THESIS ““ ...'r "'.'_‘-"I‘:. r “'- I E “V" I ."1 2 1 l i t l 1 I 7 I W‘ -31.“ 3".” TH:\§L‘.‘.’.‘ “15.1.: ?ZE‘.T'.".‘.«",-'. '~ ALE“ ' 1'” This is to certify that the dissertation entitled CHANGES IN PERCEIVED INSTRUCTIONAL-DEVELOPMENT NEEDS OF NEW PART-TIME FACULTY IN COMMUNITY COLLEGES presented by Richard Dale Yarger has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D degree in Higher Ed. Date June 11, 1982 0-12771 MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution ‘V r- r""~-—~.. - ___._ ——. W _ V ' MSU LIBRARIES ”3.5-. RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. CHANGES IN PERCEIVED INSTRUCTIONAL-DEVELOPMENT NEEDS OF NEW PART—TIME FACULTY IN COMMUNITY COLLEGES By Richard D. Yarger A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Curriculum I982 ABSTRACT CHANGES IN PERCEIVED INSTRUCTIONAL-DEVELOPMENT NEEDS OF NEW PART-TIME FACULTY IN COMMUNITY COLLEGES By Richard Dale Yarger Improved programs of orientation and in-service training for new community college faculty are critically needed. To make these programs more effective, additional information is needed on the expectations of new faculty members as they enter the community college and the changes in their perceptions during the initial term of teach- ing. A group of l45 newly hired community college faculty from 12 institutions in the Midwest and South responded to the same instrument before and after their first term of teaching. They provided informa- tion on (l) their perceptions of the importance of ten basic teaching competencies for successful teaching, (2) their perceived effective- ness in those same ten areas, and (3) the likelihood of their choosing to participate effectively in orientation and early in-service activi- ties offered under five sets of conditions. The chi-square test of independence and the McNemar Test for Significance of Changes were used to determine the extent and nature of changes in the subjects' perceptions. Richard Dale Yarger The respondents were found to hold unrealistic expectations as they entered community college teaching. As a group they were less effective than they anticipated they would be but also tended to be less likely to choose to be involved in organized instructional- development activities. In spite of this decline in receptivity, required orientation and early instructional-development activities were supported by more than three-fourths of the respondents. Analysis of the lowest-rated items suggested a need to reinforce the relationship between affective and cognitive outcomes of instruction. No differ- ence irl responses was detected between subgroups of the respondents based on age, sex, occupation in addition to teaching, discipline, full-time or part-time status, institution, amount of previous teach- ing experience, or level of previous teaching experience. To Marge, Kirk, and Wende for the abundant support that I know about, and a lot more that I don't. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Dr. James Nelson for his support, encouragement, and guidance. The institutional coordinators for responding when they didn't have to. Lansing Community College for nurturing as a professional educator. Dr. Diane Smolen, Mary Dassance, and Dr. John Cooper for advice, assistance, resources, encouragement, and friendship. Edison Community College and Nanette Smith for their patience through the final months. The subjects for completing two questionnaires when I'm sure they had more pressing things to do. 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ...................... Statement of the Problem ............... Purpose of the Study ................. Importance of the Study ............. Overview of the Generalizability and Limitations of the Study .............. . ..... Summary ........................ 11. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .............. Status of Part-Time Faculty in Community Colleges . . . Extent of Use .................... Advantages of Using Part-Time Faculty ........ Disadvantages of Using Part-Time Faculty ...... Perspective of the Part-Time Faculty ........ Characteristics of Part-Time Faculty ........ Summary ....................... Quality of Instruction by Part-Time Faculty ...... Needs Assessments of Part-Time Faculty ........ Status of Orientation Programs and In-Service Programs for Part-Time Faculty ................ III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY ................... Definitions of Important Terms ............ Overview of Research Design .............. Research Questions .................. Research Hypotheses .................. Population and Sample ................. Instrument and Data Collection ............ Statistical Model of Analysis ............. Validity Concerns ................... Summary ........................ iv IV. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ......... 50 Characteristics of the Study Respondents ....... 50 Tests of Hypotheses One, Two, Three, and Four ..... 57 Hypothesis One ................... 59 Hypothesis Two ................... 63 Hypothesis Three .................. 66 Hypothesis Four ................... 70 Tests of Hypotheses Five and Six ........... 75 Hypothesis Five ................... 76 Hypothesis Six ................... 76 Summary of Results .................. 78 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........ 81 Summary of the Research ................ 8l Introduction .................... 8l Review of Literature ................ 8T Design of the Study ................. 83 Results of the Study ................ 84 Conclusions ...................... 86 Recommendations .................... 92 Recommendations for Program Development ....... 92 Recommendations for Further Research ........ 94 APPENDICES ........................... 96 LITERATURE CITED ........................ 126 Table 10. LIST OF TABLES Summary of Descriptive Variables for Respondents and Nonrespondents ................... Comparison of Number of Respondents and Nonrespondents in Descriptive Variable Subgroups ........... Comparison of Preteaching Responses of Respondents and Nonrespondents (Chi-Square Values) ........... Differences Between Preteaching and Postteaching Ratings for Hypothesis One: Importance ............. Listing of Preteaching and Postteaching Ratings-- Importance and Effectiveness .............. Differences Between Preteaching and Postteaching Ratings for Hypothesis Two: Effectiveness ....... Differences Between Preteaching and Postteaching Ratings for Hypothesis Three: Instructional Needs Listing of Preteaching and Postteaching Ratings-- Instructional Needs and Receptivity .......... Differences Between Preteaching and Postteaching Ratings for Hypothesis Four: Receptivity ............ Summary of Research Findings From This Study ....... vi Page SI 55 56 60 62 64 67 69 71 79 Appendix A. on mmon (7) LIST OF APPENDICES INFORMATION SHEET .................... RESULTS OF SELECTED PART-TIME INSTRUCTIONAL-NEEDS ASSESSMENTS ...................... DATA-GATHERