.991 .476 .000 9 332 3.733 4.316 .583 .000 37 332 3.180 3.572 .392 .000 10 333 3.174 3.823 .649 .000 38 330 3.012 3.512 .500 .000 11 333 3.710 4.363 .653 .000 39 330 3.725 4.209 .484 .000 12 329 3.021 3.624 .603 .000 40 332 3.709 4.389 .680 .000 13 330 2.227 2.927 .700 .000 41 329 2.529 2.884 .355 .000 14 331 3.310 4.082 .772 .000 42 328 2.182 2.860 .678 .000 15 331 3.030 3.843 .813 .000 43 329 3.114 3.678 .564 .000 16 330 3.173 3.870 .697 .000 44 330 3.142 3.694 .552 .000 17 329 3.045 3.772 .727 .000 45 332 3.700 4.111 .411 .000 18 330 2.731 3.297 .566 .000 46 331 2.663 3.190 .527 .000 19 331 1.994 2.568 .574 .000 47 327 3.347 4.021 .674 .000 20 332 3.437 4.202 .765 .000 48 327 2.933 3.636 .703 .000 21 331 3.503 4.039 .536 .000 49 328 3.951 4.534 .583 .000 22 325 2.988 3.434 .446 .000 50 328 3.462 4.113 .651 .000 23 326 3.491 4.206 .715 .000 51 327 3.119 3.728 .609 .000 24 324 3.249 3.796 .547 .000 52 325 3.530 4.142 .612 .000 25 322 3.205 3.873 .668 .000 53 327 3.174 3.844 .670 .000 26 325 3.345 3.895 550 .000 S4 326 2.257 2.773 .516 .000 27 326 3.248 4.018 .770 .000 55 324 2.313 2.864 .551 .000 28 326 3.831 4.399 .568 .000 Note: The specification of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. The computer provides the P value .000 which is less than .001. Significant at P < .05. gozommwm 4.? E 8.2m m< ”.200 no 825.com:— amfiwo oz< 025:0 mi... 23350 mung Iz 5.; ed BONVJEOdNI DISCREPANCIES BETUEEN THE EXISTING AND DESIRED IMPORTANCE OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS 112 TABLE 4.24 AS PERCEIVED BY JCADS Goal Case Mean Scores Discrepancy P Goal Case Mean Scores Discrepancy P Mo. M Existing Desired Mo. M Existing Desired 1 323 3.8426 4.5449 .7023 .000 29 318 3.4843 4.0220 .5377 .000 2 324 3.8892 4.3889 .4997 .000 30 317 4.1447 4.4069 .2622 .000 3 322 3.7988 4.4193 .6205 .000 31 318 3.3836 3.9088 .5252 .000 4 320 3.7399 4.0969 .3570 .000 32 317 3.6887 4.1830 .4943 .000 5 324 3.8185 4.4444 .6259 .000 33 317 3.5723 4.0473 .4750 .000 6 319 2.3500 3.0878 .7378 .000 34 313 2.8631 3.1146 .2515 .000 7 325 2.8589 2.7631 .0958 .032 35 322 3.4149 4.0279 .6130 .000 8 325 2.5828 3.1969 .6141 .000 36 321 2.5124 2.9938 .4814 .000 9 324 3.7200 4.3086 .5886 .000 37 324 3.1785 3.5802 .4017 .000 10 325 3.1656 3.8185 .6529 .000 38 322 3.0186 3.5217 .5031 .000 11 325 3.6994 4.3569 .6575 .000 39 322 3.7183 4.2050 .4867 .000 12 321 3.0218 3.6335 .6117 .000 40 324 3.7046 4.3858 .6812 .000 13 322 2.2267 2.9255 .6988 .000 41 321 2.5421 2.9034 .3613 .000 14 323 3.3086 4.0836 .7750 .000 42 321 2.1894 2.8660 .6766 .000 15 323 3.0093 3.8364 .8271 .000 43 322 3.1138 3.6646 .5508 .000 16 322 3.1801 3.8758 .6957 .000 44 322 3.1393 3.6894 .5501 .000 17 321 3.0559 3.7819 .7260 .000 45 324 3.6954 4.1111 .4157 .000 18 322 2.7307 3.2981 .5674 .000 46 323 2.6451 3.1667 .5216 .000 19 323 1.9938 2.5728 .5790 .000 47 319 3.3489 4.0251 .6762 .000 20 324 3.4444 4.2099 .7655 .000 48 319 2.9219 3.6301 .7082 .000 21 323 3.5000 4.0341 .5341 .000 49 320 3.9377 4.5281 .5904 .000 22 317 2.9906 3.4322 .4385 .000 50 320 3.4642 4.1156 .6514 .000 23 318 3.4874 4.2170 .7296 .000 51 319 3.1125 3.7273 .6148 .000 24 316 3.2366 3.7911 .5545 .000 52 317 3.5562 4.1672 .6110 .000 25 314 3.2006 3.8639 .6624 .000 S3 319 3.1781 3.8495 .6714 .000 26 317 3.3470 3.8959 .5489 .000 S4 318 2.2790 2.7925 .5135 .000 27 318 3.2610 4.0377 .7767 .000 55 316 2.3176 2.8671 .5495 .000 28 318 3.8333 4.4057 .5724 .000 Mote: The specification of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. The computer provides the P value .000 which is less than .001. Significant at P < .05. moan E 8.2”. m< 3450 no u 255.012. aux—mun oz< ozgcfi MI... 783mm mum—o .... mumoma no zoEfiZwmwmmum 0.1155 N.¢ manor. mumzaz .200 on 9. av . . an a o— O— 9.58.... gas: 113 o." o.— o.“ BOWJflOdNI 114 TABLE 4.25 DISCREPANCIES BETHEEN THE EXISTING AND DESIRED IMPORTANCE OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS AS PERCEIVED BY CHAIRPERSONS Goal Case Mean Scores Discrepancy P Goal Case Mean Scores Discrepancy P Mo. M Existing Desired Mo. M Existing Desired 1 188 3.7407 4.5479 .8072 .000 29 188 3.3830 4.0319 .6489 .000 2 190 3.8789 4.4158 .5369 .000 30 188 4.0106 4.2979 .2873 .000 3 189 3.7566 4.4497 .6931 .000 31 188 3.2926 3.8670 .5744 .000 4 189 3.6737 4.0582 .3845 .000 32 188 3.5266 4.1170 .5904 .000 5 191 3.7592 4.4764 .7172 .000 33 188 3.4787 4.0691 .5904 .000 6 188 2.2553 3.0851 .8298 .000 34 188 2.8408 3.1436 .3028 .000 7 191 2.7016 2.5288 .1728 .012 35 193 3.2176 3.9585 .7409 .000 8 191 2.4660 3.1414 .6754 .000 36 192 2.5938 3.1554 .5616 .000 9 190 3.5263 4.2263 .7000 .000 37 193 3.0777 3.5337 .4560 .000 10 191 3.0733 3.8429 .7696 .000 38 192 2.9375 3.5208 .5833 .000 11 191 3.6073 4.3613 .7540 .000 39 192 3.5365 4.1198 .5833 .000 12 192 2.9271 3.6528 .7257 .000 40 193 3.5855 4.4508 .8653 .000 13 193 2.2487 2.9585 .7098 .000 41 190 2.5526 2.9474 .3948 .000 14 192 3.2176 4.1042 .8866 .000 42 191 2.1623 2.8534 .6911 .000 15 192 2.9063 3.8497 .9434 .000 43 193 3.0674 3.6477 .5803 .000 16 193 3.0674 3.8860 .8186 .000 44 191 3.1204 3.7539 .6335 .000 17 191 2.9688 3.8010 .8272 .000 45 193 3.5751 4.1036 .5285 .000 18 193 2.5959 3.2642 .6683 .000 46 192 2.5729 3.1606 .5877 .000 19 193 2.0104 2.6528 .6424 .000 47 186 3.3209 4.1237 .8028 .000 20 193 3.3731 4.2280 .8549 .000 48 187 2.9037 3.7380 .8343 .000 21 193 3.3990 4.0104 .6114 .000 49 187 3.7861 4.4973 .7112 .000 22 188 2.8723 3.3723 .5000 .000 50 187 3.3102 4.1390 .8288 .000 23 188 3.4096 4.3032 .8936 .000 51 187 3.0000 3.7166 .7166 .000 24 186 3.1283 3.7742 .6462 .000 52 184 3.4355 4.2500 .8145 .000 25 185 3.0919 3.8503 .7584 .000 53 186 3.1559 4.0054 .8495 .000 26 187 3.2193 3.8075 .5882 .000 S4 187 2.2727 2.8342 .5615 .000 27 188 3.1330 4.0426 .9096 .000 55 186 2.2043 2.8710 .6667 .000 28 188 3.6755 4.3191 .6436 .000 Note: The specification of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. The computer provides the P value .000 which is less than .001. Significant at P < .05. mzommummZIo >m cubs. m< 300 no moz< om:— aumfiua oz< ozcbsfl m1... zumEum $5 1728 coma mo 20Fm 8.5.”. 9. 00 no mozfikomz. ommfimo nz< 02.550 I... zwwEm mun.» 12(meom5 no zap—Ramayana". Ufa—(mo n ..v umaofi 56332 .28 P...» Ptb§Pbbb ehbnbbrbtbbbk til.» bbbb-D-bbm«bLI-P‘thbh°_thbb 9% II 90 0... ad ad 9n 0% DJ. 06 BOWMdN 121 TABLE 4.28 DISCREPANCIES BETUEEN THE EXISTING AND DESIRED IMPORTANCE OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS AS PERCEIVED BY PRESIDENTS Goal Case Mean Scores Discrepancy P Goal Case Mean Scores Discrepancy P Mo. M Existing Desired Mo. M Existing Desired 1 51 3.9020 4.6275 .7255 .000 29 50 3.5400 4.0400 .5000 .000 2 51 3.8627 4.4706 .6079 .000 30 50 4.3400 4.5800 .2400 .004 3 51 3.8235 4.4510 .6275 .000 31 50 3.4600 4.0800 .6200 .000 4 51 3.9216 4.3137 .3921 .000 32 50 3.8800 4.3000 .4200 .001 5 51 3.8431 4.4510 6079 .000 33 50 3.6200 4.0600 .4400 .001 6 51 2.5882 3.2941 7059 .000 34 49 2.8571 3.0816 .2245 .040 7 51 3.0392 3.1569 .1177 .243 35 51 3.6667 4.2745 .6078 .000 8 51 2.8235 3.3137 .4902 .000 36 50 2.5000 2.9412 .4412 .000 9 51 3.9216 4.4706 .5490 .000 37 51 3.3529 3.7647 .4118 .000 10 51 3.2157 3.8627 .6470 .000 38 51 3.0980 3.6275 .5295 .000 11 51 3.8627 4.4118 .5491 .000 39 51 4.0000 4.5098 .5098 .000 12 50 3.0800 3.5400 .4600 .001 40 51 3.8431 4.4118 .5687 .000 13 50 2.2000 2.9600 .7600 .000 41 51 2.4706 2.8627 .3921 .000 14 50 3.5000 4.3000 .8000 .000 42 50 2.1400 2.8000 .6600 .000 15 50 3.0800 3.8600 .7800 .000 43 50 3.1765 3.8400 .6635 .000 16 49 3.2857 3.8980 .6123 .000 44 51 3.1765 3.6667 .4902 .000 17 50 3.1600 3.8200 .6600 .000 45 51 3.8039 4.2549 .4510 .000 18 50 2.9200 3.4200 .5000 .000 46 50 2.8000 3.3000 .5000 .000 19 50 2.0200 2.6400 .6200 .000 47 50 3.3800 3.9000 .5200 .000 20 50 3.4200 4.1200 .7000 .000 48 49 3.1224 3.7959 .6735 .000 21 50 3.5800 4.1600 .5800 .000 49 50 4.1600 4.6600 .5000 .000 22 50 2.9800 3.4800 .5000 .000 50 50 3.6800 4.2400 .5600 .000 23 50 3.5000 4.2200 .7200 .000 51 50 3.3800 3.9800 .6000 .000 24 50 3.3400 3.8600 .5200 .000 52 50 3.6200 4.0800 .4600 .000 25 49 3.4082 4.0816 .6734 .000 53 50 3.1200 3.6400 .5200 .000 26 50 3.5600 4.1600 .6000 .000 54 49 2.4082 2.9388 .5306 .000 27 50 3.1000 3.8200 .7200 .000 55 50 2.4000 2.9400 .5400 .000 28 50 4.0400 4.6000 .5600 .000 Note: The specification of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. The computer provides the P value .000 which is less than .001. Significant at P < .05. wrzQOumm >0 82¢ m< 0.200 “.0 u020 OM20 .42 0.200 “.0 002.5002. 80.000 02 02.15.00 2...... EMF—mm MUG 172101090 ....0 29.2.5me05”. 0.1.15.0 fie 9.00.... 50202 .200 3 3 an . . 0N .— 0' 02:08 I 0.0 0.. 0.— 0d 0.0 0.0 0.. 06 sommodm 126 TABLE 4.30 DISCREPANCIES BETUEEN THE EXISTING AND DESIRED IMPORTANCE OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS AS PERCEIVED BY PuJCADS Goal Case Mean Scores Discrepancy P Goal Case Mean Scores Discrepancy P Mo. M Existing Desired Mo. M Existing Desired 1 67 3.8060 4.5224 .7164 .000 29 67 3.5552 4.0299 .4747 .000 2 67 3.7612 4.3134 .5522 .000 30 67 4.1493 4.2836 .1343 .072 3 67 3.6866 4.4328 .7462 .000 31 67 3.2537 3.7910 .5373 .000 4 66 3.7164 4.1364 .4200 .000 32 67 3.6866 4.0299 .3433 .000 5 67 3.8060 4.4478 .6418 .000 33 67 3.5522 3.8806 .3284 .000 6 65 2.4615 3.2462 .7847 .000 34 67 2.8955 3.1194 .2239 .021 7 67 2.8657 2.7910 -.0747 .450 35 68 3.2647 3.9559 .6912 .000 8 67 2.5224 3.1791 .6567 .000 36 68 2.5147 3.0882 .5735 .000 9 67 3.6119 4.2836 .6717 .000 37 68 3.1912 3.5294 .3382 .000 10 67 3.1642 3.7015 .5373 .000 38 68 3.0441 3.6324 .5883 .000 11 67 3.5373 4.1493 .6120 .000 39 68 3.6765 4.1471 .4706 .000 12 67 3.1791 3.6866 .5075 .000 40 68 3.6912 4.2500 .5588 .000 13 67 2.6269 3.2537 .6268 .000 41 67 2.3731 2.5373 .1642 .047 14 67 3.3582 4.0896 .7314 .000 42 67 2.2687 2.6866 .4179 .000 15 67 2.9552 3.7313 .7761 .000 43 68 3.0147 3.6029 .5882 .000 16 67 3.3134 3.8657 .5523 .000 44 68 3.1029 3.5294 .4265 .000 17 67 3.2537 3.8358 .5821 .000 45 68 3.6765 4.0441 .3676 .000 18 67 2.8955 3.3881 .4926 .000 46 67 3.0746 3.4412 .3666 .000 19 67 2.1194 2.6567 .5373 .000 47 64 3.3692 3.9063 .5371 .000 20 67 3.3582 3.9254 .5672 .000 48 65 2.9077 3.5077 .6000 .000 21 67 3.5373 3.9552 .4179 .000 49 65 3.8615 4.4462 .5847 .000 22 67 3.0448 3.4328 .3880 .000 50 65 3.5846 4.2154 .6308 .000 23 67 3.4030 4.0896 .6866 .000 51 65 3.3231 3.8769 5538 .000 24 67 3.2090 3.6716 .4626 .000 52 65 3.6154 4.0462 .4308 .000 25 67 3.0597 3.7612 .7015 .000 53 65 3.2615 3.9846 .7231 .000 26 67 3.4179 3.8358 .4179 .000 54 65 2.2308 2.8154 .5846 .000 27 67 3.2388 3.8358 .5970 .000 55 64 2.3231 3.0156 .6925 .000 28 67 3.8358 4.2537 .4179 .000 Mote: The specification of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228.31. The computer provides the P value .000 which is less than .001. Significant at P < .05. 003.50 0 00.20 04 0.200 00 002.0002. 000.000 02 02. Cr... 02.. 2003—00 00.0 1200000.... 00 20:2...20000000 0.10.00 0. v 0030.... 000202 .200 9 0.. . 00 4 00 up 0. 127 0.— 0.0 a." 0.0 0.0 0.0 06 BOWEN"! 128 TABLE 6.31 DISCREPANCIES BETUEEN THE EXISTING AND DESIRED INPORTANCE 0F JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS AS PERCEIVED BY ADMINISTRATORS AT THO-YR. JUNIOR COLLEGES Goal Case Mean Scores Discrepancy P Goal Case Mean Scores Discrepancy P No. I Existing Desired No. I Existing Desired 1 31 3.6129 6.6839 .8710 .000 29 31 3.2903 3.9677 .6776 .000 2 31 3.8387 6.3568 .5161 .006 30 31 3.9677 6.3568 .3871 .005 3 30 3.7000 6.6667 .7667 .000 31 31 3.2258 3.8710 .6652 .000 6 31 3.5686 6.0323 .6839 .023 32 31 3.3871 6.0323 .6652 .000 5 31 3.6652 6.3871 .7619 .000 33 31 3.6839 6.0665 .5806 .001 6 30 2.3333 3.3333 1.0000 .000 36 29 2.8621 3.3668 .6827 .011 7 31 2.9677 3.0000 .0323 .000 35 31 3.2258 3.8387 .6129 .000 8 31 2.6129 3.0665 .6516 .011 36 29 2.5862 3.0968 .5106 .001 9 31 3.6839 6.1290 .6651 .000 37 31 2.6776 3.2903 .6129 .001 10 31 3.0665 3.8065 .7620 .000 38 31 2.7762 3.3871 .6129 .000 11 31 3.5686 6.3568 .8066 .000 39 31 3.5161 6.1290 .6129 .000 12 32 2.7813 3.5938 .8125 .000 60 31 3.6129 6.3226 .7097 .000 13 31 2.0968 3.1290 1.0322 .000 61 31 2.6776 3.0323 .3569 .019 16 31 2.9375 6.0000 1.0625 .000 62 30 2.3333 3.3333 1.0000 .000 15 32 2.8750 3.6875 .8125 .000 63 31 2.9677 3.7619 .7762 .000 16 30 2.9333 3.8333 .9000 .000 66 31 3.0000 3.7762 .7762 .000 17 30 2.6776 3.7000 1.0226 .000 65 31 3.5686 6.0968 .5686 .002 18 32 2.6563 3.3750 .7187 .000 66 32 2.5938 3.0625 .6687 .002 19 32 1.9688 2.7188 .7500 .000 67 32 3.0938 3.8638 .7500 .000 20 32 3.1875 6.1250 .9375 .000 68 32 3.0000 3.6875 .6875 .000 21 32 3.1875 3.8750 .6875 .000 69 32 3.7188 6.6063 .6875 .000 22 31 2.7762 3.3871 .6129 .000 50 32 3.0625 3.9063 .8638 .000 23 31 3.2581 6.0968 .8387 .000 51 32 2.9375 3.7188 .7813 .000 26 31 2.9355 3.6652 .7097 .000 52 32 3.1250 3.9688 .8638 .000 25 31 3.0968 3.6776 .5806 .000 53 32 3.0313 3.8750 8637 .000 26 30 2.9000 3.6667 .7667 .000 S6 32 2.2188 2.9375 .7187 .000 27 31 2.9677 3.9355 .9678 .000 55 31 2.2258 2.6776 .6516 .003 28 31 3.6196 6.2258 .7966 .000 Note: The specification of junior The computer provides the P Significant at P < .05. college goals in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. value .000 which is less than .001. 129 0000.300 n... ...>103.. h< 02 >0 00.20 0< 0.200 00 00.20.0002. 000.000 02 020.000 0...... @3000 00.0 12000005 00 2002020000000 0.2200 0.? 00002 000202 .200 n— 0. 0.0 0... 10.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 30me 130 profile of the discrepancies between the existing and desired importance of goals is presented in Figure 6.9. The gap between the two curves on the graph is wider than that shown in other figures. In other words, two-year JCADS rated the importance of goals for the present much higher than the importance of goals for the future. r - a . Discrepancies between the existing and desired importance of Goals 1, 3, 6, 5, 9, 12, 13, 16, 15, 16, 17, 19, 23, 26, 25, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 62, 63, 66, 67, 69 and 53, as perceived by three-year JCADS, were statistically significant at the .05 level. (See Table 6.32.) Discrepancies for Goals 6, 10, 18, 21, 26, 50 and 51 were significant at the .01 level. Discrepancies between the existing and desired importance of the remaining goals were not significant. Figure 6.10 shows that the existing importance of goals was not much different from the desired importance of goals, as rated by three-year JCADS. The two curves on the graph are very close to each other. Five-year JQADS. As shown on Table 6.33, the discrepancy between the existing and desired importance of Goal 7, as perceived by five-year JCADS, was statistically significant at the .01 level. Discrepancies for the remaining were goals significant at the .001 level. A profile of the discrepancies is shown in Figure 6.11. ' tra 'uni colle es w t a omb o du n . Table 6.36 shows that the discrepancies between the existing and desired importance of Goals 30 and 33 were statistically significant at .01 level. Discrepancies for the Goals 7 and 36 were not statistically significant. Discrepancies for the remaining goals were significant at the .001 level. Figure 6.12 131 TABLE 6.32 DISCREPANCIES BETNEEN THE EXISTING AND DESIRED IMPORTANCE OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS AS PERCEIVED BY ADMINISTRATORS AT THREE°YR. JUNIOR COLLEGES Goal Case Mean Scores Discrepancy P Goal Case lean Scores Discrepancy P No. I Existing Desired No. N Existing Desired 1 18 6.1111 6.6111 .5000 .035 29 18 3.8889 6.1111 .2222 .106 2 18 6.1667 6.5000 .3333 .055 30 18 6.2778 6.5000 .2222 .106 3 18 3.7778 6.2222 .6666 .028 31 18 3.6666 3.8333 .3889 .030 6 17 3.6667 6.0588 .3921 .069 32 18 3.7222 6.1667 .6665 .062 5 18 3.8333 6.3333 .5000 .035 33 18 3.5000 6.0000 .5000 .015 6 18 2.6666 3.3333 .8889 .006 36 18 3.2778 3.6667 .3889 .069 7 18 2.3889 2.2778 .1111 .630 35 18 3.8333 6.1111 .2778 .096 8 18 2.6667 3.1667 .5000 .058 36 18 2.7778 3.1111 .3333 .083 9 18 3.7778 6.3889 .6111 .023 37 18 3.3333 3.7222 .3889 .015 10 18 3.0000 3.6111 .6111 .006 38 18 3.1111 3.3889 .2778 .135 11 18 3.9666 6.2778 .3336 .163 39 18 6.0556 6.3333 .2777 .056 12 18 3.6667 6.2222 .5555 .016 60 18 6.0000 6.3889 .3889 .069 13 18 2.8889 3.3333 .6666 .016 61 17 2.0588 2.1765 .1177 .696 16 18 6.0000 6.6666 .6666 .062 62 17 2.0000 2.7059 .7059 .018 15 18 3.0556 3.5556 .5000 .035 63 18 3.6666 3.8333 .3889 .015 16 18 3.8889 6.2222 .3333 .029 66 18 3.5556 3.6667 .1111 .163 17 18 3.7778 6.2222 .6666 .016 65 18 6.0556 6.2778 .2222 .106 18 18 3.0556 3.5556 .5000 .008 66 18 3.6667 6.0556 .3889 .015 19 18 2.1111 2.5556 .6665 .062 67 17 6.0588 6.6118 .3530 .029 20 18 3.6666 3.7222 .2778 .172 68 17 3.3529 3.7667 .6118 .090 21 18 3.7778 6.1667 .3889 .006 69 17 6.2353 6.7667 .5296 .026 22 18 3.1667 3.5000 .3333 .055 50 17 6.2353 6.7667 .5296 .008 23 18 3.6667 6.2778 .6111 .012 51 17 6.0588 6.5296 .6706 .007 26 18 3.2778 3.6667 .3889 .015 52 17 6.0588 6.6706 .6118 .069 25 18 3.2778 3.8333 .5555 .028 53 17 3.7667 6.2353 .6706 .016 26 18 3.5556 6.0000 .6666 .007 S6 17 2.9612 3.1765 .2353 .163 27 18 3.5000 6.0556 .5556 .056 SS 17 2.8826 3.6671 .7667 .023 28 18 6.0000 6.2778 .2778 .056 Note: The specification of junior The computer provides the P Significant at P < .05. college goals in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. value .000 which is less than .001. 132 00004.00 .0. ...>1000TF .2 02 >0 00.20 0< 0.200 00 007200002. 000.000 072 020.000 0....— 200200 00.0 1.7—(00000.0 00 2002020000000 0.1000 0...... 0000.... 000202 .200 00 an 0— 0— 0.0 0.— 0.— 0.0 BOWMOdNI 133 TABLE 6.33 DISCREPANCIES BETNEEN THE EXISTING AND DESIRED IMPORTANCE OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS AS PERCEIVED BY ADMINISTRATORS AT FIVE-YR. JUNIOR COLLEGES Goal Case Mean Scores Discrepancy P Goal Case Mean Scores Discrepancy P No. I Existing Desired No. N Existing Desired 1 202 3.8670 6.5596 .6926 .000 29 199 3.6876 6.0201 .5327 .000 2 203 3.9167 6.6138 .6971 .000 30 198 6.2010 6.6596 .2586 .000 3 202 3.8626 6.6307 .5883 .000 31 199 3.3920 3.9397 .5677 .000 6 202 3.8673 6.1832 .3359 .000 32 198 3.7638 6.2677 .5039 .000 5 203 3.8775 6.6631 .5856 .000 33 198 3.5829 6.1061 .5232 .000 6 201 2.3663 3.0866 .7183 .000 36 196 2.7868 3.0916 .3066 .000 7 206 2.9122 2.7598 -.1526 .009 35 201 3.6505 6.0596 .6089 .000 8 206 2.5707 3.2059 .6352 .000 36 202 2.5320 2.9901 .6581 .000 9 203 3.7863 6.3596 .5753 .000 37 203 3.2990 3.7163 .6153 .000 10 206 3.1951 3.8873 .6922 .000 38 202 3.0663 3.5297 .6856 .000 11 206 3.7317 6.6020 .6703 .000 39 202 3.7882 6.2673 .6791 .000 12 201 3.0000 3.6238 .6238 .000 60 203 3.7255 6.6089 .6836 .000 13 202 2.1782 2.8713 .6931 .000 61 201 2.6318 3.0169 .3831 .000 16 203 3.2906 6.0739 .7833 .000 62 202 2.1675 2.8566 .6889 .000 15 202 3.0565 3.9066 .8519 .000 63 201 3.1176 3.6866 .5690 .000 16 203 3.1675 3.8966 .7291 .000 66 201 3.1685 3.7613 .5928 .000 17 202 3.0596 3.8069 .7675 .000 65 203 3.7306 6.1576 .6272 .000 18 202 2.7066 3.2675 .5631 .000 66 202 2.5567 3.1089 .5522 .000 19 203 2.0000 2.5665 .5665 .000 67 201 3.3020 6.0398 .7378 .000 20 203 3.6828 6.2906 .8078 .000 68 200 2.8706 3.6600 .7696 .000 21 203 3.5271 6.1060 .5769 .000 69 201 3.9752 6.5226 .5672 .000 22 198 2.9700 3.3990 .6290 .000 50 201 3.6950 6.1393 .6663 .000 23 199 3.5176 6.2663 .7687 .000 51 200 3.0697 3.6750 .6053 .000 26 197 3.3131 3.8832 .5701 .000 52 199 3.6089 6.2618 .6329 .000 25 195 3.2662 3.9289 .6827 .000 53 201 3.1636 3.8109 .6673 .000 26 199 3.3769 3.9668 .5879 .000 56 200 2.2090 2.6850 .6760 .000 27 199 3.3617 6.1607 .7990 .000 55 199 2.2688 2.7638 .5150 .000 28 199 3.8965 6.6925 .5980 .000 Note: The specification of junior college goals in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. Significant at P < .05. The computer provides the P value .000 which is less than .001. W038 0.. c>1020 .2 02 >0 00.20 0< 0.200 00 20.0002. 000.000 02 020.000 0...... 2003.00 00.0 1200005 00 2002020000000 0.0200 :4 0000.0 0002.2 .200 no 00 0v 0.. an 00 on up 0— .n... .74.. 'e' 136 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bowman: nan-”fl..." all 135 TABLE 6.36 DISCREPANCIES BETUEEN THE EXISTING AND DESIRED IMPORTANCE OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS AS PERCEIVED BY ADMINISTRATORS AT JUNIOR COLLEGES HIT“ A COMBINATION OF PROGRAM DURATIONS Goal Case Mean Scores Discrepancy P Goal Case Mean Scores Discrepancy P No. N Existing Desired No. N Existing Desired 1 69 3.7391 6.5072 .7681 .000 29 68 3.6612 6.0296 .5882 .000 2 69 3.6957 6.2756 .5797 .000 30 68 6.0296 6.2667 .2353 .003 3 69 3.7101 6.6368 .7267 .000 31 68 3.6265 3.8676 .6611 .000 6 67 3.5661 3.9106 .3663 .000 32 68 3.6029 6.0661 .6612 .000 5 69 3.7266 6.6638 .7392 .000 33 68 3.5882 3.9118 .3236 .006 6 67 2.2537 2.9106 .6567 .000 36 68 2.9612 2.9118 -.0296 .726 7 69 2.7391 2.7536 .0165 .876 35 69 3.2609 6.0165 .7536 .000 8 69 2.5652 3.2319 .6667 .000 36 69 2.3623 2.9620 .5797 .000 9 69 3.6087 6.2176 .6087 .000 37 69 3.0165 3.3063 .2898 .000 10 69 3.1739 3.7266 .5507 .000 38 68 3.0661 3.6029 .5588 .000 11 69 3.5962 6.2666 .6522 .000 39 68 3.5661 6.0735 .5296 .000 12 67 2.9851 3.5075 .5226 .000 60 69 3.6232 6.3913 .7681 .000 13 68 2.2500 2.8382 .5882 .000 61 69 2.3333 2.6957 .3626 .000 16 68 3.3382 6.0588 .7206 .000 62 69 2.6666 2.7536 .1072 .000 15 68 2.9265 3.8235 .8970 .000 63 69 3.0870 3.5362 .6692 .000 16 68 3.1765 3.7961 .6176 .000 66 69 3.0635 3.5072 .6637 .000 17 68 3.0588 3.6912 .6326 .000 65 69 3.5507 3.9710 .6203 .000 18 67 2.7761 3.3731 .5970 .000 66 68 2.6671 3.1306 .6833 .000 19 67 2.0000 2.5522 .5522 .000 67 66 3.6030 3.9396 .5366 .000 20 68 3.6853 6.1765 .6912 .000 68 67 2.8806 3.5226 .6618 .000 21 68 3.5000 3.8826 .3826 .000 69 67 3.8507 6.5522 .7015 .000 22 68 3.0882 3.5167 .6265 .000 50 67 3.3633 6.0169 .6716 .000 23 68 3.6559 6.1176 .6617 .000 S1 67 3.0766 3.6567 .5821 .000 26 68 3.1671 3.6176 ..6705 .000 52 66 3.6396 3.9868 .5656 .000 25 68 3.0735 3.7961 .7206 .000 53 66 3.1515 3.8636 .7121 .000 26 68 3.3826 3.7353 .3529 .000 S6 66 2.2879 2.8788 .5909 .000 27 68 3.0661 3.7353 .6912 .000 55 66 2.3636 3.0152 .6516 .000 28 68 3.7796 6.2796 .5000 .000 Note: The specification of junior The computer provides the P Significant at P < .05. college goals in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. value .000 which is less than .001. 136 022.2000 .0000 00 20 (2.0200 20.3 00.. .2 02 >0 00.20 2 0.200 00 .000 2. 000.000 0.2 020000 0...... 503.00 .000005 00 020000000 0.10200 0.... 0000.... 000202 .200 BDWJHOdN 137 presents a profile of these discrepancies. s a o t u e w a w t ou ve schools. Except for Goal 7, discrepancies between the existing and desired importance of goals, as perceived by administrators at junior colleges with and without evening schools, were statistically significant at .001 level. (See Table 4.35 & 4.36.) The discrepancy for Goal 7 was not statistically significant. Visual representations of the discrepancies as rated by administrators at junior colleges with and those without evening schools are shown in Figure 4.13 & 4.14. In summary, nearly all discrepancies between the the existing and desired importance of goals as rated by the total group and by subgroups except the MOE and three-year JCADS were statistically significant respectively at the .05, .01, or .001 levels. Figures 4.1 to 4.14, show a profile of these discrepancies. Moreover, rises and falls of the two curves on each graph were very consistent, i.e., respondents rated the importance of the goal higher for the present as well as higher for the future. The space between the two curves stands for discrepancies between mean scores of the existing and desired importance of goals. The wider the space, the larger the discrepancy. Graphic representations in above figures show that respondents gave the goals more importance for the future than what they are presently being given. DISCREPANCIES BETUEEN THE EXISTING AND DESIRED IMPORTANCE OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS AS 138 TABLE 4.35 PERCEIVED DY ADMINISTRATORS AT JUNIOR COLLEGES UITN EVENING SCHOOLS Goal Case Mean Scores Discrepancy P Goal Case Mean Scores Discrepancy P No. I Existing Desired No. N Existing Desired 1 236 3.8228 6.5720 .7692 .000 29 233 3.5107 3.9957 .4850 .000 2 238 3.8870 6.3866 .6996 .000 30 232 6.1502 6.3922 .2620 .000 3 235 3.8178 6.4128 .5850 .000 31 233 3.3777 3.8884 .5107 .000 6 236 3.7362 6.0960 .3598 .000 32 232 3.7167 6.1767 .6600 .000 5 237 3.8866 6.6768 .5902 .000 33 232 3.5665 6.0216 .6551 .000 6 234 2.3617 3.0686 .7067 .000 36 228 2.8996 3.1179 .2183 .000 7 238 2.8765 2.7815 -.0930 .087 35 236 3.6093 4.0622 .6329 .000 8 238 2.5732 3.1513 .5781 .000 36 235 2.6958 3.0086 .5126 .000 9 238 3.6906 6.2667 .5763 .000 37 238 3.0962 3.5084 .6122 .000 10 238 3.2136 3.8571 .6437 .000 38 236 2.9767 3.6703 .6956 .000 11 238 3.7364 4.3403 .6039 .000 39 237 3.6807 6.1392 .4585 .000 12 235 3.0766 3.6468 .5702 .000 60 238 3.7322 6.3824 .6502 .000 13 235 2.2626 2.9362 .6936 .000 61 237 2.5276 2.9030 .3756 .000 16 236 3.3291 6.1017 .7726 .000 62 235 2.2500 2.9532 .7032 .000 15 237 3.0506 3.8101 .7595 .000 63 237 3.0879 3.6540 .5661 .000 16 235 3.2638 3.9191 .6553 .000 46 238 3.1564 3.6807 .5263 .000 17 234 3.1191 3.8506 .7313 .000 65 238 3.6695 6.0756 .6061 .000 18 235 2.8390 3.3532 .5162 .000 66 237 2.7101 3.2227 .5126 .000 19 236 2.0466 2.5890 .5624 .000 67 232 3.3803 4.0172 .6369 .000 20 237 3.6852 6.2236 .7386 .000 68 232 2.9399 3.6293 .6896 .000 21 236 3.6768 3.9958 .5190 .000 69 233 3.9316 6.4807 .5691 .000 22 232 3.0216 3.6095 .3881 .000 50 233 3.6701 6.1502 .6801 .000 23 233 3.6506 6.1803 .7297 .000 S1 232 3.1159 3.7286 .6125 .000 26 233 . 3.2060 3.7382 .5322 .000 52 232 3.5651 6.1595 .6166 .000 25 231 3.1968 3.8190 .6262 .000 53 232 3.2060 3.8578 .6518 .000 26 232 3.2759 3.7888 .5129 .000 56 231 2.2629 2.7706 .5077 .000 27 233 3.2532 3.9700 .7168 .000 55 230 2.3593 2.9063 .5650 .000 28 233 3.7897 6.3668 .5751 .000 Note: The specification of junior college goals in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. Significant at P < .05. the computer provides the P value .000 which is less than .001. DISCREPANCIES BETUEEN THE EXISTING AND DESIRED IMPORTANCE OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS AS 139 TABLE 6.36 PERCEIVED BY ADMINISTRATORS AT JUNIOR COLLEGES HITHOUT EVENING SCHOOLS Goal Case Hean Scores Discrepancy P Goal Case Mean Scores Discrepancy P No. I Existing Desired No. N Existing Desired 1 81 3.8519 6.6568 .6069 .000 29 80 3.3875 6.0750 .6975 .000 2 80 3.8625 6.0000 .1375 .000 30 80 6.1250 4.6500 .3200 .000 3 81 3.7160 6.4568 .7608 .000 31 80 3.3750 3.9625 .5875 .000 6 80 3.7750 6.1375 .3625 .000 32 80 3.5750 6.2125 .6375 .000 5 81 3.6173 6.3704 .7531 .000 33 80 3.5750 6.1250 .5500 .000 6 79 2.2785 3.1392 .8607 .000 36 80 2.7250 3.0500 .3250 .000 7 81 2.7778 2.6667 -.1111 .171 35 80 3.3875 3.9875 .6000 .000 8 81 2.5802 3.3210 .7608 .000 36 80 2.5625 2.9750 .6125 .000 9 80 3.7750 6.6375 .6625 .000 37 80 3.6125 3.8125 6000 .000 10 81 3.0696 3.7531 .7037 .000 38 80 3.1375 3.6750 .5375 .000 11 81 3.5679 6.6076 .8395 .000 39 79 3.8356 6.6306 .5950 .000 12 80 2.8250 3.5802 .7552 .000 60 80 3.6375 6.6250 .7875 .000 13 81 2.1728 2.8519 .6791 .000 61 78 2.6156 2.9687 .3333 .000 16 81 3.2366 6.0370 .8024 .000 62 80 2.0250 2.6375 .6125 .000 15 80 2.8500 3.9506 1.1006 .000 63 79 3.1750 3.6835 .5085 .000 16 81 2.9753 3.8025 .8272 .000 66 78 3.0513 3.7051 .6538 .000 17 81 2.9136 3.6543 .7607 .000 65 80 3.7250 6.2250 .5000 .000 18 81 2.6666 3.1852 .7608 .000 66 80 2.6000 2.9500 .5500 .000 19 81 1.8765 2.5632 .6667 .000 67 81 3.2669 6.0267 .7778 .000 20 81 3.3457 6.1975 .8518 .000 68 81 2.8168 3.6069 .7901 .000 21 81 3.5679 6.1481 .5802 .000 69 81 3.9383 6.6667 .7286 .000 22 80 2.8750 3.6625 .5875 .000 50 81 3.6198 6.0267 .6069 .000 23 80 3.5750 6.3375 .7625 .000 S1 81 3.1111 3.7160 .6069 .000 26 78 3.3038 3.9231 .6193 .000 52 79 3.5679 6.2025 .6366 .000 25 78 3.2051 6.0000 .7969 .000 S3 81 3.0617 3.8272 .7655 .000 26 80 3.5375 6.1625 .6250 .000 S6 81 2.2860 2.8168 .5308 .000 27 80 3.2250 4.2200 .9950 .000 55 80 2.1681 2.7250 .5769 .000 28 80 3.9125 6.5250 .6125 .000 Note: The specification of junior Significant at P < .05. college goals in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. The computer provides the P value .000 which is less than .001. 160 0400100 .2020 1.0300302 00<>0 00.50 0(0..<00 .00 0025—0002. 000.000 02< 020.030 0.0. 2003.00 00.0 lz / 5. BONVJHOdNI 161 0400100 02.20>0 502.03 00.. ...< 00< >0 00:0 0< 0.200 .00 00002. 000.000 02( 02:0.x0 0:... 200.300 00525—00005 .00 #2000000 0.1055 3.4 0000.“. 000202 .200 00 at 0v 00 ON 0— 0— nth§CbtPPbLL—E*bl— hLbh%b#PbfithF*—.bbnb—hbbL—bbbkb-nbhwbbbbw coo 03—000 ll 0.0 0. .. a. p 0.0 a.“ J, > . f, ,.<. <2... . > LS .fiw 0.0 0.0 BOWMOdNI 162 C o e d u u ' e c W Research Question 3: On which goals do significant differences exist between the MOE and JCADS regarding their perceptions of the existing and desired importance of junior college goals? Hypothesis 1 (hypothesis tested for each existing goal) There are no significant differences between the MOE and JCADS regarding their perceptions of the existing importance of junior college goals. Hypothesis 2 (hypothesis tested for each desired goal) There are no significant differences between the MOE and JCADS regarding their perceptions of the desired importance of junior college goals. To answer Research Question 3 and to test Hypotheses l and 2, the chi-square procedure was used. Examination of Table 6.37 reveals that for Goals 35 and 55, Hypothesis 1 was not retained at significance level of .05; that is there were significant differences between the MOE and JCADS concerning their perceptions of the existing importance of Coal 35 and 55. For the remaining goals, the null hypothesis was retained. Table 6.38 presents further information about the results of chi-square testing regarding the importance of Goals 35 and 55. Fifty percent of the MOE respondents considered Goal 35 to be of extremely high importance, as compared to only 12.6% of the JCAD respondents. The Goal 55 was perceived to be of no current importance by none of the MOE respondents but by 37.6% of the JCAD respondents. Moreover, 87.5% of the MOE respondents perceived the goal to be of low importance, as compared to 20.6% of the JCADS. More than 20% of the JCADS rated the goal as being of high and extremely high importance, but none of the MOE did so. 163 TABLE 6.37 CHI-SQUARE FOR DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONS OF THE NOE AND JCADS CONCERNING THE EXISTING IMPORTANCE OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS 2 2 Goal No. X OF P Goal No. X OF P 1 6.07672 6 .3960 29 3.51106 6 .6762 2 2.07566 6 .7219 30 .99316 3 .8029 3 6.51210 6 .3611 31 2.03005 6 .7302 6 5.90116 4 .2067 32 .85793 6 .9305 5 3.62562 6 .6591 33 2.61557 6 .6598 6 6.97689 6 .1371 36 1.99076 6 .7375 7 2.30866 6 .6792 35 10.78011 6 .0291 8 5.05898 6 .2813 36 2.6113 6 .6606 9 3.75226 6 .6606 37 .59268 6 .9639 10 3.95779 6 .6117 38 7.09697 6 .1310 11 3.26226 6 .5181 39 6.31676 6 .1767 12 1.29605 6 .8620 60 1.60515 6 .8079 13 3.00707 6 .5566 61 2.51327 6 .5623 16 1.75666 6 .7804 62 1.19953 4 .8782 15 7.57210 6 .1086 63 1.10919 6 .8928 16 3.26921 6 .5138 66 1.27361 6 .8658 17 5.81756 6 .2132 65 1.15727 6 .8851 18 5.38686 6 .2699 66 6.71939 4 .3173 19 6.56208 6 .3376 67 2.98732 6 .5599 20 5.70650 6 .2223 68 6.62027 6 .3521 21 1.31661 6 .8586 69 6.53366 6 .1627 22 6.00976 6 .1986 50 2.12431 6 .7129 23 .79035 6 .9397 51 1.56408 6 .8152 26 3.66095 6 .6568 52 7.98859 6 .0920 25 3.68376 6 .6505 53 1.00837 6 .9085 26 1.33862 6 .8568 56 5.76571 6 .2190 27 7.53827 6 .1100 55 20.82585 6 .0003 28 2.83272 6 .5862 Note: The specification of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228.31. Significant at P < .05. 166 TABLE 6.38 RESULTS OF CHI-SQUARE TEST COMPARING PERCEPTIONS OF THE MOE (N - 9) AND JCADS (N - 513) ON THE EXISTING IMPORTANCE OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS Goals Percentage of Importance No. No Low Medium High Extreme *35 to retain faculty 12.5 .0 25 12.5 50 (MOE) based on teaching 6 2 9.6 33.6 38.1 12.6(JCADS) effectiveness *55 to establish an .0 87.5 12.5 .0 .0 (MOE) associate degree 37.6 20.6 21.7 13.8 6.6(JCADS) system *Significant at .05. Table 6.39 shows that for Goals 20, 28, 63, 52, and 55, Hypothesis 2 was not retained; that is, statistically significant differences were found between the MOE and JCADS concerning their perceptions of the desired importance of these goals. Table 6.60 shows that 50% of the MOE respondents considered Goal 20 to be of medium importance, as compared to 13% of the JCAD respondents. Also 12.5% of the MOE respondents rated the goal as being of high importance, whereas 65.6% of the JCADS did so. Concerning Goal 28, 12.5% of the MOE respondents but none of the JCAD respondents perceived it as being of low importance. Thirty-six percent of the JCADS rated Goal 63 as being of high importance, but none of the MOE did so. On the contrary, 71.6% of the MOE respondents viewed the goal as being of extremely high importance, but only 19.3% of the JCADS did so. Finally, 62.5% of the MOE respondents as compared to 60% of the JCADS perceived Goal 55 as being of low importance. 165 TABLE 6.39 CHI°SDUARE FOR DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONS OF THE NOE AND JCADS CONCERNING THE DESIRED INPORTANCE OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS 2 2 Goal No. X OF P Goal No. X OF P 1 .36775 2 .8606 29 6.56388 3 .2086 2 .13258 3 .9877 30 2.50927 3 .6736 3 3.86686 6 .6271 31 2.01060 6 .7338 6 7.19736 6 .1258 32 .12696 3 .9887 5 2.72117 3 .6366 33 7.01903 6 .1369 6 .26783 6 .9918 36 2.98280 6 .5607 7 1.50960 6 .8250 35 6.30093 6 .3668 8 3.75682 3 .6399 36 2.36358 6 .6728 9 1.82397 6 .7681 37 4.58290 6 .3328 10 6.35689 6 .1762 38 6.68121 6 .1537 11 1.24863 6 .8700 39 7.69151 6 .1121 12 2.66010 6 .6518 60 .56967 6 .9666 13 2.14966 6 .7083 61 5.75508 6 .2182 16 .97107 6 .9162 62 1.78587 6 .7751 15 1.12807 6 .8898 63 13.66676 6 .0093 16 1.75296 6 .7811 66 2.51097 6 .6627 17 6.98862 6 .2885 65 .20797 6 .9950 18 6.86096 6 .3019 66 6.86288 6 .1666 19 6.09135 6 .3938 67 1.82696 6 .7675 20 9.82501 6 .0635 68 1.26555 6 .8672 21 2.55306 6 .6352 69 3.66125 2 .1603 22 2.65359 4 .6176 50 6.61986 6 .3522 23 8.52683 6 .0761 51 2.67690 6 .6688 26 .65703 3 .8833 52 22.70893 6 .0001 25 6.39682 6 .1716 53 5.39379 6 .2692 26 .68696 6 .9769 56 6.76058 6 .3128 27 8.56153 6 .0736 55 11.13269 6 .0251 28 39.99186 6 .0000 Note: The specification of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. The computer provides the P value .0000 which is less than .0001. Significant at P < .05. 166 TABLE 6.60 RESULTS OF CHI-SQUARE TEST COMPARING PERCEPTIONS OF THE MOE (N - 9) AND JCADS (N - 513) ON THE DESIRED IMPORTANCE OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS Goals Percentage of Importance No. No Low Medium High Extreme *20 to commit college resources to faculty and staff development . . 37.5(MOE) 2.2 13.0 65.6 39.2(JCADS) L00 0 U1 0 O f" N U1 activities *28 to maintain a climate .0 12.5 12.5 25.0 50.0(MOE) in which faculty .3 .0 11.9 36.3 53.5(JCADS) commitment to the goals and well-being of the institution is as strong as commitment to professional careers *63 to engage in systematic O 16.3 16.3 .0 71.6(MOE) evaluation of all 9 6.2 37.6 36.0 19.3(JCADS) college programs *52 to provide opportuni- 12.5 12.5 50.0 .0 25.0(MOE) ties for faculty and .6 2.2 18.6 36.9 61.6(JCADS) staff to study for higher academic degree(s) *55 to establish an asso- .0 62.5 12.5 12.5 12.5(MOE) ciate degree system 22.8 17.6 25.0 19.9 16.9(JCADS) *Significant at .05. 167 Although comparisons of mean scores of the existing or desired importance of goals as rated by the MOE and JCADS were not appropriate, because the MOE population was too small, if the statistical significance level was set at .01 to avoid serious inferential error, the researcher believed that it would not be harmful to examine differences between perceptions of the MOE and JCADS. Therefore, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the differences between means. From the results of the ANOVA, it was found that the JCADS rated the present and future importance of Goal 52, "to provide opportunities for faculty and staff to study for higher academic degree(s)," significantly higher than did the MOE. Visual representations of the differences between mean scores of the existing and desired importance of goals as rated by these two groups are shown respectively in Figures 6.15 and 6.16, respectively. PuJCADS and PrJCADS Research Question 6: On which goals do significant differences exist between PuJCADS and PrJCADS regarding their perceptions of the existing and desired importance of junior college goals? Hypothesis 3 (hypothesis tested for each existing goal) There are no significant differences between PuJCADS and PrJCADS regarding their perceptions of the existing importance of junior college goals. Hypothesis 6 (hypothesis tested for each desired goal) There are no significant differences between PuJCADS and PrJCADS regarding their perceptions of the desired importance of junior college goals. To answer Research Question 6 and to test Hypotheses 3 and 6, a two-tailed t-test was used. Table 6.61 shows that for only Goals 13 and 66, Hypothesis 3 was not retained. As shown in Table 6.62, administrators at public junior colleges rated the present importance of these two goals higher than did those at private junior colleges. 168 008005sz “EBay—2030.28.00 0025908:— 02 8 0...: .00 000000 2402 O MUD lam—00.0.0 .00 2053—2030000 0.1% up. 0030—... “00232 .200 9 8 as 8 a. 2 a Plpb 0%hlbgpbfilbl- PLI’ chi-ID P1P“. IlFIP P. .l-. tibbthbb DbPle Db PMbDLID 1 a." 88.. .i n T... T T mad m ”.3 m6.» m6.» We; W3 n EDWINOdN 003.. 9200... 01...>0 00.20 0<0._(00 00 00250002. 000.000 070. .00 000000 2(0) .00 000 12000005 .00 20....<...Z0000000 0.10<00 0.3.? 0000.0 000202 .100 169 009.0? on 00 0— 0— 1 I; n 9 v '2 v 'TT3 31 II I rTfrfi BOWJBOdNI 150 TABLE 6.61 T-TEST FOR DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONS OF PuJCADS AND PrJCADS CONCERNING THE EXISTING IMPORTANCE OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS Goal PuJCAD PrJCAD T P Goal PuJCAD PrJCAD T P No. N N No. N N 1 67 251 -.26 .811 29 67 266 .66 .508 2 67 252 -1.19 .233 30 67 266 .06 .952 3 67 250 -.88 .379 31 67 266 -1.09 .275 6 67 250 -.26 .791 32 67 266 -1.09 .275 5 67 252 -.11 .909 33 67 266 '.16 .876 6 65 269 .95 .363 36 67 262 .37 .712 7 67 253 .14 .891 35 68 269 -1.26 .210 8 67 253 -.69 .626 36 68 268 .02 .985 9 67 252 -.86 .606 37 68 251 .13 .896 10 67 253 -.07 .962 38 68 269 .25 .806 11 67 253 -1.37 .172 39 68 269 -.36 .717 12 67 268 1.60 .163 60 68 251 -.15 .886 13 67 269 3.56 .000 61 67 268 -1.67 .097 16 67 251 .67 .660 62 67 269 .60 .551 15 67 250 -.36 .722 63 68 251 -.87 .385 16 67 269 1.06 .301 66 68 269 -.26 .810 17 67 269 1.61 .109 65 68 251 -.06 .969 1B 67 250 1.32 .189 66 67 251 3.87 .000 19 67 250 1.16 .268 67 65 250 .20 .866 20 67 251 -.81 .621 68 65 269 .00 1.000 21 67 251 .39 .698 69 65 250 -.62 .537 22 67 267 .66 .508 50 65 250 1.10 .273 23 67 266 -.73 .666 51 65 269 1.68 .096 26 67 265 -.22 .828 52 65 269 .56 .591 25 67 262 -1.19 .235 53 65 269 .77 .460 26 67 265 .80 .622 56 65 268 -.29 .771 27 67 246 -.06 .955 55 65 267 .13 .895 28 67 266 .13 .893 Note: The specification of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. The computer provides the P value .000 which is less than .001. Significant at P < .05. 151 For the other goals, the hypothesis was retained. That is, significant differences were not found between PuJCADS and PrJCADS in their perceptions of the existing importance of those goals. TABLE 6.62 RESULTS OF T-TEST COMPARING MEANS OF THE EXISTING IMPORTANCE OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS AS RATED BY PuJCADS (Pu) AND PrJCADS (Pr) No. Goal Result 13 to make available to community groups Pu > Pr * college resources such as meeting rooms, computer facilities, and faculty problem- solving skills 66 to serve as a culture center in the community Pu > Pr * *Significant at .05. Figure 6.17 is a profile of the perceptions of PuJCADS and PrJCADS regarding the existing importance of junior college goals. Wider spaces between points for Goals 13 and 66 represent the differences in perceptions of PuJCADS and PrJCADS regarding the existing importance of these goals. Table 6.63 shows that for Goals 11, 13, 20, 27, 60, and 66, Hypothesis 6 was not retained. As shown in Table 6.66, PuJCADS rated the desired importance of Goals 13 and 66 higher than did PrJCADS; the opposite was true for Goals 11, 20, 27, and 60. For the remaining goals, the hypothesis was retained. No statistically significant differences were found between PuJCADS and PrJCADS in their perceptions of the desired importance of those goals. 152 02020 02 0.20.50 00230002. 020000 0...» .00 1.5000005 00 2092000000000 0.1200 0%... 00000 000202 .200 3 . 0N 00...<00< 000 720300000 ON 0. 0.— n.— 0.0 0.? 0.0 aomwwm 153 TABLE 4.43 T-TEST FOR DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPIIONS OF PuJCADS AND PrJCADS CONCERNING THE DESIRED IMPORTANCE OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS Goal PuJCAD PrJCAD T P Goal PuJCAD PrJCAD T P No. N N No. I N 1 67 250 -.29 .769 29 67 246 .16 .876 2 67 251 -1.03 .302 30 67 245 -1.48 .140 3 67 249 .10 .917 31 67 246 -1.22 .222 4 66 248 .32 .745 32 67 245 -1.86 .065 5 67 251 -.03 .979 33 67 245 -1.95 .053 6 65 248 1.36 .175 34 67 242 .17 .869 7 67 252 .33 .774 35 68 249 -.81 .418 8 67 252 -.15 .881 36 68 249 .77 .443 9 67 251 -.25 .801 37 68 250 ~.49 .625 10 67 252 -1.44 .045 38 68 248 1.05 .295 11 67 252 -2.62 .009 39 68 248 -.73 .469 12 67 249 .52 .605 40 68 250 -1.77 .077 13 67 249 2.82 .005 41 67 248 -3.35 .001 14 67 250 .05 .964 42 67 248 -1.35 .178 15 67 251 1.19 .291 43 68 248 -.61 .541 16 67 249 -.25 .805 44 68 248 -1.65 .099 17 67 248 .37 .715 45 68 250 -.81 .417 18 67 249 .72 .471 46 68 250 2.49 .013 19 67 250 .71 .481 47 64 249 -1.20 .232 20 67 251 ~3.53 .000 48 65 248 -.99 .325 21 67 250 -.94 .346 49 65 249 -1.17 .244 22 67 245 .11 .914 50 65 249 1.04 .298 23 67 246 -1.59 .113 S1 65 248 1.31 .190 24 67 244 -1.29 .199 52 65 246 -1.32 .187 25 67 244 -.99 .323 53 65 248 1.29 .198 26 67 245 -.56 .579 54 65 247 .23 .821 27 67 246 -1.99 .048 55 64 246 1.03 .302 28 67 246 -1.95 .052 Note: The specification of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. The computer provides the P value .000 which is less than .001. Significant at P < .05. 154 TABLE 4.44 RESULTS OF T-TEST COMPARING MEANS OF THE DESIRED IMPORTANCE OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS AS RATED BY PuJCADS (Pu) AND PrJCADS (Pr) No. Goal Result 11 to help students develop a sense of self— Pr > Pu** worth, self-confidence and self-direction 13 to make available to community groups Pu > Pr** college resources such as meeting rooms, computer facilities, and faculty problem- solving skills 20 to commit.college resources to faculty and Pr > Pu*** staff development activities 27 to provide flexible leave and sabbatical Pr > Pu* opportunities for faculty and staff for purposes of professional development 40 to provide facilities and equipment to create Pr > Pu** desired research environment for faculty 46 to serve as a culture center in the community Pu > Pr* *Significant at .05; **Significant at .01; ***Significant at .001. A graphic representation of differences between perceptions of PuJCADS and PrJCADS regarding the desired importance of goals is shown in Figure 4.18. Wider space between points for Goals 11, 13 20, 27, 40, and 46 represent the differences in perceptions of PuJCADS and PrJCADS regarding the desired importance of these goals. A ' t ato u Colle es W t and as Wit ou v Schools Research Question 5: On which goals significant differences exist between administrators at junior colleges with evening schools and those at junior colleges without evening schools regarding their perceptions of the existing and desired importance of junior college goals? Hypothesis 5 (hypothesis tested for each existing goal) There are no significant differences between administrators at junior colleges with evening school and those at junior gaigmggmsahgflgko 0025.00.02. 000.000 0:... .00 000000 2.03 .00 ”00 12000005 .00 2002020000000 0.20410 07* 0000.0 ”B0202 .300 00 . . 0v 3 . .. am on 0. 0— l 5 S a— ‘-:J.' - ---~ «3' a.— 0d 156 TABLE 4.45 T-TEST FOR DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONS OF ADMINISTRATORS AT JUNIOR COLLEGES UITN AND THOSE WITHOUT EVENING SCHOOLS CONCERNING THE EXISTING IMPORTANCE OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS Goal Hith without T P Goal Uith without T P No. N N No. N N 1 237 81 -.24 .809 29 233 80 .94 .350 2 239 80 .21 .838 30 233 80 .23 .817 3 236 81 .72 .473 31 233 80 .02 .984 4 237 81 -.32 .747 32 233 80 1.04 .297 5 238 81 2.16 .032 33 233 80 -.07 .946 6 235 79 .56 .579 34 229 80 1.31 .192 7 239 81 .71 .477 35 237 80 .16 .871 8 239 81 -.05 .956 36 236 80 -.50 .619 9 239 80 -.60 .552 37 239 80 -2.27 .024 10 239 81 1.30 .193 38 237 80 '1.18 .239 11 239 81 1.25 .214 39 238 79 -1.09 .276 12 235 80 1.77 .077 40 239 80 .67 .505 13 235 81 .51 .613 41 237 78 -.69 .491 14 237 81 .70 .482 42 236 80 1.49 .136 15 237 80 1.34 .181 43 239 80 -.66 .507 16 235 81 2.05 .041 44 239 78 .78 .438 17 235 81 1.48 .139 45 239 80 -.42 .671 18 236 81 2.80 .005 46 238 80 2.24 .026 19 236 81 1.43 .154 47 234 81 .97 .331 20 237 81 1.04 .301 48 233 81 .86 .393 21 237 81 -.80 .424 49 234 81 -.05 .961 22 234 80 1.34 .181 50 234 81 .37 .711 23 233 80 -.96 .338 S1 233 81 .03 .974 24 233 79 -.81 .419 52 233 81 -.16 .871 25 231 78 -.07 .941 53 233 81 1.03 .303 26 232 80 -2.36 .019 54 232 81 .14 .889 27 233 80 .19 .853 55 231 81 1.28 .201 28 233 80 .94 .347 Note: The specification of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. Significant at P < .05. 157 colleges without evening school in their perceptions of the existing importance of junior college goals. Hypothesis 6 (hypothesis tested for each desired goal) There are no significant differences between administrators at junior colleges with evening schools and those at junior colleges without evening schools regarding their perceptions of the desired importance of junior college goals. Examination of Table 4.45 reveals that for Goals 5, 16, 26, 37, and 46, Hypothesis 5 was not retained. In other words, statistically significant differences were found between administrators at junior colleges with evening schools and those at junior colleges without evening schools regarding their perceptions of the existing importance of these goals. JCADS at junior colleges with evening schools rated the present importance of Goals 5, 16, 18, and 46 higher than did those at junior colleges without evening schools. Conversely, the latter group rated Goals 26 and 37 as being of more importance than did the former group. (See Table 4.46.) TABLE 4.46 RESULTS OF T-TEST COMPARING MEANS OF THE EXISTING IMPORTANCE OF GOALS AS PERCEIVED BY ADMINISTRATORS AT JUNIOR COLLEGES WITH (A) AND THOSE WITHOUT (B) EVENING SCHOOLS No. Goals Results 5 to instill in students a capacity for openness A > 8* to new ideas and ways of thinking 16 to provide opportunities for those individuals A > 8* seeking to update or upgrade present job skills 18 to maintain support services for students with A > 8** special needs, such as disadvantaged, or handicapped 26 to operate a student job placement service B > A* 37 to encourage students to prepare for technician B > A* certificate examination held by the government 46 to serve as a culture center in the community A > 8* *Significant at .05; **Significant at .01. 158 Figure 4.19 presents a comparison of perceptions of administrators at junior colleges with and those without evening schools regarding the existing importance of the junior college goals. Wider gaps between points for Goals 5, 16, 18, 26, 37, and 46 represent the differences in perceptions of administrators at junior colleges with and those without evening schools regarding the existing importance of these goals. As shown in Table 4.47 for Goals 26, 27, 37, 39, and 49, Hypothesis 6 was not retained. In other words, administrators at junior colleges with evening schools differed significantly from those without evening schools regarding the desired importance of these goals. Table 4.48 shows administrators at junior colleges without evening schools rated the desired importance of these goals higher than did those at junior colleges without evening schools. Significant differences between these two groups were not found regarding their perceptions of the desired importance of other goals. 159 0400000 .20>0._.002._._3020 00.20 m< 0.200 .00 0023.000}. 020.000 0.0. 00 000000 2(0) .00 0002000005 .00 020000000 0.230 00% 0000..“— 000202 .200 0p 160 TABLE 4.47 T-TEST FOR DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONS OF ADMINISTRATORS AT JUNIOR COLLEGES WITH AND THOSE WITHOUT EVENING SCHOOLS CONCERNING THE DESIRED IMPORTANCE OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS Goal With Without T P Goal With Without T P No. N N No. N N 1 236 81 1.42 .158 29 233 80 -.74 .458 2 238 80 -.15 .879 30 232 80 -.58 .565 3 235 81 -.44 .662 31 233 80 -.65 .516 4 234 80 -.38 .703 32 232 80 -.35 .727 5 237 81 1.25 .212 33 232 80 -1.00 .318 6 234 79 -.51 .610 34 229 80 .49 .625 7 238 81 —.82 .413 35 237 80 .51 .612 8 238 81 '1.41 .160 36 237 80 .24 .809 9 238 80 -1.50 .135 37 238 80 -2.25 .025 10 238 81 -.97 .330 38 236 80 -1.62 .106 11 238 81 -.71 .481 39 237 79 -2.72 .007 12 235 81 .51 .610 40 238 80 -.44 .662 13 235 81 .58 .561 41 237 78 -.33 .740 14 236 81 .57 .569 42 235 80 1.92 .056 15 237 81 -1.09 .275 43 237 79 -.26 .799 16 235 81 1.03 .303 44 238 78 -.21 .833 17 234 81 1.69 .092 45 238 80 -1.47 .144 18 235 81 1.31 .190 46 238 80 1.96 .051 19 236 81 .34 .732 47 232 81 -.07 .946 20 237 81 .26 .794 48 232 81 .18 .859 21 236 81 -1.53 .128 49 233 81 -2.27 .024 22 232 80 .49 .626 50 233 81 1.15 .251 23 233 80 -1.59 .112 51 232 81 .09 .927 24 233 78 -1.75 .082 52 232 79 -.39 .699 25 232 79 -1.44 .151 S3 232 81 .25 .803 26 232 80 ~3.63 .000 S4 231 81 -.26 .797 27 233 80 -1.98 .048 55 230 80 1.01 .313 28 233 80 -1.71 .088 Note: The specification of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. The computer provides the P value .000 which is less than .001. Significant at P < .05. 161 TABLE 4.48 RESULTS OF T-TEST COMPARING MEANS OF THE DESIRED IMPORTANCE OF GOALS AS PERCEIVED BY ADMINISTRATORS AT JUNIOR COLLEGES WITH (A) AND THOSE WITHOUT (B) EVENING SCHOOLS No. Goals Results 26 to operate a student job placement service 8 > A*** 27 to provide flexible leave and sabbatical 8 > A* opportunities for faculty and staff for purposes of professional development 37 to encourage students to prepare for 8 > A* technician certificate examination held by the government 39 to achieve general consensus on the campus 8 > A** regarding fundamental college goals 49 to cultivate students' consciousness and 8 > A* attitudes to increase the respect for work *Significant at .05; **Significant at .01; ***Significant at .001. Figure 4.20 presents a graphic comparison of perceptions of administrators at junior colleges with and without evening schools regarding the desired importance of goals. Wider spaces between points for Goals 26, 27, 37, 39, and 49 represent the differences in perceptions of administrators at junior colleges with and those without evening schools regarding the desired importance of these goals. Research Questions 6 and 7 were answered and Hypotheses 7 to 10 tested, using analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine the differences among groups regarding their perceptions of the existing and desired importance of goals. Further, a Scheffe post hoc test was used to detect differences between groups regarding their perceptions 162 0000000 .20>0 0.00.0.5 0.2 00...: 0258... 0< 0.200 00 00.20.0000. 000.“ 0...... 00 000000 00 0002000050 00 020000000 0.2.200 00.... 0000.0 000002 .200 SONVJHOdfll 163 of the existing and desired importance of the goals, which had been identified by ANOVA. The significance level again was set at .05. Preside t De e so Research Question 6: On which goals do significant differences exist between any two groups (presidents, deans and chairpersons) regarding their perceptions of the existing and desired importance of junior college goals? Hypothesis 7 (hypothesis tested for each existing goal) There are no significant differences between any two groups (presidents, deans, and chairpersons) regarding their perceptions of the existing importance of junior college goals. Hypothesis 8 (hypothesis tested for each desired goal) There are no significant differences between any two groups (presidents, deans, and chairpersons) regarding their perceptions of the desired importance of junior college goals. Table 4.49 shows that for Goals 7, 8, 9, l6, 18, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 32, 35, 39, 40, 45, 49, 50, and 52, Hypothesis 7 was not retained. That is, significant differences were found between respondent groups regarding their perceptions of the existing importance of these goals. However, for Goals 8, 21, 24, 40, 45, 49, SO, and 52, Hypothesis 7 was retained when tested with the Scheffe post hoc procedure with the criterion set at .05. Table 4.50 shows that deans viewed Goals 7, 9, 16, 18, 22, 27, 28, 30, 32, 35, and 39 as being more important than did chairpersons. Presidents perceived Goals 26, 30, 35, and 39 as being more important than did chairpersons. Deans perceived Goal 27 as being more important than did presidents. No statistically significant differences were found among these three groups regarding their perceptions of the existing importance of other junior college goals. 164 TABLE 4.49 ANOVA FOR DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONS OF PRESIDENTS, DEANS, AND CHAIRPERSONS CONCERNING THE EXISTING IMPORTANCE OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS Goal Sun of Square 0F F P Goal Sun of Square DF F P No. (Between/Within) No. (Between/Within) 1 4.3457/269.7931 2/314 2.2248 .1368 29 5.6149/314.3050 2/309 2.7601 .0648 2 .0763/270.1686 2/315 .0444 .9565 30 8.8706/210.3474 2/309 6.5154 .0017 3 .7295/380.9002 2/313 .2997 .7412 31 3.3495/333.7755 2/309 1.5504 .2138 4 2.6802/296.0414 2/313 1.4168 .2440 32 12.1925/327.0254 2/309 5.7603 .0035 5 1.9653/303.4214 2/315 1.0268 .3593 33 4.6592/281.7895 2/309 2.5546 .0794 6 4.4816/402.9625 2/310 1.7239 .1801 34 .0579/325.0719 2/305 .0272 .9732 7 9.5766/340.5864 2/316 4.4426 .0125 35 17.5140/318.6379 2/313 8.6021 .0002 8 6.1951/307.8237 2/316 3.1798 .0429 36 4.1198/332.5659 2/312 1.9325 .1465 9 17.0213/365.9378 2/315 7.3260 .0008 37 4.5467]370.9407 2/315 1.9305 .1468 10 5.6043/299.9130 21316 2.9524 .0537 38 3.1337/357.7872 2/313 1.3707 .2554 11 4.0662/347.0435 2/316 1.8512 .1587 39 16.1888/361.7448 2/313 7.0037 .0011 12 3.3281/372.6592 2/311 1.3887 .2509 40 8.0154/375.3683 2/315 3.3632 .0359 13 .2029/357.3400 2/312 .0886 .9153 41 .3606/297.5152 2/311 .1885 .8283 14 3.9322/340.9952 2/314 1.8105 .1653 42 1.5920/426.2048 2/312 .5827 .5590 15 4.2881/418.7087 21313 1.6028 .2030 43 1.1994/321.4956 2/315 .5876 .5563 16 8.3649/372.2065 2/312 3.5059 .0312 44 .1417/325.0070 2/313 .0683 .9340 17 5.0127/360.5873 2/312 2.1682 .1161 45 6.6416/315.5377 2/315 3.3151 .0376 18 11.0944/371.1430 2/313 4.6782 .0100 46 2.3549/362.9258 2/314 1.0187 .3622 19 .1640/269.8360 2/313 .0951 .9093 47 .5312/349.2300 2/311 .2365 .7895 20 4.9560/341.5361 2/314 2.2782 .1042 48 3.0603/395.6106 2/310 1.1990 .3029 21 4.9318/240.3111 2/314 3.2220 .0412 49 10.4324/334.2937 21311 4.8527 .0084 22 8.3373/214.5828 2/310 6.0223 .0027 50 10.1880/335.7738 2/311 4.7181 .0096 23 3.4031/308.5168 2/309 1.7042 .1836 S1 7.3566/386.0300 2/310 2.9538 .0536 24 5.5630/260.3019 2/308 3.2912 .0385 52 7.1991/367.3445 2/310 3.0980 .0465 25 5.4280/347.4908 2/305 2.3822 .0941 53 .3558/367.0052 2/310 .1503 .8605 26 7.0407/222.8307 2/308 4.8659 .0083 54 2.1132/418.3355 2/309 .7804 .4591 27 15.4596/411.0404 2/309 5.8109 .0033 55 S.3833/500.9832 2/308 1.6548 .1928 28 10.3933/304.9112 2/309 5.2663 .0056 Note: The specification of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. Significant at P < .05. 165 TABLE 4.50 RESULTS OF SCHEFFE TEST COMPARING MEANS OF THE EXISTING IMPORTANCE OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS AS PERCEIVED BY PRESIDENTS (P), DEANS (D), AND CHAIRPERSONS (C) No. Goals Results 7 to provide students with military D > C * training program 8 to increase students' sensitivity NS and appreciation of various forms of arts and artistic expression 9 to help students understand and D > C * assess the important moral issues 16 to provide opportunities for those D > C * individuals seeking to update or upgrade present job skills 18 to maintain support services for D > C * students with special needs, such as disadvantaged, or handicapped 21 to provide career counseling for students NS 22 to conduct a comprehensive student D > C * activities program consisting of social, cultural and athletic activities 24 to provide personal counseling services NS for students 26 to operate a student job placement service P > C * 27 to provide flexible leave and sabbatical D > P * opportunities for faculty and staff for D > C * purposes of professional development 28 to maintain a climate in which faculty D > C * commitment to the goals and well-being of the institution is as strong as commitment to professional careers 30 to strengthen students' consciousness D > C * of nationalism P > C * 32 to maintain a climate in which communications D > C * throughout the organizational structure is open and candid 35 to retain faculty based on teaching D > C * effectiveness P > C * 39 to achieve general consensus on the campus P > C * regarding fundamental college goals D > C * 40 to provide facilities and equipment to NS create desired research environment for faculty 166 Table 4.50 (cont'd) No. Goals Results 45 to maintain a climate of mutual trust NS and respect among students, faculty, and administrators 49 to cultivate students' consciousness and NS attitudes to increase the respect for work 50 to strengthen cooperative programs NS with business and industry 52 to provide opportunities for faculty and NS staff to study for higher academic degree(s) NS - Not Significant. *Significant at .05. A visual representation of the differences among presidents, deans, and chairpersons regarding their perceptions of the existing importance of junior college goals is shown in Figure 4.21. Table 4.51 reveals that for Goals 7, 14, 23, 26, 28, 30, 39, 47, 48, and 53, Hypothesis 8 was not retained. In addition, for Goals 28, 30, and 47, the null hypothesis was not retained when tested with the Scheffe post hoc procedure with the criterion level set at .05. That is, respondent groups differed significant in their perceptions regarding the existing importance of these goals. As shown in Table 4.52, deans viewed Goal 7 as being more important than did chairpersons. Conversely, chairpersons viewed Goals 23, 36, 48, and 53 as being more important than did deans. Presidents rated Goals 7, 26 and 39 as being more important than did chairpersons. Goals 14 and 48 were viewed as being more important by presidents than by deans. Only Goal 53 was perceived as being more important by chairpersons than by presidents. 167 02000000210 02 .072—00%0W02090000 >0 00.20 02 0.200 00 00.20000... 02 01... 00 000000 20:0 00 0002000003 00 20F C * training program 0 > C * 14 to offer students educational programs P > D * geared to new and emerging career fields 23 to provide opportunities for professional C > D * development for faculty and staff through special seminars, workshops, or training programs 26 to operate a student job placement service P > C * 28 to maintain a climate in which faculty NS commitment to the goals and well-being of the institution is as strong as commitment to professional careers 30 to strengthen students' consciousness N8 of nationalism 36 to involve those with appropriate C > D * campus decisions 39 to achieve general consensus on the P > C * campus regarding fundamental college goals 47 to increase the number and flexibility N8 of elective courses in order to establish the speciality of the institution 48 to provide opportunities for students to P > D * obtain training for dual major subjects C > D * 53 to recognize the value of faculty who C > P * have experience in business and industry C > D * NS - Not Significant. *Significant at .05. chairpersons' perceptions regarding the desired importance Figure 4.22 presents a comparison of presidents, college goals. deans, and of junior 170 0200500230 02< .0250 . 0. 01200 00 00250002. B0.0m 0...... 000302 .200 ., a 0 >0 00.30 0< 0 000000 25m: 00 302000.005 00 20023000000 0.10.5.0 «NJ. 0000.... a. 0— I" 0... 0.0 Bowman 171 Research Question 7: On which goals do significant differences exist between any two groups (JCADS at two-year, three-year, five-year junior colleges and junior colleges with a combination of two & three, two & five, three & five, two, three & five year program durations) regarding their perceptions of the existing and desired importance of junior college goals? Hypothesis 9 (hypothesis tested for each existing goal) There are no significant differences between any two groups (JCADS at two-year, three-year, five-year junior colleges and junior colleges with a combination of two & three, or two & five, or three 6 five, or two, three 8 five year program durations) regarding their perceptions of the existing importance of junior college goals. Hypothesis 10 (hypothesis tested for each desired goal) There are no significant differences between any two groups (JCADS at two-year, three-year, five-year junior colleges and junior colleges with a combination of two & three, or two 6 five, or three 8 five, or two, three and five year program durations) regarding their perceptions of the desired importance of junior college goals. As shown in Table 4.53, for Goals 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 26, 37, 41, 47, 50, 51, and 52, Hypothesis 9 was not retained. However, for Goals 12, 13, 26, 37, and 41, Hypothesis 9 was retained when tested with the Scheffe post hoc procedure with the criterion level set at .05. Table 4.54 shows that administrators at three-year colleges perceived the importance of Goals 14, 16, 17, 46, 47, 50, 51, and 52 as being higher than did those at two-year junior colleges. The importance of Goals 14, 46, 47, 50, and 51 was rated higher by administrators at three-year junior colleges than by those at five- year junior colleges; Goals 46, SO, and 51 were viewed as more important by administrators at three-year junior colleges than by those at junior colleges with a combination of program durations. 172 TABLE 4.53 ANOVA FOR DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONS OF ADMINISTRATORS AT THO-YR, THREE-YR, FIVE-YR JUNIOR COLLEGES AND JUNIOR COLLEGES UITN A COMBINATION OF PROGRAM DURATIONS CONCERNING THE EXISTING IMPORTANCE OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS Goal Sun of Square 0F F P Goal Sun of Square 0F F P No. (Between/within) lo. (Between/Hithin) 1 3.7305/271.8458 3/317 1.4500 .2282 29 4.2379]318.6482 3/312 1.3832 .2479 2 4.1455/268.8856 3/318 1.6342 .1813 30 2.8240/218.4798 3/312 1.3443 .2600 3 1.2272/382.5697 3/316 .3379 .7980 31 .9754/339.9233 3/312 .2984 .8265 4 6.1764/294.8111 3/316 2.2068 .0872 32 4.46277341.1449 3/312 1.3605 .2549 5 2.2516/307.3012 3/318 .7767 .5077 33 .3739/289.0944 3/312 .1345 .9394 6 .8317/418.6888 3/313 .2073 .8913 34 4.6398/321.8698 3/308 1.4800 .2200 7 5.8975/348.9694 3/319 1.7970 .1476 35 6.1432/333.2287 3/316 1.9419 .1227 8 .2011/316.5358 3/319 .0676 .9771 36 3.0570/334.6295 3/315 .9592 .4122 9 3.4850/383.7976 3/318 .9625 .4107 37 13.0333/364.5195 3/318 3.7900 .0107 10 .9930/307.9791 3/319 .3428 .7944 38 2.1811/360.6658 3/316 .6370 .5917 11 2.7628/353.5034 3/319 .8310 .4776 39 6.3543/375.4457 37316 1.7827 .1503 12 9.4959/372.4538 3/314 2.6685 .0477 40 2.3738!382.1852 3/318 .6584 .5782 13 8.9276/352.8216 3/315 2.6569 .0485 41 9.1636/293.8049 3/314 3.2645 .0217 14 13.1332/332.9478 3/317 4.1680 .0065 42 1.5517/429.7837 3/315 .3791 .7681 15 1.4941/427.4778 3/316 .3682 .7760 43 2.6815/326.0669 3/318 .8717 .4560 16 10.8825/371.8322 3/315 3.0731 .0280 44 4.3633/326.8586 3/316 1.4061 .2410 17 13.8089/356.9371 3/315 4.0622 .0075 45 4.6962/323.8659 3/318 1.5371 .2048 18 2.3509/386.0710 3/316 .6414 .5889 46 20.4539/355.3467 3/317 6.0822 .0005 19 .2503/272.7465 3/316 .0967 .9618 47 11.2798/350.3585 3/314 3.3698 .0189 20 2.5072/346.9944 3/317 .7635 .5152 48 3.9629/399.5639 3/313 1.0348 .3774 21 4.6621/243.5871 3/317 2.0224 .1107 49 3.8309/344.9113 3/314 1.1625 .3242 22 2.7396/223.2099 3/313 1.2805 .2811 50 16.4352/330.5334 3/314 5.2044 .0016 23 2.45781310.4916 3/312 .8232 .4818 51 16.6677/382.4679 3/313 4.5468 .0039 24 4.5455]264.5973 3/311 1.7809 .1507 52 11.6894/356.8027 3/313 3.4181 .0177 25 1.9360/351.1378 3/308 .5660 .6378 S3 6.7897/361.3491 3/313 1.9604 .1199 26 7.0345/223.9369 3/311 3.2565 .0219 54 8.5068/417.1641 3/312 2.1208 .0975 27 8.1508/421.0992 3/312 2.0130 .1121 55 6.7239/504.0190 3/311 1.3830 .2480 28 6.74877312.0235 3/312 2.2494 .0826 Note: The specification of junior Significant at P < .05. college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. These four groups did not differ significantly from one their ratings of the existing importance of other goals. 173 TABLE 4.54 another in RESULTS OF SCHEFFE TEST COMPARING MEANS OF THE EXISTING IMPORTANCE OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS AS PERCEIVED BY ADMINISTRATQRS AT JUNIOR COLLEGES WITH DIFFERENT PROGRAM DURATIONS No. Goals Results 12 13 l4 16 17 26 37 41 46 47 50 to provide certificate training programs for students to prepare them for special vocational and technical careers to make available to community groups college resources such as meeting rooms, computer facilities, and faculty problem-solving skills to offer students educational programs geared to new and emerging career fields to provide opportunities for those individuals seeking to update or upgrade present job skills to provide retraining opportunities for individuals who wish to qualify for new careers or acquire new job skills to operate a student job placement service to encourage students to prepare for technician certificate examination held by the government to prepare students for taking transfer exam or entrance exam for graduate school at college or university to serve as a cultural center in the community to increase the number and flexibility of elective courses in order to establish the speciality of the institution to strengthen cooperative programs with business and industry mono: VVV >0? $03me VVVVV O>UO> cannon VVV NS NS NS NS 00> a. ’1-31-31-31-31- 368- 174 TABLE 4.54 (cont'd.) No. Goals Results 51 to establish characteristics of B > A * institutions to meet the needs of B > C * the community 8 > D * 52 to provide opportunities for faculty and B > A * staff to study for higher academic degree(s) Note: Apadministrators at two-year junior college; B-administrators at three-year junior college; C-administrators at five-year junior college; D—administrators at junior college with a combination of two 8 three, two 8 five, three 8 five, or two, three 8 five year program durations. NS - Not Significant. *Significant at .05. Figure 4.23 presents a comparison of perceptions of administrators at junior colleges with different program durations regarding the existing importance of goals. Wider spaces between points for Goals 12, 14, l6, 17, 26, 46, 47, SO, 51, and 52 represent the differences in perceptions of administrators at junior colleges with different program durations regarding the existing importance of these goals. The curve that represents perceptions of three-year JCADS regarding the existing importance of goals is somewhat higher than the curves representing JCADS at junior colleges with other program durations. For Goals 20, 27, 34, 37, 41, 46, SO, 51, 52, and 55, Hypothesis 10 was not retained. (See Table 4.55.) However, for Goals 37, 41, 52, and 55, Hypothesis 10 was retained when tested with the Scheffe post hoc procedure with the criterion level set at .05. (See Table 4.56.) Administrators at three—year colleges viewed the desired 17S 0 2002000 «200000 .005 1.03 00... .2 02 >0 00.20 0< 0.200 .00 0025—0002. 020.000.. 02h 00 000000 2(0) 00 00.0 .00 2002020000000 0.1200 nué 0000:. 53:2 .28 0v 0% an 0N ON 0— 0- w. .. .. n . . .: .fi . w. . .. ... .. .‘ . ./. 0 o a. — n. .. .. a: .. .... . ___ 5... ...,.....,... .. .. ____... . .... . .. ,_ a: .2... . ....... L. . .. .. 1.. .. .5. C _...7 . . ._ '2 n °. 1» '1 e IIUUIIIIfir‘UT EDWINOdNI 176 TABLE 4 . 55 ANOVA Fm DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONS OF ADMINISTRATCNIS AT M-YR, THREE'YR, FIVE°YR JUNIOR COLLEGES AND JUNIM COLLEGES UITH A CGIBINATIN OF 9mm DURATICNIS COICERNING THE DESIRED IMPORTANCE OF JUNIN COLLEGE GOALS Goal SI. of Square 0F F P Goal So.- of Square 0F F P No. (Between/within) No. (Between/within) 1 .3343/123.0532 3/316 .2771 .8419 29 .2386/212.6063 3/312 .1167 .9503 2 1.2629/148.6063 3/317 .8980 .4425 30 2.1626/184.0068 3/311 1.2184 .3031 3 .8043/191.0640 3/315 .4420 .7231 31 .4499/241.0691 3/312 .1941 .9004 4 3.9703/239.5944 3/313 1.7289 .1610 32 3.4229/187.1485 3/311 1.8960 .1302 5 .4147/140.9872 3/317 .3108 .8176 33 1.9683/198.1143 31311 1.0299 .3795 6 5.0015/351.6915 3/312 1.4790 .2202 34 9.9172/342.3776 3/308 2.9738 .0319 7 5.9649/371.6531 3/318 1.7013 .1667 35 1.4435/218.2440 3/316 .6967 .5546 8 .6601/280.0138 3/318 .2499 .8614 36 .7611/360.2358 3/316 .2225 .8807 9 2.2177/254.2495 3/317 .9217 .4306 37 11.8586/340.0355 37317 3.6851 .0124 10 2.3141/219.2915 3/318 1.1186 .3416 38 1.3399/300.2338 3/315 .4686 .7044 11 1.3699/174.5587 3/318 .8319 .4772 39 2.3947/217.6806 3/315 1.1551 .3271 12 7.3690/316.9821 3/315 2.4410 .0643 40 .2031/180.5508 3/317 .1189 9490 13 5.3568/393.3579 3/315 1.4299 .2340 41 14.9757/339.0022 3/314 4.6237 .0035 14 2.6211/244.1008 3/316 1.1310 .3366 42 7.8695/503.8443 3/314 1.6348 .1812 15 3.0968/314.4235 37317 1.0407 .3747 43 1.9288/248.8486 3/315 .8138 .4870 16 2.7143/241.2230 3/315 1.1815 .3169 44 3.0629/247.2130 37315 1.3009 .2742 17 4.3177/255.3961 31314 1.7695 .1529 45 2.2831/197.2185 3/317 1.2232 .3013 18 2.2649/311.2398 3/315 .7641 .5149 46 15.3268/360.2495 3/317 4.4956 .0042 19 .7143/339.3326 3/316 .2217 .8813 47 4.1105/221.7756 3/312 1.9276 .1250 20 5.8895/184.8457 3/317 3.6667 .0189 48 1.2065/348.7302 3/312 .3598 .7821 21 3.6743/157.8758 3/316 2.0600 .1054 49 1.4713/127.4940 3/313 1.2040 .3084 22 .8229/218.3199 3/311 .3908 7597 50 9.3397/216.8622 3/313 4.4934 .0042 23 1.6695/180.2640 3/312 .9632 .4104 51 11.8101/331.6835 31312 3.7031 .0121 24 4.6574/201.4703 3/310 2.3886 .0689 52 6.1024/220.6110 3/310 2.8583 .0372 25 2.2496/289.3969 3/310 .8032 .4928 S3 2.8620/279.1475 3/312 1.0663 .3636 26 4.4554/200.6557 37311 2.3018 .0771 54 5.9136/546.5309 3/311 1.1217 .3404 27 8.6327]246.1110 3/312 3.6479 .0130 55 14.9895/563.5409 3/309 2.7397 .0435 28 3.8783/160.4603 3/312 2.5136 .0585 Note: The specification Significant at P < .05. of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. 177 importance of Goals 46 and 50 to be higher than did administrators at two-year junior colleges, and they perceived the desired importance of Goals 46, 50 and 51 higher than did those at five-year junior colleges and those at junior colleges with a combination of program durations. Administrators at five-year junior colleges perceived the importance of Coal 20 to be higher than did those at three-year junior colleges, and they perceived the importance of Goal 27 to be higher than did those at junior colleges with a combination of program durations. Differences among these groups regarding their perceptions of the desired importance of other goals were not statistically significant. TABLE 4.56 RESULTS OF SCHEFFE TEST COMPARING MEANS OF THE DESIRED IMPORTANCE OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS AS PERCEIVED BY ADMINISTRATORS AT JUNIOR COLLEGES WITH DIFFERENT PROGRAM DURATIONS No. Goals Results 20 to commit college resources to faculty C > B * and staff development activities 27 to provide flexible leave and sabbatical C > D * opportunities for faculty and staff for purposes of professional development 34 to set student tuition and fees at a N8 level such that poor families can afford their children going to college 37 to encourage students to prepare for N8 technician certificate examination held by the government 41 to prepare students for taking transfer NS exam or entrance exam for graduate school at college or university 46 to serve as a cultural center in the community oaoam v v v caca» * x w 178 TABLE 4.56 (cont'd.) No. Goals Results 50 to strengthen cooperative programs B > A * with business and industry B > C * B > D * 51 to establish characteristics of institutions 8 > C * to meet the needs of the community B > D * 52 to provide opportunities for faculty and NS staff to study for higher academic degree(s) 55 to establish an associate degree system NS Note: Apadministrators at two-year junior college; B-administrators at three-year junior college; C-administrators at five-year junior college; D-administrators at junior college with a combination of two 8 three, two 8 five, three 8 five, or two, three 8 five year program durations. NS - Not Significant. *Significant at .05. Figure 4.24 is a comparison of perceptions of administrators at junior colleges with different program durations regarding the desired importance of goals. The graph shows that perceptions of administrators at three-year junior colleges were mostly different from those of administrators at junior colleges with other different program durations regarding the desired importance of Goals 20, 27, 34, 41, 46, 50, and 51. a uen n Res onde ts' Perce tions e x nd esired m 0 tan e Goal To answer Research Questions 8 and 9 and to test hypotheses 11 through 24, one-way ANOVA was used. A post hoc test was not used to determine the differences between perceptions of various groups 020.2000 0000 00.0 1.03 00.. .2 .02 >0 00.20 02 04(00 00 0 20.0002. 000.000 0...... 00 000000 200 .00 .00—0 00 20..2...20000000 0.20<00 +0.? 0000.... 000002 .200 00 0* 0. an . an on 0. 0 p 179 0.N 0.0 0.0 BOMMdMI 180 because the researcher only wanted to know whether the selected factors were related to different perceptions regarding the existing and desired importance of goals, not whether differences existed between any two groups on the selected factors. Research Question 8: On which goals do significant differences exist among respondents of various ages, years of service at junior colleges, levels of education, and years of service in the MOE, regarding their perceptions of the existing and desired importance of junior college goals? Hypothesis ll (hypothesis tested for each existing goal) There are no significant differences among respondents in various age groups regarding their perceptions of the existing importance of junior college goals. Table 4.57 shows that for Goals 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, ll, 15, 16, 21, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 37, 39, 40, and 47, Hypothesis 11 was not retained. In other words, respondents in different age groups differed significantly in their perceptions of these goals. Hypothesis 12 (hypothesis tested for each desired goal) There are no significant differences among respondents in various age groups regarding their perceptions of the desired importance of junior college goals. Examination of Table 4.58 shows that for Goals 7, 14, 23, 27, 30, 35, 38, 50, 52, and 53, Hypothesis 12 was not retained. That is, respondents in various age groups differed significantly in their perceptions of the desired importance of these goals. Hypothesis l3 (hypothesis tested for each existing goal) There are no significant differences among respondents with various years of service at junior colleges regarding their perceptions of the existing importance of junior college goals. 181 TABLE 4.57 ANOVA FOR DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONS OF ALL RESPONDENTS ACCORDING TO DIFFERENT INTERVALS OF AGE CONCERNING THE EXISTING IMPORTANCE OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS Goal Sum of Square 0F F P Goal Sum of Square 0F F P No. (Between/within) No. (Between/within) 1 10.7882/275.0672 4/327 3.2063 .0133 29 11.5412/321.8821 4/321 2.8774 .0230 2 9.9860/271.6777 4/328 3.0141 .0183 30 14.7331/212.1994 4/321 5.5718 .0002 3 16.3364/372.5035 4/326 3.5742 .0072 31 11.1678/332.5745 4/321 2.6948 .0310 4 8.7842/298.3880 4/326 2.3993 .0500 32 20.0707/335.1545 4/321 4.8043 .0009 5 6.2293/310.9598 4/328 1.6427 .1632 33 12.3119/289.5654 4/321 3.4121 .0094 6 11.6137/413.6515 4/323 2.2671 .0618 34 1.5241/337.5069 4/317 .3579 .8385 7 13.9990/359.1028 4/329 3.2064 .0133 35 34.1789/324.7576 4/326 8.5774 .0000 8 5.0468/317.5760 4/329 1.3071 .2671 36 3.3428/343.0815 4/325 .7916 .5313 9 19.3189/379.8943 4/328 4.1700 .0026 37 13.2931/373.8961 4/328 2.9153 .0215 10 14.6134/305.3148 4/329 3.9368 .0039 38 7.1466]364.8051 4/326 1.5966 .1749 11 17.9835/350.8458 4/329 4.2159 .0024 39 21.8392/372.1426 4/326 4.7828 .0009 12 6.6703/386.1808 4/324 1.3991 .2340 40 19.6476/373.0972 4/328 4.3182 .0020 13 2.1653/365.7892 4/325 .4810 .7497 41 2.3360/307.6397 4/324 .6151 .6521 14 1.9576/351.0876 4/327 .4558 .7681 42 4.0022/437.0556 4/324 .7417 .5641 15 14.3120/427.3858 4/326 2.7292 .0293 43 3.5412/338.1094 4/327 .8562 .4905 16 14.2345/376.9201 4/325 3.0684 .0167 44 6.4574/337.8689 4/326 1.5576 .1854 17 5.5227/372.7954 4/325 1.2037 .3091 45 7.4616/332.5083 4/328 1.8401 .1208 18 10.004/387.0648 4/326 2.1066 .0797 46 4.9891/387.2278 4/327 1.0533 .3798 19 .8382/275.1497 4/326 .2483 .9106 47 12.3000/356.1985 4/324 2.7970 .0262 20 14.0758/343.5959 4/327 3.3490 .0105 48 4.6276/409.8968 4/323 .9116 .4573 21 7.9098/249.0872 4/327 2.5960 .0364 49 7.3037/351.9182 4/324 1.6811 .1540 22 2.8821/233.0689 4/322 .9955 .4101 50 8.6564/349.1187 4/324 2.0084 .0931 23 4.4589/315.0135 4/321 1.1359 .3395 51 8.1005/402.2623 4/323 1.6261 .1674 24 11.4130/269.3993 4/320 3.3892 .0098 52 10.3608/375.3343 4/323 2.2290 .0657 25 5.8668/358.6052 4/317 1.2965 .2712 53 4.6531/378.4414 4/323 .9929 .4115 26 10.9796/228.423S 4/320 3.8453 .0046 54 2.5373/441.8847 4/322 .4622 .7634 27 16.9684/423.9058 4/321 3.2123 .0132 55 4.5528/517.5331 4/321 .7060 .5883 28 21.0441/310.6768 4/321 5.4358 .0003 Note: The specification of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. The computer provides the P value .0000 which is less than .0001. Significant at P < .05. 182 TABLE 4.58 ANOVA FOR DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONS OF ALL RESPONDENTS ACCORDING TO DIFFERENT INTERVALS OF AGE CONCERNING THE DESIRED IMPORTANCE OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS Goal Sum of Square 0F F P Goal Sun of Square 0F F P No. (Between/within) No. (Between/within) 1 1.7962/130.3186 4/326 1.1234 .3454 29 1.3132/220.4905 4/321 .4780 .7519 2 .6709/154.2056 4/327 .3557 .8400 30 5.8467/182.7256 4/320 2.5598 .0386 3 2.7359/197.0369 4/325 1.1282 .3431 31 .8002/246.4391 4/321 .2606 .9031 4 1.2119/246.0442 4/323 .3977 .8102 32 1.2454/197.0438 4/320 .5056 .7316 5 2.3072/145.3645 4/327 1.2975 .2708 33 4.7842/206.4281 4/320 1.8541 .1183 6 5.5196/362.9085 4/322 1.2243 .3003 34 .9708/360.8687 4/317 .2132 .9310 7 24.7873/371.9935 4/328 5.4640 .0003 35 7.8432/223.7218 4/326 2.8572 .0237 8 3.3875/279.5314 4/328 .9937 .4110 36 4.9076/368.0652 41326 1.0867 .3630 9 3.0360/256.7561 4/327 .9667 .4259 37 8.1315/357.1336 4/327 1.8613 .1169 10 1.5615/230.9801 4/328 .5543 .6960 38 9.3691/305.0824 4/325 2.4952 .0428 11 2.7769/176.2561 4/328 1.2919 .2729 39 2.6531/229.9197 4/325 .9376 .4423 12 1.8967/335.5094 4/325 .4593 .7656 40 4.5111/184.3654 4/327 2.0003 .0942 13 7.1270/399.1275 41325 1.4508 2170 41 4.5467/357.0643 4/324 1.0314 .3910 14 7.2305/243.5671 4/326 2.4194 .0484 42 2.8249/518.7239 4/323 .4398 .7799 15 .9182/324.9372 4/327 .2310 .9209 43 4.7738/261.0742 4/324 1.4811 .2076 16 6.4234/250.9736 4/325 2.0795 .0832 44 4.0511/256.0368 4/325 1.2856 .2754 17 4.5725/273.3302 4/324 1.3550 2494 45 1.2634/209.6131 4/327 .4927 .7411 18 3.0185/325.8784 4/325 .7526 .5569 46 1.2429/389.8023 4/327 .2607 .9030 19 3.8699/343.3507 4/326 .9186 .4532 47 5.1063/227.7438 4/322 1.8049 .1276 20 4.7729/194.7060 4/327 2.0040 .0937 48 4.7483/352.9459 4/322 1.0830 .3649 21 .7852/197.7042 4/326 .3237 .8620 49 1.0428/132.5883 4/323 .6351 .6378 22 1.0992/222.7285 4/320 .3948 .8123 50 9.7318/229.0944 4/323 3.4302 .0092 23 10.3991/178.8310 4/321 4.6666 .0011 51 3.6993/351.0775 4/322 .8482 .4955 24 1.2648/211.2908 4/319 .4774 .7523 52 13.2146/236.2746 4/320 4.4743 .0016 25 .8258/300.9859 4/319 .2188 .9279 53 14.7227/284.3232 4/322 4.1684 .0026 26 3.2926/219.1505 4/320 1.2594 .2859 54 7.8094/571.3931 4/321 1.0968 .3581 27 9.0990/258.7906 4/321 2.8216 .0252 55 3.8765/594.1482 4/319 .5203 .7209 28 3.0277/171.1318 4/321 1.4198 .2271 Note: The specification Significant at P < .05. of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. 183 For Goals 9, 14, 18, 21, 24, 26, 28, 30, 31, 32, 35, 40, 45, 47, 49, 52, and 54, Hypothesis 13 was not retained. (See Table 4.59.) In other words, the existing importance of these goals was perceived significantly differently by respondents with various years of service at junior colleges. Hypothesis l4 (hypothesis tested for each desired goal) There are no significant differences among respondents with various years of service at junior colleges regarding their perceptions of the desired importance of junior college goals. Examination of Table 4.60 shows that for Goals 6, 9, 10, 11, 52, and 53, Hypothesis 14 was not retained. In other words, significant differences were found among respondents with various years of service at junior colleges regarding their perceptions the of the desired importance of these goals. Hypothesis 15 (hypothesis tested for each existing goal) There are no significant differences among respondents with various levels of education regarding their perceptions of the existing importance of junior college goals. Hypothesis 15 was not retained for Goals 7, 12, l3, 14, 21, 24, 26, 28, 30, 31, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 49, 50, 52 and 55. (See Table 4.61.) Level of education did have some influence on the perceptions of respondents concerning the existing importance of the above goals. Hypothesis 16 (hypothesis tested for each desired goal) There are no significant differences among respondents with various levels of education regarding their perceptions of the desired importance of junior college goals. As shown in Table 4.62, Hypothesis 16 was not retained for Goals 7,13, 30, 41, 46, 50, and 54. That is, respondents' perceptions of the desired importance of these goals differed significantly according to education level. 184 TABLE 4.59 ANOVA FOR DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONS OF ALL RESPONDENTS ACCORDING TO YEARS OF SERVICE AT JUNIOR COLLEGES CONCERNING THE EXISTING IMPORTANCE OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS Goal Sm of Square 0F F P Goal Sun of Square 0F F P No. (Between/within) No. (Between/within) 1 6.8135/279.0415 4/327 1.9961 .0948 29 8.0946]325.3287 4/321 1.9967 .0948 2 1.2335/280.4302 4/328 .3607 .8365 30 8.0663/218.8662 4/321 2.9576 .0201 3 3.7001/358.1398 4/326 .7830 .5369 31 12.5113/331.2310 41321 3.0312 .0178 4 .9392/306.2330 4/326 .2500 .9096 32 12.7219/342.6033 4/321 2.9799 .0194 5 2.0851/315.1041 4/328 .5426 .7045 33 2.7601]299.1172 4/321 .7405 .5649 6 .8231/424.4421 4/323 .1566 .9599 34 4.2775/334.7535 4/317 1.0127 .4009 7 .9776/372.1242 4/329 .2161 .9294 35 17.3183/341.6182 4/326 4.1316 .0028 8 8.9194/313.7033 4/329 2.3386 .0551 36 3.0486/343.3756 4/325 .7214 .5778 9 20.2511]378.9622 4/328 4.3819 .0018 37 4.6898/382.4994 4/328 1.0054 .4048 10 3.1029/316.8253 4/329 .8055 .5223 38 5.6829/366.2688 4/326 1.2645 .2838 11 6.1277/362.7017 4/329 1.3896 .2372 39 11.1569/382.8250 4/326 2.3752 .0520 12 6.4000/386.4510 4/324 1.3414 .2543 40 24.3644/368.3804 41328 5.4234 .0003 13 1.0751/366.8795 4/325 .2381 .9167 41 3.6505/306.3251 4/324 .9653 .4267 14 13.79721339.2480 4/327 3.3248 .0109 42 5.9657]435.0920 4/324 1.1106 .3514 15 9.7788/431.9191 4/326 1.8452 .1199 43 6.6372]335.0134 4/327 1.6196 .1690 16 10.7613/380.3932 4/325 2.2986 .0588 44 9.5830/334.7432 4/326 2.3332 .0556 17 6.4524/371.8658 4/325 1.4098 .2304 45 14.2526/325.7173 4/328 3.5881 .0070 18 11.5575/385.5120 4/326 2.4433 .0466 46 3.3411/388.8758 4/327 .7024 .5908 19 .4961/275.4919 4/326 .1468 .9644 47 12.0393/356.4592 4/324 2.7357 .0290 20 8.5374]349.1343 4/327 1.9990 .0944 48 ' 10.3029/404.2214 4/323 2.0582 .0861 21 7.5216/249.4753 4/327 2.4648 .0450 49 12.0541/347.1678 4/324 2.8124 .0255 22 .5012/235.4499 4/322 .1714 .9529 50 5.9300/351.8451 4/324 1.3652 .2458 23 6.5396/312.9328 4/321 1.6770 .1550 51 9.4434/400.9194 4/323 1.9020 .1098 24 14.8689/265.9434 4/320 4.4728 .0016 52 12.0685/373.6266 4/323 2.6083 .0357 25 3.1080/361.3641 4/317 .6816 .6051 53 2.2315/380.8630 4/323 .4731 .7555 26 10.0195/229.3836 4/320 3.4944 .0082 54 14.6814/429.7406 4/322 2.7502 .0283 27 9.1243/431.7499 4/321 1.6959 .1506 55 13.7583/508.3276 4/321 2.1720 .0719 28 11.0421/320.6788 4/321 2.7633 .0277 Note: The specification of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. Significant at P < .05. 185 TABLE 4.60 ANOVA FOR DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONS OF ALL RESPONDENTS ACCORDING TO YEARS OF SERVICE AT JUNIOR COLLEGES CONCERNING THE DESIRED IMPORTANCE OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS Goal Sun of Square 0F F P Goal Sun of Square 0F F P No. (Between/within) No. (Betweenluithin) 1 2.4006/129.7142 4/326 1.5083 .1994 29 2.6429/219.1607 4l321 .9678 .4253 2 1.6715/153.2050 4/327 .8919 .4690 30 3.4449/185.1274 4/320 1.4887 .2053 3 3.6077/196.1651 41325 1.4943 .2036 31 .2503/246.9890 4/321 .0813 .9881 4 1.8820]345.3741 4/323 .6193 .6490 32 1.0803/197.2089 4/320 .4382 .7810 5 3.8980/143.7737 41327 2.2164 .0670 33 3.1256/208.0867 4l320 1.2016 .3100 6 12.3074/356.1207 41322 2.7820 .0269 34 3.9105/357.8690 4/317 .8660 .4846 7 4.5027/392.2780 4l328 .9412 .4402 35 3.6147/227.9503 4/326 1.2924 .2728 8 2.3352/280.5838 4/328 .6824 .6045 36 4.8255/368.1473 4/326 1.0683 .3722 9 8.0913/251.7009 4l327 2.6280 .0345 37 3.2564/362.0086 4l327 .7354 .5684 10 8.0128/224.5338 4l328 2.9263 .0212 38 2.7276/311.7239 4/325 .7109 .5846 11 8.1599/170.8732 4l328 3.9158 .0040 39 3.3492/229.2235 4/325 1.1872 .3163 12 3.1484/334.2576 4/325 .7653 .5485 40 4.1239/184.7526 4l327 1.8248 .1237 13 11.2425/395.0120 4/325 2.3125 .0575 41 9.5624/352.0486 4/324 2.2001 .0688 14 3.0190/247.7786 4/326 .9930 .4114 42 3.9234/517.6254 4/323 .6121 .6542 15 3.0363/322.8191 4/327 .7689 .5461 43 5.6652/260.1828 4/324 1.7637 .1359 16 .7575/256.6395 4/325 .2398 .9157 44 5.0384/255.0494 4/325 1.6051 .1727 17 3.0790/274.8238 4/324 .9075 .4597 45 .6820/210.1945 4/327 .2653 .9002 18 .0697/328.8273 4/325 .0172 .9994 46 10.4217/380.6235 4l327 2.2384 .0547 19 8.5970/338.6235 4/326 2.0691 .0846 47 3.3826/229.4675 4/322 1.1867 .3165 20 3.6371/195.8418 41327 1.5182 .1965 48 3.1971/354.4971 4/322 .7260 .5747 21 3.0898/195.3996 4/326 1.2887 .2742 49 .1379/133.4932 4/323 .0834 .9875 22 3.2275/220.6002 4l320 1.1705 .3237 50 2.7255/236.1007 4/323 .9322 .4454 23 4.9582/184.2719 4/321 2.1593 .0734 51 1.3453/353.4315 4/322 .3064 .8736 24 4.8901/207.6595 4/319 1.8803 .1136 52 14.8527/234.6366 4l320 5.0641 .0006 25 4.4389/297.3728 4/319 1.1904 .3149 53 23.0142/276.0317 4/322 6.7117 .0000 26 6.0008/206.4423 4l320 2.3254 .0563 54 10.3734/568.8290 4/321 1.4635 .2131 27 3.2375/264.6520 4/321 .9817 .4176 55 6.2755/591.7492 4/319 .8457 .4970 28 .6295/173.5300 4/321 .2911 .8837 Note: The specification of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. The computer provides the P value .0000 which is less than .0001. Significant at P < .05. 186 TABLE 4.61 CONCERNING THE EXISTING IMPORTANCE OF JUNIm COLLEGE GOALS ANOVA FOR DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONS OF ALL RESPONDENTS ACCQDING TO LEVELS OF EDUCATIGI Goal Sun of Smere 0F F P Goal SL. of Smare 0F F P No. (Between/within) No. (Between/Hithin) 1 5.4559/280.3199 3/328 2.1274 .0966 29 1.6686/331.7547 3/322 .5399 .6553 2 5.9007/275.7630 31329 2.3466 .0727 30 8.9694/217.9631 3/322 4.4169 .0046 3 2.7969/386.0430 3/327 .7897 .5003 31 13.43277330.3096 3/322 4.3649 .0050 4 1.7532/305.4190 3/327 .6257 .5988 32 7.6265/347.6986 3/322 2.3543 .0720 5 1.1770/316.0122 3/329 .4085 .7470 33 1.5741/300.3032 3/322 .5626 .6400 6 5.1910/420.0743 31324 1.3346 .2630 34 4.4409/334.5902 3/318 1.4069 .2407 7 9.8404/363.2614 3/330 2.9798 .0316 35 18.3395/340.5971 31327 5.8691 .0006 8 7.0897/315.5330 3/330 2.4716 .0617 36 3.4173/343.0070 31326 1.0826 .3565 9 8.8139/390.3993 3/329 2.4759 .0614 37 12.3779/374.8113 3/329 3.6217 .0134 10 2.2895/317.6386 3/330 .7929 .4985 38 5.6284/366.3232 3/327 1.6747 .1723 11 6.4916/362.3378 3/330 1.9707 .1182 39 9.5167/384.4652 3/327 2.6981 .0458 12 9.9000/382.9511 31325 2.8006 .0401 40 13.0818/379.6629 3/329 3.7787 .0109 13 9.8908/358.0638 3/326 3.0017 .0307 41 9.8876/300.0881 31325 3.5695 .0144 14 8.8135/344.2317 3/328 2.7199 .0401 42 5.3852/435.6726 3/325 1.3391 .2616 15 3.5729/438.1250 3/327 .8889 .4471 43 2.2820/339.3686 3/328 .7352 .5316 16 1.7995/389.3551 3/326 .5022 .6810 44 5.5460/338.7803 3/327 1.7844 .1499 17 3.0351/375.2831 3/326 .8788 .4523 45 7.1717/332.7983 3/329 2.3633 .0711 18 9.2342/387.8353 3/327 2.5952 .0525 46 7.83641384.3804 3/328 2.2290 .0847 19 1.4630/274.5249 3/327 .5809 .6279 47 6.8620/361.6355 3/325 2.0556 .1060 20 8.4037/349.2680 31328 2.6306 .0501 48 6.2664/408.2580 3/324 1.6577 .1760 21 6.3462/250.6508 31328 2.7682 .0418 49 9.2998/349.9220 3/325 2.8792 .0361 22 1.56861234.3825 3/323 .7206 .5403 50 10.3870/347.3880 3/325 3.2392 .0224 23 5.4432/314.0292 3/322 1.8604 .1361 51 9.0665/401.2953 3/324 2.4401 .0643 24 8.1245/272.6878 3/321 3.1880 .0240 52 15.0907/370.6044 3/324 4.3977 .0047 25 3.1964/361.2756 3/318 .9378 .4226 53 1.8443/381.2502 3/324 .5225 .6671 26 9.8608/229.5422 3/321 4.5966 0036 54 17.8892/426.5328 3/323 4.5156 .0040 27 9.3696/431.5047 3/322 2.3306 .0742 55 15.2880/506.7979 3/322 3.2378 .0224 28 15.1241/316.5967 3/322 5.1274 .0018 Note: The specification Significant at P < .05. of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228.31. 187 TABLE 4.62 CONCERNING THE DESIRED IMPORTANCE OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS ANOVA FOR DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONS OF ALL RESPONDENTS ACCORDING TO LEVELS OF EDUCATION Goal Sun of Square 0F F P Goal Sun of Square 0F F P No. (Between/within) No. (Between/within) 1 1.30141130.8134 31327 1.0844 .3558 29 1.08081220.7228 31322 .5256 .6650 2 1.16711153.7094 31328 .8302 .4780 30 6.63301181.9393 31321 3.9009 .0093 3 2.27291197.4998 31326 1.2506 .2914 31 3.02191244.2173 31322 1.3281 .2652 4 3.39051243.8656 31324 1.5015 .2140 32 1.84931196.4399 3/321 1.0073 .3897 5 1.19481146.4769 31328 .8918 .4456 33 1.62711209.5852 31321 .8307 .4778 6 3.67881364.7493 31323 1.0859 .3552 34 3.61151358.1680 31318 1.0688 .3625 7 19.11031377.6704 31329 5.5492 .0010 35 3.77411227.7909 31327 1.8059 .1459 8 1.54481281.3742 31329 .6021 .6141 36 3.32781369.6451 31327 .9813 .4017 9 4.19221255.6000 31328 1.7932 .1483 37 2.71731362.5478 31328 .8194 .4839 10 .96131231.9853 31329 .4552 .7183 38 1.1867/313.2648 31326 .4116 .7447 11 .2135/178.8195 31329 .1309 .9417 39 1.56381231.0089 31326 .7356 .5314 12 1.73351335.6726 31326 .5612 .6410 40 .23051188.6460 31328 .1336 .9400 13 15.16711391.0874 31326 4.2143 .0061 41 10.20501351.4059 31325 3.1461 .0253 14 3.28711247.5105 31327 1.4476 .2288 42 4.25941517.2894 31324 .8893 .4469 15 .1198/325.7357 31328 .0402 .9892 43 3.80881262.0393 31325 1.5746 .1954 16 5.96451251.4325 31326 2.5778 .0537 44 2.76271257.3251 31326 1.1667 .3225 17 3.25771274.6450 31325 1.2850 .2795 45 2.89821207.9783 31328 1.5236 .2082 18 5.70541323.1915 31326 1.9183 .1264 46 9.52261381.5226 31328 2.7289 .0440 19 1.74511345.4755 31327 .5506 .6481 47 .90251231.9477 31323 .4189 .7395 20 2.63031196.8487 31328 1.4609 .2251 48 2.19571355.4985 31323 .6650 .5741 21 1.12891197.3605 31327 .6235 .6002 49 2.9938/130.6373 31324 2.4750 .0615 22 1.46651222.3612 31321 .7057 .5492 50 7.10141231.7248 31324 3.3097 0204 23 .4210/188.8091 31322 .2393 .8202 51 4.95691349.8199 31323 1.5256 .2077 24 .8202/211.7354 31320 .4132 .7436 52 .97381248.5154 31321 .4193 .7393 25 4.56191297.2498 31320 1.6370 1.1807 53 7.07951291.9664 3/323 2.6106 .0515 26 3.80811208.6349 31321 1.9530 .1209 54 16.01531563.1871 31322 3.0522 .0287 27 .7506/267.1389 31322 .3016 .8242 55 10.14651587.8782 31320 1.8410 .1396 28 .65851173.5010 31322 .4074 .7478 Note: The specification of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. Significant at P < .05. 188 Hypothesis 17 (hypothesis tested for each existing goal) There are no significant differences among respondents with various years of service in the MOE regarding their perceptions of the existing importance of junior college goals. As shown in Table 4.63, Hypothesis 17 for Goals 18 and 19 was not retained. This means that only two out of 55 junior college goals were rated significantly differently in terms of their existing importance, as perceived by respondents with various years of service in the MOE. Hypothesis l8 (hypothesis tested for each desired goal) There are no significant differences among respondents with various years of service in the MOE regarding their perceptions of the desired importance of junior college goals. Hypothesis 18 was not retained for Coal l8 and 53. (See Table 4.64.) The desired importance of both goals was perceived significantly differently by respondents with various years of service in the MOE. Research Question 9: On which goals do significant differences exist among JCADS with various years of service as junior college administrators, years of service in their present positions, and years of service in business and industry, regarding their perceptions of the existing and desired importance of junior college goals? Hypothesis l9 (hypothesis tested for each existing goal) There are no significant differences among JCADS with various years of service as junior college administrators regarding their perceptions of the existing importance of junior college goals. As shown in Table 4.65, Hypotheses 19 was not retained for Goals 9, 16, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 35, 39, 40, 47, 49 and 53. Statistically significant differences did exist among JCADS with various years of service as junior college administrators regarding their perceptions of the existing importance of the above goals. 189 TABLE 4.63 ANOVA FOR DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONS OF ALL RESPONDENTS ACCORDING TO YEARS OF SERVICE IN THE MOE CONCERNING THE EXISTING IMPORTANCE OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS Goal Sun of Square 0F F P Goal Sun of Square 0F F P No. (Between/within) No. (Between/within) 1 2.51351264.2031 41309 .7349 .5687 29 1.26401307.4730 41303 .3114 .8703 2 4.36731367.0486 41310 1.2674 .2827 30 1.78991212.0380 41303 .6395 .6347 3 3.75801361.3538 41308 .8008 .5254 31 5.83261324.4791 41303 1.3616 .2472 4 3.18221281.8082 41308 .8695 .4825 32 8.54011323.9794 41303 1.9968 .0949 5 1.90501305.4156 41310 .4834 .7479 33 3.84841281.8529 41303 1.0343 .3897 6 9.10411375.8637 41305 1.8469 .1198 34 3.06001321.9795 41299 .7104 .5854 7 5.2791/346.4013 41311 1.1849 .3174 35 9.04011335.9185 41309 2.0789 .0834 8 1.30791299.7143 41311 .3393 .8514 36 .21481321.9961 41308 .0514 .9950 9 4.60061372.3709 41310 .9575 .4311 37 .24251370.3651 41311 .0509 .9951 10 4.70201296.6525 41311 1.2323 .2970 38 6.76761350.2037 41309 1.4928 .2042 11 3.6087/351.2267 41311 .7989 .5267 39 5.92571377.6172 41310 1.2161 .3039 12 1.0867/365.9101 41306 .2272 .9231 40 5.06761366.5621 41311 1.0749 .3690 13 3.23321337.3790 41307 .7355 .5683 41 3.46501280.4196 41307 .9484 .4362 14 2.4879/333.3720 41309 .5765 .6799 42 3.51401421.7039 41307 .6396 .6347 15 4.06891414.8513 41308 .7552 .5552 43 3.20171318.6840 41310 .7786 .5398 16 3.82691368.7884 41307 .7964 .5282 44 4.05461321.2066 41309 .9751 .4213 17 6.86661360.8129 41307 1.4606 .2141 45 1.81091316.3251 41311 .4451 .7759 18 15.04821356.8687 41308 3.2469 .0125 46 3.58111373.7014 41310 .7427 .5635 19 1.84371254.1563 41308 .5586 .6929 47 4.44171343.1081 41306 .9903 .4130 20 3.8272/325.9563 41309 .9070 .4601 48 4.91651376.0383 41305 .9969 .4094 21 4.21211238.2370 41309 1.3658 .2457 49 5.30071336.0690 41306 1.2066 .3080 22 3.46171216.0722 41304 1.2176 .3033 50 4.45111332.9444 41306 1.0227 .3957 23 2.41011302.5087 41303 .6035 .6604 51 6.73321371.9636 41305 1.3803 .2407 24 9.75661257.3965 41302 2.8618 .0237 52 8.92451358.2529 41305 1.8995 .1104 25 4.8533/344.0809 41299 1.0544 .3794 53 6.44251354.4962 41305 1.3665 .2455 26 2.40031227.3717 41302 .7970 .5279 54 4.60181413.1522 41304 .8465 .4966 27 2.21031410.5267 41303 .4078 .8083 55 4.88621474.6560 4/303 .7798 .5390 28 5.34821309.8726 41303 1.3074 .2672 Note: The specification of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. Significant at P < .05. 190 TABLE 4 . 64 ANOVA Fm DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONS OF ALL RESPCNIDENTS ACCIRDING TO YEARS OF SERVICE IN THE MOE CGICERNING THE DESIRED INTANCE OF JUNIm COLLEGE GOALS Goal Sun of Square 0F F P Goal Sun of Square 0F F P No. (Between/within) No. (Between/within) 1 1.38571120.0967 41308 .8885 .4711 29 1.89901209.0198 41303 .6882 .6006 2 1.68061148.6920 41309 .8731 .4803 30 .7457/179.5410 4/302 .3136 .8688 3 1.03901184.4482 41307 .4323 .7852 31 3.31391231.3192 41303 1.0852 .3639 4 .3331/233.4862 41305 .1088 .9794 32 1.61761184.7993 41302 .6609 6196 5 2.09731138.9983 41309 1.1656 .3260 33 1.13441192.9243 41302 .4439 .7768 6 7.79141324.8946 41304 1.8226 .1243 34 7.98691329.8519 41299 1.8100 .1268 7 3.3000/370.2428 41310 .6908 .5988 35 2.73961219.8750 41309 .9625 .4283 8 2.88291253.8663 41310 .8801 .4761 36 1.54741347.1946 41309 .3443 .8479 9 2.60281244.4322 41309 .8226 .5116 37 1.07201350.2105 41310 .2372 .9172 10 2.84371206.5721 41310 1.0669 .3730 38 6.20521290.0440 41308 1.6473 .1622 11 .44851168.8341 41310 .2059 .9351 39 2.12471220.0027 41309 .7460 .5613 12 2.47091314.9009 41307 .6022 .6613 40 3.25061175.7208 41310 1.4337 .2227 13 1.93371381.6528 41307 .3889 .8166 41 5.60741331.7644 41307 1.2972 .2711 14 3.41641234.7433 41308 1.1207 .3468 42 7.67131482.9268 41306 1.2152 .3043 15 2.35951307.6787 41309 .5924 .6684 43 6.02291247.1951 41307 1.8700 .1155 16 .7533/246.6185 41307 .2344 .9188 44 1.64361239.7238 41308 .5279 .7153 17 1.84571262.9973 41307 .5386 .7075 45 1.99821197.6653 41310 .7835 .5366 18 10.5936/296.2494 41307 2.7445 .0286 46 6.17321373.6237 41310 1.2805 .2775 19 2.45971319.7128 41308 .5924 .6684 47 1.02431213.7136 41304 .3642 .8340 20 1.15081173.7951 4/309 .5115 .7273 48 1.98171323.3387 41304 .4658 .7608 21 .9743/186.5657 41308 .4021 .8071 49 .98181124.0536 41305 .6035 .6604 22 2.20751212.5873 41302 .7840 .5363 50 3.86161222.7222 41305 1.3221 .2616 23 .2568/179.2627 41303 .1085 .9795 51 6.13501323.4831 41304 1.4414 .2202 24 2.04351203.5807 41301 .7554 .5551 52 4.48281232.6964 41302 1.4545 .2161 25 7.23051283.0048 41301 1.9226 .1066 53 10.3898/271.9015 41304 2.9041 .0221 26 1.09181203.1427 41302 .4058 .8045 54 11.24521536.4529 41303 1.5879 .1774 27 5.29611250.4962 41303 1.6015 .1738 55 2.66981565.8302 41301 .3551 .8404 28 .4568/167.0074 4/303 .2072 .9343 Note: The specification Significant at P < .05. of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. 191 TABLE 4.65 ANOVA FOR DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONS OF JCADS ACCORDING TO YEARS OF SERVICE AS JUNIOR COLLEGE ADMINISTRATORS CONCERNING THE EXISTING IMPORTANCE OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS Goal Sun of Square 0F F P Goal Sun of Square 0F F P No. (Between/within) No. (Betweenlflithin) 1 5.42921269.4010 31314 2.1093 .0990 29 7.44601314.6690 31309 2.4373 .0647 2 3.83721267.6361 31315 1.5054 .2131 30 5.53941214.9910 31309 2.6539 .0487 3 5.3321/376.9266 31313 1.4759 .2210 31 9.35711328.1573 31309 2.9370 .0335 4 3.45751296.8453 31313 1.2152 .3042 32 11.0541/330.9970 31309 3.4398 .0172 5 4.80511298.6494 31315 1.6894 .1692 33 3.76301283.0102 31309 1.3695 .2521 6 .5904/413.9478 31310 .1474 .9313 34 .4139/326.0327 31305 .1291 .9428 7 3.68711351.1129 31316 1.1061 .3468 35 17.6299/318.6855 31313 5.7718 .0007 8 5.92001308.2800 31316 2.0227 .1106 36 .8652/336.0841 3/312 .2677 .8486 9 11.25371372.2133 31315 3.1746 .0244 37 5.28251370.8868 31315 1.4955 .2157 10 1.42211304.1248 31316 .4925 .6877 38 2.62071358.3004 31313 .7631 .5155 11 2.06461351.9229 31316 .6180 .6038 39 10.03231367.9803 31313 2.8445 .0379 12 5.39071374.5585 31311 1.4920 .2167 40 15.40481368.4824 31315 4.3896 .0048 13 2.34101356.7065 31312 .6825 .5633 41 1.16111298.8262 31311 .4028 .7511 14 8.07451337.3374 31314 2.5053 .0591 42 5.94021423.2845 31312 1.4595 .2256 15 8.59311415.4069 31313 2.1582 .0929 43 4.00041323.1595 31315 1.2998 .2745 16 10.5275/370.0801 31312 2.9585 .0326 44 3.74791325.9492 31313 1.1997 .3100 17 7.38981358.2146 31312 2.1455 .0945 4S 7.49991317.5221 31315 2.4801 .0611 18 7.55431377.7139 31313 2.0867 .1019 46 1.55741366.3955 31314 .4449 .7211 19 2.86261268.1342 31313 1.1139 .3436 47 13.1321/342.1507 31311 3.9788 .0084 20 5.51141341.1836 31314 1.6908 .1689 48 4.78641397.5352 31310 1.2442 .2938 21 5.67921241.8208 31314 2.4581 .0629 49 8.98991336.6101 31311 2.7686 .0419 22 1.41431221.5061 31310 .6598 .5774 50 2.99231343.1791 3/311 .9039 .4395 23 1.93461310.2187 31309 .6423 .5883 51 4.10671393.7659 31310 1.0777 .3587 24 6.19701261.1877 31308 2.4359 .0648 52 5.60281262.0819 3/310 1.5990 .1896 25 3.26771349.6902 3/305 .9500 .4167 53 9.30531358.7488 31310 2.6803 .0470 26 6.6925/223.6120 31308 3.0727 .0280 54 4.00451419.4524 31309 .9833 .4008 27 11.4119/416.6456 31309 2.8212 .0391 55 12.65351495.4202 31308 2.6222 0508 28 12.09821303.8827 31309 4.1006 .0071 Note: The specification of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. Significant at P < .05. 192 Hypothesis 20 (hypothesis tested for each desired goal) There are no significant differences among JCADS with various years of service as junior college administrators regarding their perceptions of the desired importance of the above goals. Hypothesis 20 was not retained for Goals 6, 10, ll, 13, 23, 44, 45, and 53. (See Table 4.66.) In other words, JCADS with various years of service as junior college administrators differed significantly in their perceptions of the desired importance of the above goals. Hypothesis 21 (hypothesis tested for each existing goal) There are no significant differences among JCADS with various years of service in their present positions at junior colleges regarding their perceptions of the existing importance of junior college goals. As shown in Table 4.67, Hypothesis 20 was not retained for Goals 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 24, 26, 30, 31, 35, 40, 42, 43, 45, 48, 49, and 55. This indicates that differences among JCADS with various years of service in their present positions at junior colleges did exist in their perceptions of the existing importance of the above goals. Hypothesis 22 (hypothesis tested for each desired goal) There are no significant differences among JCADS with various years of service in their present positions at junior colleges regarding their perceptions of the desired importance of junior college goals. Table 4.68 shows that Hypothesis 22 was not retained for Goals 7, 10, 12, 13, 19, 21, 23, and 47. That is, JCADS with various years of service in their present positions had significantly different perceptions of the desired importance of the above goals. 193 TABLE 4.66 ANOVA FOR DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONS OF JCADS ACCORDING TO YEARS OF SERVICE AS JUNIOR COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR CONCERNING THE DESIRED IMPORTANCE OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS Goal Sun of Square 0F F P Goal Sun of Square 0F F P No. (Between/within) No. (Between/within) 1 1.13411126.5409 31313 .1106 .9539 29 .8960/210.0242 31309 .4394 .7250 2 3.42921144.2186 31314 2.4887 .0604 30 1.86161183.4428 31308 1.0419 .3742 3 .17031191.0070 31312 .0927 .9640 31 2.46301237.8501 31309 1.0666 .3635 4 1.26731240.2645 31310 .5451 .6518 32 1.89211187.3259 31308 1.0370 .3764 5 1.65061137.0444 31314 1.2606 .2880 33 3.25491195.0239 31308 1.9135 .1642 6 11.0163/343.6546 31309 3.3018 .0207 34 1.50931348.3807 31305 .4405 .7242 7 7.54771369.8881 31315 2.1426 .0948 35 1.55841217.1860 31313 .7487 .5238 8 3.63831276.3115 31315 1.3826 .2481 36 4.59441355.4056 31313 1.3487 .2586 9 4.28391249.5148 31314 1.7970 .1476 37 4.49361346.7139 31314 1.3565 .2561 10 6.77491212.0841 31315 3.3541 .0193 38 1.44031299.4047 31312 .5003 .6824 11 8.06001165.2002 31315 5.1229 .0018 39 1.90371216.8906 3/312 .9128 .4350 12 2.16761319.5128 31312 .7056 .5493 40 1.08781178.7770 31314 .6368 .5918 13 11.81251384.8806 31312 3.1919 .0239 41 1.48481347.2009 31311 .4433 .7222 14 .7156/243.9847 31313 .3060 .8211 42 .6518/510.2689 31311 .1324 .9407 15 4.42731311.0224 31314 1.4899 .2172 43 2.87341245.8956 31312 1.2153 .3042 16 .40041242.7230 31312 .1716 .9156 44 7.90801240.0762 31312 3.4257 .0175 17 .7290/255.6710 31311 .2956 .8286 45 .4110/197.5136 31314 .2178 .8840 18 2.39161309.2160 31312 .8044 .4922 46 2.54741368.9023 31314 .7228 .5390 19 7.78031331.5762 31313 2.4481 .0637 47 1.77961222.1054 31309 .8253 .4807 20 1.32091188.7074 31314 .7326 .5332 48 6.19051343.3239 31309 1.8572 .1368 21 1.74341188.8749 31313 .9630 .4104 49 .3516/127.8907 31310 .2841 .8369 22 3.10301215.0508 31308 1.4814 .2196 50 2.53441222.1057 31310 1.1791 .3178 23 4.53571177.2534 31309 2.6357 .0499 51 1.26991341.1008 31309 .3834 .7650 24 3.60921200.9588 31307 1.8379 .1402 52 1.24361224.7243 31307 .5663 .6376 25 1.45751288.8705 31307 .5163 .6713 53 17.84901262.0934 31309 7.0145 .0001 26 2.11331201.7329 31308 1.0755 .3597 54 4.70841546.4711 31308 .8846 .4494 27 1.11521251.6261 31309 .4565 .7129 55 13.63511564.1197 31306 2.4654 .0624 28 .7949/132.6748 31309 .5033 .6803 Note: The specification of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. Significant at P < .05. 194 TABLE 4.67 ANOVA Fm DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIGIS OF JCADS ACCMDING TO YEARS OF SERVICE IN PRESENT POSITIOIS CGICERNING THE EXISTING INTANCE OF JUNIN COLLEGE GOALS Goal Sun of Square 0F F P Goal Sun of Separe 0F F P No. (Between/Hithin) No. (Between/within) 1 3.82471270.2861 31312 1.4716 .2222 29 6.81171306.9182 31307 2.2712 .0803 2 3.37801268.0668 31313 1.3147 .2696 30 5.83541213.3607 31307 2.7988 .0403 3 4.57381373.8262 31311 1.2684 .2853 31 8.70601326.7603 31307 2.7265 .0443 4 1.6342/298.0483 31311 .5684 .6362 32 8.16111328.2055 31307 2.5446 .0562 5 3.43641298.6709 31313 1.2004 .3097 33 3.70881278.1111 31307 1.3647 .2536 6 2.45371410.1617 31308 .6142 .6063 34 2.40911322.5681 31303 .7543 .5206 7 4.93711348.5125 31314 1.4827 .2192 35 17.87921306.8065 31311 6.0412 .0005 8 9.13381302.4008 31314 3.1614 .0249 36 5.73771326.6062 31310 1.8153 .1443 9 5.93651376.9405 31313 1.6432 .1794 37 4.22931369.8780 31313 1.1930 .3125 10 6.85111295.9320 31314 2.42311 .0659 38 3.56721353.2772 31311 1.0468 .3721 11 6.23161347.1804 31314 1.8787 .1331 39 7.22221370.1936 31311 2.0225 .1107 12 6.48291372.4373 31309 1.7928 .1485 40 9.53011371.3469 31313 2.6776 .0472 13 3.42601254.9689 31310 .9973 .3943 41 5.72821293.7543 31309 2.0085 .1127 14 16.48651325.9533 31312 5.2603 .0015 42 13.4276/414.3303 31310 3.3488 .0194 15 11.13931408.8480 31311 2.8245 .0389 43 10.13471312.5467 31313 3.3831 .0185 16 13.60121366.9339 31310 3.8303 .0102 44 6.70361322.9599 31311 2.1518 .0937 17 11.69791352.7607 31310 3.4266 .0175 45 17.67561306.4064 31313 6.0186 .0005 18 13.2762/370.8952 31311 3.7108 .0120 46 5.00131362.4164 31312 1.4352 .2325 19 6.12311263.8642 31311 2.4056 .0674 47 6.48671348.2481 31309 1.9186 .1256 20 8.25231337.9375 31312 2.5396 .0566 48 22.35461379.1326 31308 6.0535 .0005 21 11.37741235.6226 31312 5.0218 .0021 49 13.02031328.8264 31309 4.0784 .0073 22 4.05241217.8923 31308 1.9113 .1277 50 4.95831338.8692 31309 1.5071 .2127 23 5.71061303.9743 31307 1.9225 .1259 51 5.71011387.6617 31308 1.5122 .2113 24 8.10601259.1714 31306 3.1902 .0240 52 6.04691354.9147 31308 1.7492 .1569 25 4.20471347.27741 31303 1.2229 .3015 53 3.05461358.8941 31308 .8738 .4549 26 8.96171220.7932 31306 4.1400 .0067 54 1.07561419.1431 31307 .2626 .8523 27 7.32301415.6094 31307 1.8031 .1466 55 18.59331487.6777 31306 3.8889 .0094 28 7.05251304.9153 31307 2.3669 .0709 Note: The specification of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. Significant at P < .05. 195 TABLE 4.68 ANOVA FOR DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONS OF JCADS ACCORDING TO YEARS OF SERVICE IN PRESENT POSITIONS CONCERNING THE DESIRED IMPORTANCE OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS Goal Sum of Square 0F F P Goal Sun of Square 0F F P No. (Between/within) No. (Betweenvuithin) 1 2.00181124.1296 31311 1.6713 .1731 29 1.80211205.0404 3/307 .8994 .4418 2 1.38761145.9542 31312 .9887 .3983 30 1.30611181.8423 31306 .7326 .5332 3 1.66911188.9965 31310 .9126 .4351 31 .65601235.1704 31307 .2854 .8359 4 .4408/241.0688 31308 .1877 .9047 32 .1984/182.4287 31306 1.0950 .3515 5 .37051137.8193 31312 .2796 .8401 33 1.63691192.4309 31306 .8676 .4582 6 4.68031348.7988 31307 1.3731 .2510 34 3.33281345.3317 31303 .9748 .4049 7 13.3224/363.4852 31313 3.8240 .0103 35 4.13141210.4845 31311 2.0348 .1090 8 1.44681278.4270 31313 .5422 .6538 36 2.64301355.3443 31311 .7711 .5109 9 .2983/251.3093 31312 .1234 .9462 37 1.71111348.9819 31312 .5099 .6757 10 9.38241210.7565 31313 3.6546 .0129 38 2.37631295.9199 31310 .8298 .4783 11 2.66331170.3399 31313 1.6313 .1821 39 1.28111215.9928 31310 .6129 .6071 12 8.06011310.5514 31310 2.6819 .0469 40 1.54611176.0077 31312 .9136 .4346 13 11.5398/385.1386 31310 3.0961 .0272 41 7.82471340.8462 31309 2.3645 .0711 14 2.92911240.9249 31311 1.2603 .2881 42 5.73591500.8903 31309 1.1795 .3177 15 1.87831313.5236 31312 .6231 .6005 43 3.74271244.1458 31310 1.5840 1.1932 16 1.64131239.8906 31310 .7070 .5485 44 3.63671243.7773 31310 1.5416 .2037 17 4.22141250.8904 31309 1.7330 .1602 45 2.58341195.3153 31312 1.3756 .2502 18 2.0227/306.1302 31310 .6827 .5632 46 4.02691366.6819 31312 1.1421 .3322 19 8.77631330.0682 31311 2.7564 .0425 47 6.80961217.0747 31307 3.2102 .0234 20 4.09991184.3938 31312 2.3124 .0761 48 9.4610/339.5229 31307 2.8516 .0375 21 5.91551183.6274 31311 3.3396 .0196 49 .2465/125.3656 31308 .2019 .8950 22 4.46771211.4710 31306 2.1549 .0934 50 2.04121220.0838 31308 .9522 .4157 23 8.65061171.0407 31307 5.1756 .0017 51 1.41231337.4366 31307 .4283 .7329 24 .4997/203.4032 31305 .2498 .8615 52 .3053/220.9051 3/305 .1405 .9357 25 1.46791288.0919 3/305 .5180 .6702 53 5.76401267.2907 31307 2.2068 .0873 26 3.44621199.6022 31306 1.7611 .1546 54 1.53471545.8363 31306 .2868 .8349 27 3.56821249.1713 31307 1.4654 .2240 55 9.99571567.0011 31304 1.7864 .1497 28 2.97021160.1680 31307 1.8977 .1299 Note: The specification Significant at P < .05. of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. 196 Hypothesis 23 (hypothesis tested for each existing goal) There are no significant differences among JCADS with various years of service in business and industry regarding their perceptions of the existing importance of junior college goals. As shown in Table 4.69, Hypothesis 23 was not retained for Goals 8, 14, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 31, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 50, 52 and 55. In other words, various years of service in business and industry affected JCADS' perceptions of the existing importance of the above goals. Hypothesis 24 (hypothesis tested for each desired goal) There are no significant differences among JCADS with various years of service in business and industry regarding their perceptions of the desired importance of junior college goals. Examination of Table 4.70 reveals that Hypothesis 24 was not retained for Goals 7, 12, 14, 37, and 53. In other words, JCADS with various years of service in business and industry had significantly different perceptions of the desired importance of the above goals. sults 0 nt iew Interviews were conducted only with the Deputy Minister of Education, the Director of the Department of Vocational and Technological Education, and Inspectors. The questions were focused on the following general topics: 1. The concept of United States junior and community college education. 2. The possibility of change in the junior college educational system in the ROC (Taiwan). 3. Their attitudes toward private junior colleges. To keep the interviewees' response confidential, the 197 TABLE 4.69 WA roe DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIOIS OF JCADS ACCCRDING TO YEARS OF SERVICE IN HJSINESS AD INDUSTRY COICERNING THE EXISTING IMPORTANCE OF JUNIm CQLEGE GOALS Goal SD of Squre DF F P Goal St. of Sqaare DF F P No. (Between/within) No. (Between/within) 1 6.22051263.0840 41307 1.8147 .1258 29 6.46011306.2240 41302 1.5927 .1761 2 7.43291254.4265 41308 2.2495 .0637 30 4.79431214.8995 41302 1.6844 .1535 3 9.23691363.5927 41306 1.9434 .1031 31 10.67331321.2485 41302 2.5084 .0421 4 .1831/287.7204 41306 .0487 .9955 32 14.45841323.9716 41302 3.3695 .0102 5 5.47411293.2097 41308 1.4375 .2214 33 1.54581276.7409 41302 .4217 .7929 6 5.70141394.4285 41303 1.0950 .3591 34 4.30561320.0113 41298 1.0024 .4065 7 7.79171344.7592 41309 1.7489 .1397 35 10.0617/317.2567 41306 2.4262 .0480 8 10.6287/301.5497 41309 2.7228 .0297 36 .3013/327.0406 41305 .0702 .9910 9 7.16331371.7952 41308 1.4835 .2070 37 15.92621352.0546 41308 3.4833 .0084 10 1.12481294.8879 41309 .2947 .8813 38 18.29161343.5026 41306 4.0736 .0031 11 5.28011344.1339 41309 1.1853 .3172 39 19.4953/355.1671 41306 4.1991 .0025 12 6.59031368.3806 41304 1.3596 .2479 40 16.3837/356.1594 41308 3.5421 .0076 13 3.13581351.6029 41305 .6800 .6062 41 4.08211284.4875 41304 1.0905 .3613 14 11.4191/328.2604 41307 2.6699 .0324 42 2.96181419.8253 41305 .5379 .7080 15 4.06361406.9332 41306 .7639 .5494 43 5.06051312.3260 41308 1.2476 .2908 16 6.36491364.7835 41305 1.3304 .2585 44 6.73971315.5883 41306 1.6337 .1656 17 9.36011349.3496 41305 2.0430 .0883 45 9.44291314.3271 41308 2.3132 .0576 18 4.24691369.1743 41306 .8800 .4761 46 11.2038/364.3058 41307 2.3604 .0534 19 .2714/264.6482 41306 .0785 .9888 47 2.36451346.9559 41304 .5179 .7226 20 5.87301325.7392 41307 1.3838 .2394 48 .3224/390.6483 41303 .0625 .9928 21 8.33151231.6557 41307 2.7603 .0279 49 8.32661335.2462 41304 1.8876 .1125 22 7.96391212.8770 41303 2.8339 .0248 50 12.32741328.3328 41304 2.8535 .0240 23 9.56121299.0056 41302 2.4142 .0490 51 10.61721372.8470 41303 2.1571 .0783 24 6.70781259.3968 41301 1.9459 .1028 52 11.13661350.8114 41303 2.4047 .0497 25 3.90511338.8144 41298 .8587 .4892 53 10.27741352.8005 41303 2.2067 .0682 26 5.86851220.4616 41301 2.0031 .0940 54 .56451421.7808 41302 .1010 .9820 27 13.22391397.7924 41302 2.5099 .0420 55 15.66591483.0693 41301 2.4404 .0470 28 13.96731296.5604 41302 3.5559 .0075 Note: The specification Significant at P < .05. of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. 198 TABLE 4.70 ANOVA FOR DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONS OF JCADS ACCORDING TO YEARS OF SERVICE IN BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY CONCERNING THE DESIRED IMPORTANCE OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS Goal Sun of Sqnare 0F F P Goal SL. of Scyare 0F F P No. (Between/within) No. (Between/within) 1 1.07401122.0900 41306 .6730 .6112 29 2.64751204.2711 41302 .9785 .4195 2 1.80621144.2675 41307 .9609 .4292 30 2.74651181.0052 41301 1.1418 .3369 3 .7711/188.1999 41305 .3124 .8696 31 2.01841234.2422 41302 .6506 .6269 4 1.8244/236.0554 41303 .5855 .6734 32 1.30961182.1283 41301 .5411 .7057 5 .79341136.2803 41307 .4468 .7747 33 3.25551194.8000 41301 1.2576 .2868 6 3.57481332.6858 41302 3.8113 .5187 34 6.28151339.1310 4/298 1.3799 .2408 7 12.37041359.6871 41308 2.6482 .0335 35 3.64161212.1527 41306 1.3131 .2650 8 1.98511270.0979 41308 .5659 .6876 36 2.3822/351.6178 41306 .5183 .7224 9 3.23911247.6327 41317 1.0039 .4057 37 13.0834/328.9134 41307 3.0529 .0172 10 5.28891199.4012 41308 2.0423 .0884 38 4.56881292.7248 41305 1.1901 .3151 11 2.16451166.3147 41308 1.0021 .4066 39 3.75411210.7652 41305 1.3582 .2484 12 14.01811302.5755 41305 3.5326 .0078 40 4.81661171.4783 41307 2.1558 .0739 13 .7774/391.8710 41305 .1513 .9623 41 4.64641333.1659 41304 1.0599 .3765 14 7.85471235.9717 41306 2.5464 .0396 42 1.40121499.1683 41304 .2133 .9309 15 7.97451305.3300 41307 2.0045 .0938 43 3.98291244.7945 41305 1.2406 .2937 16 2.14521236.9032 41305 .6905 .5990 44 1.28091243.6759 41305 .5698 .6848 17 .7555/251.3998 41304 .2284 .9224 45 2.99821192.3736 41307 1.1962 .3125 18 3.32931295.6900 41305 .8585 .4892 46 2.28571373.0476 41307 .4703 .7576 19 7.48201324.4923 41306 1.7639 .1360 47 6.56351214.2769 41302 2.3126 .0577 20 4.43671169.4831 41307 2.0092 .0931 48 8.10631337.3009 41302 1.8145 .1259 21 1.64661187.8904 41306 .6704 .6129 49 .32181126.4704 41303 .1928 .9421 22 5.18171209.1091 41301 1.8647 .1166 50 2.60811219.1841 41303 .9013 .4634 23 2.80971175.8483 41302 1.2063 .3081 51 4.84161329.0672 41302 1.1108 .3515 24 2.43841200.3616 41300 .9128 .4568 52 13.73801208.0522 41300 4.9524 .0007 25 3.74951281.1882 41300 1.0001 .4078 S3 21.3282/251.6490 41302 6.3989 .0001 26 2.1554/199.6093 41301 .8125 .5179 S4 6.59591532.5969 4/301 .9319 .4456 27 6.7455/238.7855 41302 2.1328 .0767 55 15.23881556.4948 41299 2.0469 .0878 28 4.88241155.4042 41302 2.3720 .0524 Note: The specification of junior college goals is in Appendix A, pp. 228-31. Significant at P < .05. 199 researcher could not document interviewees' responses individually. Instead, he synthesized their opinions as follows: 1. Interviewees believed that the concept of the United States junior and community college education cannot be completely applied in the ROC (Taiwan) because there are cultural, economic, and social differences between the two countries. 2. The junior college educational system was established to meet the needs of skilled manpower for national economic development and to reduce the rigorous competition for entering universities. Those two main purposes have been achieved. Although the current junior college educational system has many shortcomings, it would be very difficult to make a big change based on the consideration of these results. Nonetheless, the MOE will continue to attempt to eliminate shortcomings and to enhance the quality of junior college education to meet the needs of business and industry by means of the national evaluation conducted by the MOE every three years and yearly inspectors' supervision. 3. Although many private junior colleges have been poorly handled and people have complained about the quality of their education, those junior colleges have contributed much to the development of society, economy, and education. In the past two decades, the MOE has adopted many measures, on the one hand, to encourage and subsidize those private junior colleges that are well handled and, on the other hand, to penalize those that are poorly handled. As a result, private junior colleges have made much progress. The MOE will continue to watch private junior colleges. Former Deputy Minister of Education Deng, whom the researcher 200 interviewed, stated that: 1. The policy to establish a junior college educational system has been accomplished. Junior colleges have reduced the number of students who would have taken the Joint United Entrance Examination of universities if junior colleges had not been established. The National Ten Economic Construction Projects in 19605 and 19705 could not have been achieved if as many junior college graduates had not participated in them. 2. Concerning private junior colleges, they should not be blamed so harshly without understanding the facts. If there had not been many private persons, business and industry to establish junior colleges, especially when the government lacked the necessary financial resources to do so, junior college education would not have prospered as it has. From Deng's view point, it was not a mistake to permit the establishment of so many private junior colleges in the 19603. Today, economic, social, and educational conditions have changed, and the quality of private junior college education, without doubt, should be enhanced at full speed. 3. The concept of a junior college educational system was learned from West Germany and the United States. It is anticipated that the concept of the United States community college education system can be accepted and adopted in the ROC (Taiwan) in the future. G Co ents ovided b es 0 de ts After they had rated the importance of all goals listed in the questionnaire, respondents were asked to add any goals that were not listed in the questionnaire and their comments about the 201 questionnaire. Translated into English, additional goals and comments are as follows: £911.; 1. Cultivate students' second-foreign-language ability. 2. Build bridges between students' parents and the school. 3. Adopt audio-visual and computer-assisted instruction. 4. Provide individuals who teach natural sciences and engineering technology an opportunity to work in business and industry. 5. Equip those who teach natural sciences and engineering technology with knowledge of computer applications. 6. Establish a professional-development system (nondegree) to cultivate administrators' management abilities and faculty members' teaching abilities. 7. Enhance traditional culture and moral principles. 8. Strengthen education that can change students' temperament. 9. Strengthen the linkage between academic associations and the institution; for example, the linkage between medical associations and the medical technical junior college. 10. Establish a modern apprentice training system. 11. Establish an academic adviser system. 12. Provide short-term intensive training to meet special local needs. Comments 1. Because there are significant differences between education in America and in the ROC (Taiwan), American education can only be used as a reference and not as a principle when 10. 202 junior college education in the ROC (Taiwan) is reformed. . The goals listed in the questionnaire are very practical and are critical to the development of junior college education. If all the goals can be applied, the junior college education will make a great contribution to restructuring the economy of the ROC (Taiwan). . Goal 42 includes two subgoals whose importances not easy to circle, but the questionnaire is significant. I hope, the Ministry of Education will use the results of this research as a reference when junior college education policy is made. . The content in the questionnaire is detailed and accurate and the discussion is wide. Believe it will be excellent research. . Some questions are too Americanized. It would be better to request respondents to answer part two of the questionnaire on an institutional basis. . The questionnaire is designed thoughtfully and the goals listed are farsighted. It would be better to develop different questionnaires according to different categories of junior colleges (engineering, commercial, agricultural, etc.). The results of the research would benefit institutions individually. It is an excellent questionnaire, and the goals listed are and should be the goals of junior colleges. Seldom are the goals designed to influence policy making of the Ministry of Education regarding junior college 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. l7. 18. 203 education. The questionnaire was skillfully designed, but some questions could be asked more directly. Because most questions are positive, the responses will be definite. The standard deviation of the response will be high because junior colleges are categorized and located differently. Perceptions of the importance of the goals should not be rated numerically. I hope the results of the research have some influence on the improvement of current junior college education. The goals listed in the questionnaire are brief and clear, and they match the needs of junior college education. The importance of some of the goals is hard to weigh. This may have some influence on the reliability and validity of the questionnaire. It would be better to provide some space after each goal in the questionnaire for the respondents to explain why they rated the goals at a certain level of importance. CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter contains a summary of the study, findings and conclusions that synthesize the results of the data analysis, discussion of some fundamental or philosophical concepts, recommendations to the MOE and junior college administrators, and recommendations for further research. a th t d During the last two decades, junior colleges in the ROC (Taiwan) have been recognized as one of the educational segments that has contributed a great deal to training skilled manpower to meet the demand for economic and social development. However, compared to other educational entities such as four-year colleges and universities, junior colleges have been the most seriously criticized by society. The ROC (Taiwan) has undertaken to change its economy from labor-intensive industrial to capital- and skill-intensive industrial. To cope with this economic change, the government has concentrated on the development of vocational and technical education. The ratio between enrollment in general senior high schools and that of 204 205 vocational senior high schools together with enrollment in five-year junior colleges, determined by the MOE in the early 1970s, was 4:6 and then became 3:7. In other words, for every ten students at the secondary level, seven are studying at either vocational senior high schools or five-year junior colleges. Meanwhile, the government has encouraged private business and industry to establish two-year junior colleges exclusively for graduates of vocational high schools. In addition, the government opened the National Taiwan Institute of Technology, which recruits only students who have graduated from junior colleges. Thus, an integrated system for vocational and technical education was established. Students who are interested in vocational education can start their vocational and technical education at the secondary level and continue to the postsecondary level. Because of the rapid increase in the number of private junior colleges, many of which lack sufficient funding, the quality of junior college education has been declining. Also, the rate of economic transition has not kept pace with the rapid growth of junior college education. Therefore, an imbalance in the supply and demand for skilled manpower has occurred; i.e., the supply has exceeded the demand. During the past decade, junior college graduates have been experiencing difficulty in finding jobs, and this situation may continue. Nonetheless, because of severe competition to enter universities, almost every year there has been an increase in the 206 number of junior high school graduates taking the joint entrance examination for five-year junior colleges and the number of vocational high school graduates taking the joint entrance examination for two- year junior colleges. This continuing growth in the number of potential entrants has forced the MOE to approve an increase in junior college enrollments. However, this increase still cannot satisfy the desire of secondary school graduates for more opportunities to pursue postsecondary education. Now, the dilemma is whether junior college enrollment should be curtailed to balance the supply and demand for skilled manpower, or whether it should be increased to satisfy people by providing them more opportunities to become "college students." Living in the knowledge/information explosion era and in a severely competitive world, people must update their knowledge during their entire work life. Lifelong education is much more important today than ever before. The government has an obligation to provide institutions for education and training to satisfy people's desire for knowledge and skill training (Chiou, 1983). United States junior and community colleges have been developing their images for nearly a century (the first junior college was established in 1902). They have been enthusiastic and innovative in their thinking and have been responsive to the needs of the communities and the people they serve. Their educational and training goals are continually defined, and new approaches are adopted to meet the needs of their constituents. Meanwhile, innovations in junior college education in the ROC 207 (Taiwan) are just in the planning stages. Redefining goals is the first priority before any innovation can be planned. Might not the experiences of other advanced industrial countries regarding the development of postsecondary education be used as a reference point? Although cultural and ideological differences among countries still exist, global communication through high technology has brought people together and made the world smaller. Learning from each other takes place constantly. In this study, as part of learning from others, the researcher intended to introduce the philosophy and goals of American community college education to the ROC (Taiwan) by investigating the attitudes of the MOE officials and top junior college administrators (presidents, deans, and chairpersons). Because education in the ROC (Taiwan) is centralized, the attitudes of the MOE officials are critical to any change in education. And since junior college presidents, deans, and chairpersons play a key role in policy formulation and decision making for their respective institutions and greatly influence the government's policy concerning junior college education, their attitudes toward goals of junior college education should be respected. Goals of junior college education in the ROC (Taiwan) were defined by the MOE, passed by the legislature, and written in Junior College Law nearly four decades ago. According to the Education System Reforming Commission organized by the MOE, there is a need to redefine junior college goals to meet the needs of education, society, and the economy. It is hoped this research will provide useful 208 information for that redefinition. The primary purpose of this study was, to identify the present and future importance of possible junior college goals for the ROC (Taiwan) by investigating the perceptions of MOE officials and top junior college administrators (JCADS). A secondary purpose was to clarify differences between perceptions of the MOE and JCADS, among perceptions of presidents, deans, and chairpersons, between perceptions of public JCADS and private JCADS, among JCADS at junior colleges with different program durations, and between perceptions of JCADS at junior college with and those without evening schools. In addition, the researcher was also concerned with whether selected variables (age, level of education, years of service at junior colleges, and years of service in the MOE) influenced the perceptions of all respondents and whether other variables (years of service as administrators, years of service in their present positions, and years of service in business and industry) influenced the perceptions of JCAD respondents regarding the existing and desired importance of junior college goals. The study population included two groups of people. One group was MOE officials (N - 9), and the other was junior college administrators--presidents, deans, and chairpersons (N - 513). The total population comprised 522 individuals. Because the population size was manageable, a sampling process was not used. Data were collected in the ROC (Taiwan). Questionnaires were mailed to junior college presidents, who then distributed them. The researcher personally delivered the questionnaire to MOE officials. 209 In addition, he conducted supplementary interviews with MOE officials. The survey instrument consisted of two parts. The first part contained 12 demographic questions. In the second part were listed 55 goal statements, 39 of which were selected from the Community College Goals Inventory developed by Educational Testing Service in 1979. The other 16 goal statements were developed by the researcher with the advice of scholars and colleagues in the ROC (Taiwan), as well as his dissertation advisers. Respondents were asked to rate the importance of goals in two dimensions: existing and desired. Respondents were to rate the importance of each goal using the following scale: 1 - of no importance, 2 - of low importance, 3 - of medium importance, 4 - of high importance, and 5 - of extremely high importance. The researcher then rank ordered the goals, based on their means. Discrepancies between the existing and desired importance of goals were also considered. Chi-square, t-test, analysis of variance, and Scheffe post hoc comparison were used to determine whether differences existed between paired or pooled subgroups regarding their perceptions of the existing and desired importance of junior college goals. The level of significance was set at .05. Existing and desired importance of goals as perceived by the total group and subgroups, differences between the two dimensions of importance, comparisons of rank orders of goals, and the influence of selected variables on respondents' perceptions regarding the .existing and desired importance of goals were all investigated. 210 31.211112: All respondents rated more than two-thirds of the existing goals and nearly four-fifths of the desired goals as being of above medium importance (the mean > 2.499). Except for the goal "to offer comprehensive programs,” which the MOE rated of no importance (the mean < 1.5) for the present and of low importance (1.499 < the mean < 2.5) for the future, no other goals were rated by any other groups to be of no importance for both the present and the future. Moreover, few desired goals were rated as being of low importance. These results indicate that both the MOE and top junior college administrators already have new visions of junior college goals. The question is how to put these goals into practice. An overall comparison of the existing and desired importance of goals shows that the total group or subgroups rated the importance of most goals much higher for the future than for the present. Nearly all discrepancies between existing and desired importance, according to the total group and subgroups except the MOE and administrators at three-year junior colleges, were statistically significant at the .05 level. These discrepancies indicated that respondents wanted the goals listed in the questionnaire to receive more attention. The fact that respondents evidenced more concern for the future importance of goals may be consistent with human nature's desire to improve the status quo (Beltran, 1974) Or perhaps, this greater concern for the future was related to the note in the questionnaire in which the researcher suggested to respondents that ”in giving 'desired response, don't be restrained by your beliefs about whether the goal can be ever be realistically attained on your campus." 211 Findings showed a high degree of consensus between MOE and JCADS, PuJCADS and PrJCADS, and Administrators at junior colleges with evening schools and those at junior colleges without evening schools regarding their perceptions of the present and future importance of junior college goals. Some disagreement existed among presidents, deans, and chairpersons regarding their perceptions of the present and future importance of goals, as tested by analysis of variance. These groups differed significantly in their perceptions of 20 existing goals and 11 desired goals. However, differences between groups in their perceptions of the existing importance of goals, after being further tested with Scheffe post hoc, were found only for Goals 7, 9, 16, 18, 22, 26, 27, 28, 30, 32, 35, and 39; and regarding the desired importance of goals, only for Goals 7, 14, 23, 26, 36, 39, 48, and 53. Differences concerning the existing importance of goals were primarily between deans and chairpersons; the former rated these goals as more important than did the latter. However, in rating the desired importance of goals, chairpersons gave higher ratings than did deans. Analysis of variance was used to test differences among subgroups of administrators at junior colleges with different program durations. It was found that 13 existing goals and 10 desired goals were perceived differently. However, further testing with Scheffe post hoc, it was found that the groups differed significantly only on the existing importance of Goals l4, l6, 17, 46, 47, 50, 51, and 52 and on the desired importance of Goals 20, 27, 46, 50, and 51. Administrators at three-year junior colleges rated the existing and desired importance of most goals significantly higher than did other 212 pooled subgroups. An overall examination of significant differences between subgroups of respondents who held different positions in junior college education reflected somewhat different visions on the existing and desired importance of some goals, but not many. In other words, all respondents, no matter what their administrative positions, seemed to have a common understanding with regard to junior college goals. The goal "to provide students with military training programs" was rated as being more important for the present than for the future by the total group and all subgroups except presidents. (Junior colleges presently require students to take military training courses two hours a week every academic year.) Also, that goal was (rated as being of only medium importance and ranked very low among goals for either the present or the future. Comparing the ratings of Goals 1, 2, 4, 5, 30, and 49, with ratings of the existing and desired importance and priority of Goals 12, 14, 16, 17, and 37 revealed that respondents perceived that vocational and technical education is not as important as general education and an intellectual orientation. These results are completely opposite to the results of CCGI testing (Educational Testing Service, 1979). The Goal 1, "to increase the desire and ability of students to undertake self-directed learning," and the Goal 49, "to cultivate students' consciousness and attitudes to increase their respect for work," were ranked in the top five in terms of importance for either the present or the future. None of goals in the area of vocational and technical education was rated in the top five. Instead, goals related to vocational and technical education were 213 given much lower priority. Moreover, they were rated as being of only medium importance for the present, which is ironic in relation to the goals for junior colleges as stated in the Junior College Law. According to Article 1 of that law, junior college education aims at teaching applied sciences and skills and cultivating practical specialists. Comparing the ratings of Goals 12, 13, 14, 15, l6, l7, 18, 25, 35, and 53 with that of Goal 40, ”to provide facilities and equipment to create desired research environment for faculty," suggests that respondents, especially the MOE, perceived and desired junior colleges to be institutions of research rather than institutions of teaching, skills training, and public service. This kind of perception could direct junior college goals in the direction of university goals. Junior college education is different from that provided by universities, which was The Fourth National Education Convention indicated early in 1962, the Fifth National Education Convention in 1970, and recently Lee and other scholars in response to the Educational System Reforming Commission in 1984. According to these conventions and the 1984 Commission, junior colleges should have their own defined educational goals (Education Planning Unit under the Ministry of Education, 1984). The total respondents viewed providing certificate training programs for students, providing facilities and equipment for community use, establishing an open—door policy, offering comprehensive programs, and establishing an associate degree system as goals of low existing importance. This means that respondents did not perceive the philosophy and goals of U.S. junior and community 214 colleges to be relevant at this time to junior college education in the ROC (Taiwan). However, these goals were perceived to be of medium importance for the future. In other words, U.S. junior and community college goals may be relevant to the future of junior college education in the ROC (Taiwan). Respondents rated the concept of lifelong learning (Goal 3), as being highly important. The cycle of "schooling, working, and schooling" has been emphasized everywhere so as to keep pace with the rapid technological changes (Education Planning Unit under the Ministry of Education, 1984). On the other hand, the goals "to award credit for knowledge and skills acquired in nonschool setting," "to establish an open door policy," and "to offer comprehensive programs" were rated as being of low importance. Therefore, there is still some distance between the concept and practice of lifelong education. The low rating given to Goal 36 "to involve appropriate expertise in making important campus decisions," may indicate resistence to promoting the functions of advisory committees. JCADS ranked Goal 19, "to provide students opportunities for participating in college policy-making,” as the least important goal. For future importance, it had a slightly higher rating but still remained in the lowest position. This finding appears to indicate that these administrators were not democratic in dealing with student affairs. The MOE respondents held the same attitude toward the importance of that goal. The total group and all subgroups except the MOE and three- year junior college administrators ranked Goal 30, "to strengthen students' consciousness of nationalism," as the highest priority goal 215 for the present but not for the future. This result coincided with Naik's perception that every Asian country has pursued "creation of the national identity and nation-building" as the supreme goal over the last three decades and most of them will continue to pursue that goal with equal vigor in the decades ahead (UNESCO, 1980). The JCADS did not have the same attitude as MOE respondents about the ability of students' families to pay tuition. Low-tuition policy has been discussed for a long time in the ROC (Taiwan). The JCADS complain about a shortage of funds to provide quality programs, hire the best teachers, update facilities and equipment and so on. Moreover, PrJCADS considered it unfair to require private junior colleges to provide the same quality programs as the public-sector does on such a low-tuition basis. Poor-quality education results in not only a loss for students but, in the long run, a loss for society and the nation. In ”A Review Study of Vocational and Technical Education," Chiou (1983) recommended that the major responsibility for establishing and maintaining quality vocational-technical education should lie in the public sector. He said it is not feasible for the private sector to operate low-cost vocational-technical programs with poor academic achievement and substandard facilities. Whether the government should subsidize private junior colleges or permit them to adopt a high or reasonable tuition policy or should establish more public junior colleges (Education Planning Unit under the Ministry of Education, 1984) is still at issue. However, the difference between perceptions of JCADS and the MOE with respect to tuition policies were evident in this research. JCADS did not view Goal 35, "to retain faculty based on 216 teaching effectiveness," as being as important as MOE respondents did. Also, there was a large gap between perceptions of JCADS and the MOE regarding the importance of Coal 43, "to engage in systematic evaluation of all college programs." JCADS seemed to be expressing their dissatisfaction with evaluation procedures that the MOE has conducted since 1972. Statistics revealed that the MOE did not desire the goal "to provide opportunities for faculty and staff to study for higher degree(s)" as much as did JCADS. JCADS seemed to indicate that many faculty and staff at junior colleges need opportunities to study for higher degrees because the MOE uses the number of faculty who hold high academic degrees as a criterion in evaluating the quality of junior colleges; the more faculty members with higher degrees, the more highly the institution is rated. In this study, the JCADS and the MOE express different attitudes toward the present and future importance of this goal. The MOE desired that junior colleges serve as a cultural center in the community more strongly than did JCADS. This desire may be explained by the fact that nearly two-thirds of the junior colleges in the ROC (Taiwan) are private, and their administrators' attitudes toward serving the community was not as strong as that of administrators at the public-sector colleges. Both the MOE and JCADS perceived Goal 55, "to establish an associate degree system," to be of low importance for the present and of medium importance for the future. Junior college graduates have already been allowed to transfer to four-year colleges or universities or to take the graduate school entrance exam. Also, the MOE recently 217 has been planning to provide another opportunity for junior college graduates to enter four-year colleges or universities as freshmen by passing a joint entrance exam of these institutions. The result seems to be a contradiction of what the MOE has done to provide junior college graduates with opportunities to enter universities. Results of the data analysis indicated that, for the present, deans viewed extracurricular activities for students, counseling, and a climate of harmony on campus as more important goals than did chairpersons; for the future, however, both groups had the same perception. This finding may be accounted for by the fact that the deans surveyed included deans of student affairs, and achieving goals is their primary task. Chairpersons rated the importance of Coal 26, "to operate a student job placement service,” lower than did deans (present importance) and presidents (future importance). Two-year junior college administrators also rated the importance of this goal lower than did administrators at junior colleges with different program durations. In comparing the perceptions of JCADS at junior colleges with different program durations, it was found that three-year junior college administrators perceived and desired their institutions to be technical-education and community-service oriented, more so than did administrators at junior colleges with other program durations. Analysis of the data revealed that respondents of various ages, levels of education, or years of service at junior colleges, but not those with various years of service in the MOE, had different perceptions regarding the present and future importance of many goals. 218 JCAD respondents with various years of service as junior college administrators, years of service in their present positions, and years of service in business and industry also had different perceptions regarding the present and future importance of goals. All these variables, except years of service in the MOE were more related to differences in perceptions regarding the importance of goals for the present than for the future. Mm Although many differences exist between the Republic of China (ROC, Taiwan) and the United States in terms of economic and social structure and educational philosophy, these differences‘ may not prevent junior colleges in the ROC (Taiwan) from adopting American junior and community college goals. The MOE officials and junior college administrators surveyed shared their perceptions of the importance of American junior and community college education. Some American community college goals, such as an open-door policy, comprehensive programs, low tuition and fees, associate degree programs, certificate programs, and adult education may be difficult to adopt immediately. But, in the long run, they may become junior college goals in the ROC (Taiwan). Junior college goals in the ROC (Taiwan), currently defined in Act 1 of the Junior College Law and simply stated as teaching applied sciences and skills and cultivating practical specialists, seem to be too narrow to represent what the goals really are and what they should be. Whether provide students with opportunities to participate in school policy making is still an issue, and it will still be a while 219 before students are given such opportunities. But it is likely that students will have more voice in the policy-making process in the future. In general, considerable agreement existed among all respondents regarding the importance of junior college goals. Therefore, in the future, it is likely that junior colleges will pass into a new frontier that will expand their present functions. As the respondents perceived, lifelong education is critical in today's rapidly changing society, but if appropriate times, places, and programs are not available to those who have such a desire, lifelong education is only a rhetorical goal. Both MOE and JCADS considered professional-development programs an important way of enhancing the quality of junior college education in the past. But nondegree in-service training programs cannot meet the needs of junior college faculty. It seems unreasonable and inconsistent that the MOE asks that junior college faculty have higher degrees, yet provides so few opportunities for faculty to work on their degrees. Evaluation is critical to enhance the quality of education. The MOE needs to review the current evaluation program. The purpose of evaluation is not to punish junior colleges that do not meet the evaluation criteria, but rather to help and guide them to eliminate their weaknesses and to achieve their goals. (Wentling & Lawson, 1975) Administrators at private junior colleges rated the importance of community service much lower than did public-sectors administrators. Therefore, how the MOE encourages private junior college personnel to change their attitude toward community service 220 may be important to the dissemination of culture and the enhancement of the quality of life in the community. For the past several years, the MOE and JCADS have given much consideration to the advanced study of junior college graduates. People may be confused about why the MOE and JCADS concentrate, not on developing a well-organized associate degree program, but on providing junior college graduates with other ways of studying in the university. At the department level in junior colleges, job-placement- service programs for graduates may provide the department more opportunities to establish cooperative programs with business, industry, and government agencies and a relationship that is crucial to the development of junior college education. 0 a t r t esea The following issues merit further discussion. 1. Opportunities for higher education are no longer the privilege of a small number of so-called talented people, but a right of all who search for ways to extend their potential to the fullest. People should not be deprived of this right unless they are proved unqualified or are not interested. But they should at least be given a chance for that proof. Therefore, between secondary education and university education, there should be some education or training sectors which provide opportunities for individuals (a) who want to determine whether they are equipped with the ability and talent to continue to a higher level of education; (b) who want to explore their interests; (c) who need to upgrade or update their skills in order to keep up with the rapid change of their work environment; and (d) who, 221 as they have grown older, have always regretted that they could not or did not have a chance to receive post secondary education when they were younger. Why not let junior colleges perform these functions? 2. Educational planning allows a country not only to match manpower supply and demand needs but, more important, to meet the individuals' needs and interests and to cultivate their ability to think independently. 3. Regarding education in the ROC (Taiwan), at either the secondary or postsecondary level, the government should take more responsibility than private individuals. Hence, the number of private educational institutions should not exceed the number in the public sector. Otherwise, the government would be shirking its responsibility for its people. 4. In a democratic society, whether students should have opportunities to participate in school policy making is not an issue because students are entitled to know what is going on in their institution. The issue is to what extent students can participate in such policy making. 5. Some differences might have been found in ratings of the desired importance of goals if the researcher had not put the note "don't be restrained by your beliefs about whether the goal can ever be realistically attained on your campus" in the questionnaire. 222 W The following recommendations are separated into two parts; recommendations for MOE officials and junior college administrators and those for further research. WW Junio Co 1e e dmi st ato s 1. Each junior college should develop its own goals to meet its unique needs, based on the consideration of its economy and local environment, and use these goals as guidelines for institutional planning, programming, budgeting, and supervising. 2. The evaluation of junior colleges conducted every three years by the MOE should concentrate on the achievement of institutional goals. Institution personnel should conduct a self- evaluation or self-study before the national evaluation. 3. The MOE should immediately organize a national advisory committee responsible for restructuring the vocational-technical education system, including senior vocational high schools, junior colleges, and the National Taiwan Institute of Technology, in order to (a) avoid unnecessary duplication in curriculum, instruction, and equipment; (b) fully utilize all facilities; (c) operate more efficiently and economically, (d) insure progressive advancement of students in both knowledge and skill; and (e) define the educational goals at each level. 4. Each college should establish its own advisory committee responsible for developing the goals of the institution, in order to establish its specialty. 223 5. The MOE should attempt to use junior colleges as places for developing lifelong education, which links learning and working. 6. The MOE should increase its subsidy to private junior colleges instead of increasing tuition and fees, or else strengthen its financial-aid program to allow indigent students to have access to a junior college education. 7. The MOE should allow junior colleges to offer comprehensive programs in order to meet local needs and students' interests. 8. Voices of innovation for junior college education have been heard for a long period of time. In 1983, the MOE organized a special committee to reform the entire educational system. However, the goals and purposes of junior college education should be defined before any further innovation is planned. Defined goals should be the guidelines for innovation. 9. Junior colleges, public or private, should recall what they have been and what they have done, as well as prepare for the future. It is time to establish a new image and to develop specialties for junior colleges that are different from those of four-year colleges and universities. 10. The MOE should organize a committee to conduct research on the possibility of implementing the American community college system in the ROC (Taiwan). 11. The MOE should review the military training programs to learn why such programs were perceived as being not as important for the future as for the present. 224 12. The MOE should revise Act 1 of the Junior College Law, which defined the goals of junior college education, to represent what junior college education goals really are and what they should be. Rec en at o u h ese 1. The Educational Planning Unit of the MOE should conduct a nationwide survey, including secondary school and junior college students, graduates and parents, junior college faculty, administrators, trustees of private junior colleges, scholars majoring in junior college education, business and industry, and members of the community, regarding the present and future importance of possible goals of junior college education. The purpose of such a survey would be to refine junior college education and determine the direction it should take. 2. The influence of such other variables as sex, academic discipline, college size, and college location on respondents' perceptions regarding the existing and desired importance of junior college goals should be examined. 3. Individual institutions might select portion of or entire goal statements from this study, add other goals, or develop their own survey instrument to analyze attitudes of internal groups at their institution (administrators, faculty, staff, students, alumni/ae, and trustees) toward the present and future importance of goals, in order to establish the specialty of the institution. 4. Other researchers might use the same survey instrument in conducting research to determine the attitudes of external groups (parents of students at the institution, community people, and employers and employees of business and industry) toward the present 225 and future importance of junior college goals. 5. Individual institutions might use Recommendations 2 and 3 as references in developing effective and efficient short-range (one to two years), middle-range (three to five years), and long-range (six to ten years) plans. 6. Research might be conducted on how to implement the goals, based on the priorities identified by all respondents in this study. 7. Another researcher might select goals on whose perceived importance the paired and pooled groups in this study differed significantly, and conduct further research to determine the reasons for the differences in perceptions. 8. Further research could be conducted to determine what factors influenced respondents to rate the present importance of certain goals listed in this study differently from their future importance. 226 Appendices 227 Appendix A 228 SPECIFICATION OF EXISTING AND DESIRED JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS Goal No. SPECIFICATION 1 to increase the desire and ability of students to undertake self-directed learning 2 to provide a general academic background for students as preparation for further, more advanced or specialized work 3 to seek to instill in students a commitment to a lifetime of learning 4 to ensure that students acquire knowledge and skills that will enable them to live effectively in society 5 to instill in students a capacity for openness to new ideas and ways of thinking 6 to award credit for knowledge and skills acquired in nonschool setting 7 to provide students with military training program 8 to increase students' sensitivity and appreciation of various forms of arts and artistic expression 9 to help students understand and assess the important moral issues 10 to provide opportunities for faculty significantly participating in college policy-making 11 to help students develop a sense of self-worth, self- confidence and self-direction 12 to provide certificate training programs for students to prepare them for special vocational/technical careers 13 to make available to community groups college resources such as meeting rooms, computer facilities, and faculty problem- solving skills 14 to offer students educational programs geared to new and emerging career fields 15 to offer students alternative developmental (basic skills) programs that recognize different learning styles 16 to provide opportunities for those individuals seeking to update or upgrade present job skills 229 SPECIFICATION OF EXISTING AND DESIRED JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS (cont'd.) Goal No. SPECIFICATION 17 to provide retraining opportunities for those individuals seeking to qualify for new careers or acquire new job skills 18 to maintain support services for students with special needs, such as disadvantaged, or handicapped 19 to provide students opportunities for participating in college policy-making 20 to commit college resources to faculty and staff development activities 21 to provide career counseling for students 22 to conduct a comprehensive student activities program consisting of social, cultural and athletic activities 23 to provide opportunities for professional development for faculty and staff through special seminars, workshops, or training programs 24 to provide personal counseling services for students 25 to evaluate faculty in an appropriate and reasonable manner in order to promote effective teaching 26 to operate a student job placement service 27 to provide flexible leave and sabbatical opportunities for faculty and staff for purposes of professional development 28 to maintain a climate in which faculty commitment to the goals and well-being of the institution is as strong as commitment to professional careers 29 to create a climate in which students and faculty may easily come together for informal discussion of ideas and mutual interests 30 to strengthen students' consciousness of nationalism 31 to experiment with different methods of evaluating and grading student performance 32 to maintain a climate in which communication throughout the organizational structure is open and candid 230 SPECIFICATION OF EXISTING AND DESIRED JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS (cont'd.) Goal No. SPECIFICATION 33 to create procedures by which curricular and instructional innovations may be readily initiated 34 to set student tuition and fees at a level such that poor families can afford their children going to college 35 to retain faculty based on teaching effectiveness 36 to involve those with appropriate expertise in making important campus decisions 37 to encourage students to prepare for technician certificate examination held by the government 38 to renew the contract of administrators based upon their services to assist teaching and learning 39 to achieve general consensus on the campus regarding fundamental college goals 40 to provide facilities and equipment to create desired research environment for faculty 41 to prepare students for taking transfer or entrance examination for graduate school at college or university 42 to promote to a policy of essentially open admission, and then to develop worthwhile educational experiences for all who are admitted 43 to engage in systematic evaluation of all college programs 44 to provide regular evidence that the institution is achieving its stated goals 45 to maintain a climate of mutual trust and respect among students, faculty, and administrators 46 to serve as a cultural center in the community 47 to increase the number and flexibility of elective courses in order to establish the speciality of the institution 48 to provide opportunities for students to obtain training for dual major subjects 231 SPECIFICATION OF EXISTING AND DESIRED JUNIOR COLLEGE GOALS (cont'd.) Goal No. SPECIFICATION 49 to cultivate students' consciousness and attitudes to increase their respect for work 50 to strengthen cooperative programs with business and industry 51 to establish characteristics of institutions to meet the needs of the community 52 to provide opportunities for faculty and staff to study for higher academic degree(s) 53 to recognize the value of faculty who have experience in business and industry 54 to offer comprehensive programs in areas of industry, business, health care, etc. in the institution 55 to establish an associate degree system 232 Appendix B 233 90 Goal Statements of the Community College Goals Inventory 1o. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. to ensure that students acquire a basic knowledge of communications, the humanities, social sciences, mathematics, and natural sciences to teach students methods of inquiry, and problem definition and solution to offer courses that enable adults in the comvunity to pursue vocational, cultural, and social interests to ensure that students who graduate have achieved some level of reading, writing, and math competency to increase the desire and ability of students to undertake self-directed learning to provide a general academic background for students as preparation for further, more advanced or specialized work to develop students' ability of students to undertake self-directed learning to seek to instill in students a commitment to a lifetime of learning to ensure that students acquire knowledge and skills that will enable them to live effectively in society to instill in students a capacity for openness to new ideas and ways of thinking to be committed as a college to providing learning opportunities to adults of all ages to encourage students to learn about foreign cultures, for example, through study of a foreign language to award degree credit for knowledge and skills acquired in nonschool setting to increase students' sensitivity and appreciation of various forms of arts and artistic expression to help students identify their personal goals and develop means of achieving them to help students understand and assess the important moral issues of our time to encourage students to elect courses in the humanities or arts beyond required course work to help students develop a sense of self-worth, self-confidence, and self-direction to help students understand and respect people from diverse backgrounds and cultures to encourage students to express themselves artistically, such as in music, painting, and film- making 234 90 Goal Statements of the Community College Goals inventory (cont'd.) 21. 22. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 3D. 31. 32. 33. 35. 36. 37. 39. 40. to help students achieve deeper levels of self-understanding to encourage students to become couumitted to working for peace in the world to acquaint students with forms of artistic or literary expression from non-western cultures, such as African or Asian to help students to be open, honest, and trusting in their relationships with others to encourage students to have an active concern for the general welfare of their coulu'uities to provide opportu'uities for students to prepare for specific vocational technical careers, such as accounting, air conditioning and refrigeration, and nursing to identify and asses basic skills levels and then counsel students relative to their needs to make available to cmity groups college resources such as meeting rooms, cowuter facilities, and faculty problem-solving skills to provide critical evaluations of current values and practices in society to offer students educational programs geared to new and emerging career fields to ensure that students who complete developmental programs have achieved appropriate reading, writing, and mathematics cometencies to offer students alternative developmental (basic skills) learning styles to serve as a source of ideas and recommendations for changing social institutions to convene or conduct commnity forms on topical issues such as conservation of energy, crime prevention, and coumunity renewal to cooperate with diverse coummity organizations to iaprove the availability of educational services to area residents to provide opportunities for individuals to update or upgrade present job skills to work with local govermient agencies, industries, unions, and other community groups on community problems to provide retraining opportunities for individuals who wish to qualify for new careers or acquire new job skills to help students learn how to bring about changes in our social, economic, or political institutions to be engaged, as an institution, in working for basic changes in our society 23S 90 Goal Statements of the Community College Goals Inventory (cont'd.) 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. to evaluate continuously the effectiveness of basic skills instruction to maintain support services for students with special needs, such as disadvantaged, or handicapped to conit college resources to faculty and staff development activities to provide career counseling for students to conduct a comprehensive student activities program consisting of social, cultural and athletic activities to provide opportunities for professional development for faculty and staff through special seminars, workshops, or training programs to provide personal counseling services for students to provide comprehensive advice for students about financial aid sources to evaluate faculty in an appropriate and reasonable manner in order to promote effective teaching to provide academic advising services for students to operate a student job placement service to operate a student health service that health maintenance, preventive medicine, and referral services to provide flexible leave and sabbatical opportunities for faculty and staff for purposes of professional development to create a campus climate in which students spend much of their free time in intellectual and cultural activities to build a climate on the campus in which continuous educational innovation is accepted as an institutional way of life to maintain a climate in which faculty commitment to the goals and well-being of the institution is as strong as commitment to professional careers to create a climate in which students and faculty may easily come together for informal discussion of ideas and mutual interests to experiment with different methods of evaluating and grading student performance 236 90 Goal Statements of the Community College Goals Inventory (cont'd.) 59. 61. 62. 63. 67. 69. 70. 71. 73a 74. 76. to maintain a climate in which communication throughout the organizational structure is open and candid to sponsor each year a rich program of cultural events, such as lectures, concerts, and art exhibits to experiment with new approaches to individualized instruction such as tutorials, flexible scheduling, and students planning their own programs to maintain a climate at the college in which differences of opinion can be aired openly and amicably to create an institution known in the community as an intellectually exciting and stimulating place to create procedures by which curricular and instructional innovations may be readily initiated to maintain a climate of mutual trust and respect among students, faculty, and administrators to ensure that students are not prevented from hearing speakers presenting controversial points of view to set student tuition and fees at a level such that on one will be denied attendance because of financial need to involve those with appropriate expertise in making important campus decisions to ensure the freedom of students and faculty to choose their own life styles, such as living arrangements and personal appearance to offer programs at off-campus locations and at times that accommodate adults in the community to maintain or work to achieve a large degree of autonomy or independence in relation to governmental or other educational agencies to achieve general consensus on the campus regarding fundamental college goals to place no restrictions on off-campus political activities by faculty or students to recruit students who in the past have been denied, have not valued, or have not been successful in formal education to be organized for systematic short- and long-range planning for the whole institution to protect the right of faculty members to present unpopular or controversial ideas in the classroom 237 90 Goal Statements of the Community College Goals Inventory (cont'd.) 81. 82. 85. to maintain or move a policy of essentially open admission, and then to develop worthwhile educational experiences for all who are admitted to engage in systematic evaluation of all college programs to consider benefits in relation to costs in deciding among alternative college programs to include local citizens in planning college programs that will affect the local community to provide regular evidence that the institution is achieving its stated goals to interpret systematically the nature, purpose, and work of the college to local citizens to monitor the efficiency with which college operations are conducted to provide educational experiences relevant to the interests of blacks, Chicanos, Puerto Ricans, and Native Americans to develop arrangements by which students, faculty, administrators, and trustees canbe significantly involved in college policy making to seek to maintain high standards of academic performance throughout the institution to be accountable to funding sources for the effectiveness of college programs to excel in intercollegiate athletics to provide educational experience relevant to the interests of women to serve as a cultural center in the community Source: Community College Goals Inventory. Descriptions of the 20 Goal Areas in the Community College Goals Inventory W General Education--has to do with acquisition of general knowledge, achievement of some level of basic competencies, preparation of students for further, more advanced work, and the acquisition of skills and knowledge to live effectively in society. (1,4,6,9)* Intellectual 0rientation--relates to an attitude about learning and intellectual work. It means familiarity with research and problem solving methods, the desire and ability for self-directed learning, the ability to synthesize knowledge from many sources, and an openness to new ideas and ways of thinking. (2,5,7,10) Lifelong Learning-means providing courses to community adults so they can pursue a variety of interests, instilling in students a commitment to a lifetime of learning, providing learning opportunities to adults of all ages, and awarding degree credit for knowledge and skills acquired in nonschool settings. (3,8,11,13) Cultural/Aesthetic Awareness--entails a heightened appreciation of a variety of art forms, encouraging study in the humanities and art beyond requirements, exposure to non-western art and literature, and encouragement of student participation in artistic activities (14,17,20,23) Personal 0evelopment--means identification by students of personal goals and the development of ways of achieving them, enhancement of feelings of self-worth, self-confidence, and self-direction, and encouragement of open and honest relationships. (15,18,21,24) HumanismlAltruism--reflects a respect for diverse cultures, a commitment to working for peace in the world, and understanding of the important moral issues of the time, and concern about the general welfare of the community. (16,19,22,25) Vocational/Technical Preparation--means offering specific occupational curricula (such as accounting of air conditioning and refrigeration), programs geared to emerging career fields, opportunities for upgrading or updating present job skills and retraining for new careers or new job skills. (26,30,36,38) Developmental/Remedial Preparation-~includes recognizing,assessing, and counseling students with basic skills needs, providing developmental programs that recognize different learning styles and rates, assuring that students in developmental programs achieve appropriate levels of competence, and evaluating basic skill programs. (27,31,32,41) Community Services--is concerned with the college's relationship with the communityzencouraging community use of college resources (meeting rooms, computer facilities, faculty skill), conducting community forums on topical issues, promoting cooperation among diverse community organizations to improve availability of services, and working with local government agencies, industry, unions, and other grows on coummnity problems. (28,34,35,37) Social Criticism-~means providing critical evaluation of current values and practices, serving as a source of ideas to change social institutions, helping students learn how to bring about change in our institutions, and being engaged, as an institution, in working for needed changes in our society. (29,33,39,40) 239 Descriptions of the 20 Goal Areas in the Community College Goals Inventory (cont'd.) PROC GOALS Counseling and Advising--means providing career counseling services, personal counseling services, and academic advising services for students and providing a student job-placement service. (44,47,50,51) Student Services--means developing support services for students with special needs, providing comprehensive student activities program, providing comprehensive advice about financial aid sources, and making available health services that offer health maintenance, preventive medicine, and referral services. (42,45,48,52) Faculty/Staff Develoumuentnentails couumitment of college resources to provide opportunities and activities for professional development of faculty and staff, appropriate faculty evaluation to improve teaching, and flexible leave and sabbatical opportunities for faculty and staff. (43,46,49,53) Intellectual Environment-~means a rich program of cultural events, a college climate that encourages student free-time involvement in intellectual and cultural activities, and one in which students and faculty can easily interact informally, and a college that has a reputation in the couImnity as an intellectually exciting place. (S4,S7,60,63) Innovation--is defined as a climate in which continuous educational innovation is as accepted way of life. It means established procedures for readily initiating curricular or instructional innovations, and, more specifically, it means experimentation with new approaches to individualized instruction and to evaluating and grading student performance. (55,58,61,64) College Community-4s defined as fostering a climate in which there is faculty and staff commitment to the goals of the college, open and candid communication, open and amicable airing of differences, and mutual trust and respect among faculty, students, and administrators. (56,59,62,65) Freedom--has to do with protecting the right of faculty to present controversial ideas in the classroom, not preventing students form hearing controversial points of view, placing no restrictions on off-campus political activities by faculty of students, and ensuring faculty and students the freedom to choose their own life-styles. (66,69,73,76) Accessibility--means maintaining costs to students at a level that will not deny attendance because of financial need, offering programs that accommodate adults in the community, recruiting students who have been denied, have not valued, or have not been successful in formal education, and, with a policy of open adnission, developing worthwhile educational experiences for all those admitted. (67,70,74,77) Effective Hanagement--means involving those with appropriate expertise in making decision, achieving general consensus regarding fundamental college goals, being organized for systematic short° and long-range planning, and engaging in systematic evaluation of all college programs. (68,72,75,78) 24D Descriptions of the 20 Goal Areas in the Community College Goals Inventory (cont'd.) Accountability-~is defined to include consideration of benefits in relation to costs in deciding among alternative program, concern for the efficiency of college operations, accountability to funding sources for program effectiveness, and regular provision of evidence that the college is meeting its stated goals. (79,81,83,87) Source: Instructions for Administering the Community College Goals Inventory *The nulbers in parentheses are the four goal statements that make up each goal area. Miscellaneous goal statements are not included in goal areas (12,71,80,82,84,85,86,88,89,90). 241 Questionnaire 242 Part One: 1W Directions: Please put a cross mark(X) on the answer for each question below that applies to you. A. 611mm: Mark one that describes your role. ( )1. official of the Ministry of Education ( )2. junior college administrator esoet: Mark one that indicates your age. ( )1. 24 - 30 ( )2. 31 - 45 ( )3. 46 - 55 ( )4. S6 - 65 ( )5. above 65 All respondegts: Mark one that indicates your years at junior colleges. ( )1. none ( )2. l - 5 years ( )3. 6 - 10 years ( )4. ll- 16 years ( )5. 17 or more years All gespondeggs: What is the highest degree you hold? Mark one. ( )1. High school diploma ( )2. Junior college ( )3. Bachelor ( )4. Master's degree ( )5. Ph.D. All_;g§29n§gn£§: Mark one that indicates your years at the Ministry of Education. ( )1. none ( )2. 1 - 5 years ( )3. 6 - 10 years ( )4. ll- 16 years ( )5. 17 or more years u e e a s rators: Mark one that indicates your position. ( )l. president ( )2. dean ( )3. chairperson Please continue to next page. 243 gu31g;_ggllggg_ggm131§§;§§g;§: Mark one that describes the college in which you are working. ( )1. public junior college ( )2. private junior college laai2r__sellsss__adminia£rasers: How long have you been an administrator at junior colleges? Mark one. ( )1. l - 5 years ( )2. 6 - 10 years ( )3. ll - 16 years ( )4. 17 or more years . 1uai2r_ssllsss_sgainis£rstsrs: How long have you been at your current position? Mark one. ( )1. l - 3 years ( )2. 4 - 8 years ( )3. 9 - 15 years ( )4. 16 or more years u o e ator : Does your college offer evening programs? Mark one. ( )1. yes ( )2. no . Ju o e a t ato 3: What is the program duration of your college? ( )1. 3-years ( )2. 2-years ( )3. 5-years ( )4. two of them or all above . J o o e n t to : How long have you been years in business and industry? Mark one. ( )1. none ( )2. 1-3 years ( )3. 4-6 years ( )4. 7-10 years ( )5. more than 10 years This 1; Eng gng 9f 25;; oge. Please continue to part two. 244 Part: Tvoz W Directions: Please use the answer key shown in the example below. You are asked to respond to each statement in two ways: Existing - How important is the goal to junior college education at present time? Desired - How important will the goal be to junior college education in the future? Example 1 - of no importance 2 - of low importance 3 - of medium importance 4 - of high importance 5 - of extremely high importance Goal: To help students identify their existing 1 2 3 4 5 personal goals and develop ---------------------------+ means of achieving them desired 1 2 3 4 5 In this example, the respondent believes the goal ”To help students identify their personal goals and develop means of achieving them" is presently of medium importance, but thinks of to be extremely high importance for the future. Note: -- In giving "desired" response, gog'g be restrained by your beliefs about whether the goal can ever be realistically attained on your campus. -- Don't miss gggircling both sections of each goal statement. Please respond to all goal statements by encircling a number after existing and after desired. 245 - of extremely high importance 1 - of no importance 2 - of low importance 3 - of medium importance 4 - of high importance 5 seals; 1. to increase the desire and 10. ability of students to undertake self-directed learning to provide a general academic background for students as preparation for further, more advanced or specialized work to seek to instill in students a commitment to a lifetime of learning to ensure that students acquire knowledge and skills that will enable them to live effectively in society to instill in students a capacity for openness to new ideas and ways of thinking to award credit for knowledge and skills acquired in nonschool setting to provide students with military training program to increase students' sensitivity and appreciation of various forms of arts and artistic expression to help students understand and assess the important moral issues to provide opportunities for faculty significantly participating in college policy-making existing 1 2 3 4 5 desired 1 2 3 4 5 existing 1 2 3 4 5 desired 1 2 3 4 5 existing 1 2 3 4 5 desired 1 2 3 4 5 existing 1 2 3 4 S desired 1 2 3 4 5 existing 1 2 3 4 5 desired 1 2 3 4 5 existing 1 2 3 4 5 desired 1 2 3 4 5 existing 1 2 3 4 5 desired 1 2 3 4 5 existing 1 2 3 4 5 desired 1 2 3 4 5 existing 1 2 3 4 5 desired 1 2 3 4 5 existing 1 2 3 4 5 desired 1 2 3 4 5 Please continue to next page. 246 UIP‘UIBJF‘ lllll Geek; 11. 12. l3. 14. 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. to help students develop a sense of self-worth, self-confidence and self-direction to provide certificate training programs for students to prepare them for special vocational and technical careers to make available to community groups college resources such as meeting rooms, computer facilities, and faculty problem- solving skills to offer students educational programs geared to new and emerging career fields to offer students alternative developmental (basic skills) programs that recognize different learning styles to provide opportunities for those individuals seeking to update or upgrade present job skills to provide retraining opportunities for those individuals seeking to qualify for new careers or acquire new job skills to maintain support services for students with special needs, such as disadvantaged, or handicapped to provide students opportunities for participating in college policy-making of no importance of low importance of medium importance of high importance of extremely high importance existing desired existing desired existing desired existing desired existing desired existing desired existing desired existing desired existing desired Please continue to next page. 247 UIP‘UPBJPJ lllll Goals; 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. to commit college resources to faculty and staff development activities to provide career counseling for students to conduct a comprehensive student activities program consisting of social, cultural and athletic activities to provide opportunities for professional development for faculty and staff through special seminars, workshops, or training programs to provide personal counseling services for students to evaluate faculty in an appropriate and reasonable manner in order to promote effective teaching to operate a student job placement service to provide flexible leave and sabbatical opportunities for faculty and staff for purposes of professional development to maintain a climate in which faculty commitment to the goals and well-being of the institution is as strong as commitment to professional careers of no importance of low importance of medium importance of high importance of extremely high importance existing 1 2 3 4 5 desired 1 2 3 4 5 existing 1 2 3 4 5 desired 1 2 3 4 5 existing 1 2 3 4 5 desired 1 2 3 4 5 existing 1 2 3 4 S desired 1 2 existing 1 2 desired 1 2 3 4 5 existing 1 2 3 4 5 desired 1 2 3 4 5 existing 1 2 3 4 5 desired 1 2 3 4 5 existing 1 2 3 4 5 desired 1 2 3 4 5 Please continue to next page. 248 of extremely high importance 1 - of no importance 2 - of low importance 3 - of medium importance 4 - of high importance 5 - 929.13.; 29. to create a climate in which 30. 31. 33. 32. 34. 35. 36. 37. students and faculty may easily come together for informal discussion of ideas and mutual interests to strengthen students' consciousness of nationalism to experiment with different methods of evaluating and grading student performance to create procedures by which curricular and instructional innovations may be readily initiated to maintain a climate in which communication throughout the organizational structure is open and candid to set student tuition and fees at a level such that poor families can afford their children going to college to retain faculty based on teaching effectiveness to involve those with appropriate expertise in making important campus decisions to encourage students to prepare for technician certificate examination held by the government existing 1 2 3 4 5 desired 1 2 3 4 5 existing 1 2 3 4 5 desired 1 2 3 4 5 existing 1 2 3 4 5 desired 1 2 3 4 5 existing 1 2 3 4 5 desired 1 2 3 4 5 existing 1 2 3 4 5 desired 1 2 3 4 5 existing 1 2 3 4 5 desired 1 2 3 4 5 existing 1 2 3 4 5 desired 1 2 3 4 5 existing 1 2 3 4 5 desired 1 2 3 4 5 existing 1 2 3 4 5 desired 1 2 3 4 5 Please continue to next page. 249 Uic~uuhard lllll 9.93.115. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. to renew the contract of administrators based upon their services to assist teaching and learning to achieve general consensus on the campus regarding fundamental college goals to provide facilities and equipment to create desired research environment for faculty to prepare students for taking transfer or entrance examination for graduate school at college or university to facilitate a policy of essentially open admission, and then to develop worthwhile educational experiences for all who are admitted to engage in systematic evaluation of all college programs to provide regular evidence that the institution is achieving its stated goals to maintain a climate of mutual trust and respect among students, faculty, and administrators to serve as a cultural center in the community to increase the number and flexibility of elective courses in order to establish the speciality of the institution of no importance of low importance of medium importance of high importance of extremely high importance existing 1 2 3 4 5 desired 1 2 3 4 5 existing 1 2 3 4 5 desired 1 2 3 4 5 existing 1 2 3 4 5 desired 1 2 3 4 5 existing 1 2 3 4 5 desired 1 2 3 4 5 existing 1 2 3 4 5 desired 1 2 3 4 existing 1 2 3 4 5 desired 1 2 3 4 5 existing 1 2 3 4 5 desired 1 2 3 4 5 existing 1 2 3 4 5 desired 1 2 3 4 5 existing 1 2 3 4 5 desired 1 2 3 4 5 existing 1 2 3 4 5 desired 1 2 3 4 5 Please continue to next page. 250 Labourer- IIIII Gogls: 48. to provide opportunities for students to obtain training for dual major subjects of no importance of low importance of medium importance of high importance of extremely high importance existing 1 2 3 4 5 desired 1 2 3 4 5 49. to cultivate students' existing 1 2 3 4 5 consciousness and attitudes --------------------------- to increase their respect for work desired 1 2 3 4 5 50. to strengthen cooperative programs existing 1 2 3 4 5 with business and industry --------------------------- desired 1 2 3 4 5 51. to establish characteristics of existing 1 2 3 4 S institutions to meet the needs of --------------------------- the community desired 1 2 3 4 5 52. to provide opportunities for existing 1 2 3 4 5 faculty and staff to study for --------------------------- higher academic degree(s) desired 1 2 3 4 5 53. to recognize the value of existing 1 2 3 4 5 faculty who have experience in --------------------------- business and industry desired 1 2 3 4 5 54. to offer comprehensive programs existing 1 2 3 4 S in the areas of industry, business, --------------------------- health care, etc. in the desired 1 2 3 4 5 institution 55. to establish an associate degree existing 1 2 3 4 5 system --------------------------- desired 1 2 3 4 5 on a dd a t 1 ed have 0 t e fo w e an e ci c e ts ortance. Please be 3 ecific with our words A so an ece o a tta th e e t t ue ion 1 the s a e ovided s or n u h. Please continue to next page. 251 Goals; 1. existing 1 2 3 4 5 5;;i;;émimém3mif"3 2. existing 1 2 3 4 5 ;;;;;;é---i---£---;---;-u; 3. existing 1 2 3 4 5 Aéiééémi"'émémi'"; 4. existing 1 2 3 4 5 desired 1 2 3 4 5 Any comment about the questionnaire is welcomed. This is the end of part two. Check, please. Don't leave any blank. Thank you again for completing this questionnaire. 252 p {bdw (T - EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE \' PRINCETON. N.J. 08541 609-921-9000 CABLE-EDUCTESTSVC December 18, 1985 Mr. Tien-Chi Chen 815-F Cherry Lane East Lansing, MI 48823 Dear Mr. Chen: Miss Nancy Beck has asked me to provide you with permission to translate into Chinese 40 goal statements from the Community College Goals Inventory and reproduce 500 copies for use in your dissertation research. We understand that you will be administering this instrument to Presidents, Deans and Chairpersons at 64 Junior Colleges in Taiwan in February, 1986. Please use the following credit line on your reproduced c0pies: From Community College Goals Inventory. Copyright © 1985 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved. Translated and reproduced by permission. If the arrangements are satisfactory, please sign both copiesof this letter and return one signed cOpy to us for our records. Sincerely, ‘F ‘- - 3.1/CI. 614:. __ " ' [“1 Lillian R. Sprague . Administrative Assistant COpyright Office lrs cc: Miss Beck ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO: #_— Tien-Chi Chen 253 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH INVOLVING EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 488244046 HUMAN SUBJECTS (UCRIHS) 238 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1517133141“ December 26, 1985 Mr. Tien—Chi Chen Educational Administration Erickson Hall Dear Mr. Chen: Subject: Proposal Entitled, "Perceptions of Junior College Goals A Survey of the Ministry of Education and Junior College Administrators in the Republic of China (Taiwan " I am pleased to advise that I concur with your evaluation that this project is exempt from full UCRIHS review, and approval is herewith granted for conduct of the project. You are reminded that UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. If you plan to continue this project beyond one year, please make provisions for obtaining appropriate UCRIHS approval prior to December 26, 1986. Any changes in procedures involving human subjects must be reviewed by the UCRIHS prior to initiation of the change. UCRIHS must also be notified promptly of any problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human subjects during the course of the work. Thank you for bringing this project to my attention. If I can be of any future help, please do not hesitate to let me know. Sincerely, We Henry E. Bredeck Chairman, UCRIHS HEB/jms ./ cc:L,Dr. Samuel A. Moore, II 254 smsmnsaarasaaaxaaraasassamsaaams:4 eassassaaa.m%4o 255 $fi-:@Afifi figflfi:fiflTEéEflfififléEflfiEfiEfiflWflfl/fl —§£fififi@§ semammaa: ( )LEEEEE )ZfifififififlAE A €EMENE: ( )124—303 ( )23b——45a ( >346—553 ( )456—653 ( >5663u£ $EE$fi¥&EEEEE($fi-Eu—Efi)= ( )1.?3 7F? ( )21——-5$ ( )36-—-'-10fi:‘. ( )LlI—I6E ( >517$l¢1t assesses: ( )LE¢$# ( )ZMfiQfi ( )3; i, ( )IE i ( )SM i EEEKEEEEEEE: ( >La a < )2 1——-5i ( )3 6——10$ c )iIP—-I6£ ( )517fimr H6 ifzflfigfififififlAEEE: @flEWfiflE: ( ( ( )l& E )Zflfififlfiifi )afi E E #EEEW¥&§: ( )lfl 1 ( )2% 1 seamsaaafiaxaeaaaa: ( )L b—-5£ ( )2 6——me ( )1lh—fl6m ( )417eu: Nflfififimfifllfifiifit (. )l 1—-3$ ( )2 4——8i ( )39'—fl5i ( )116Eut fflfififliflfifiWEEWEfififi ( )lfi ( )Zfi teammsacssmecsuammaseamu I ( )LZE ( )23E ( >15E(§E5fisu5£h> ( )ueslflzflazfi EEEfiIfifiWEEE: ( )Ififi ( )er—fifi ( )34——6£ ( )l P_70$ ( >511em: B7 sm::a+£fi&aam figfifi:fiflfiNfiflMfiWWMDZEQEETWEE a-ma:ssmmsmaamasaasasmmeao fizfiwtSEWEE$E$H$EEKE§§E$EE° fl fl 1: sea 2: WEE 3= E E 4: GEE 5: EEE T W i a fl 5 9 a a a a E E E E E smsemssasmmsma as 1 2 @ 4 5 asaeaaaeaamse m2 1 2 3 4 @ ERNWW9kgfiflfitmEHEEEEHfifififiifiEEfiEEEv fi¢§%%fi%fiflfi(fig)fifiifi° *Efii1E@@§flgfii¥fifi'fi$gtflfifififil&3523fi fi'fififlfifigfio 2fiTEBEfi-BEflEEfiéZfiEfiRMZZEEEv@E filfilgfifi ’ itfi‘fillflfll O ) 23° Lfifi¥$5fi¥gmfigfifi 2%35$-&£$$fififlu§fififi *WEEfi~E$Hfi§fiKfiW§fi 3EE¥$%E$EZE® Lfififlififififififlfiiflfixmfi mam 5%3!§§§fiflfi&fifimfih fififlfiifififlfififimfimfififlfi ETQfi Zim¥$i$fifi 8E£§§Q§§§WWfifikfiifl afififlfififififi mfimfimfiflfi3fi¥fi&fimmfi uflwfligiéfiflfifl®4M&%i EE'BfiW$Zfi E8 z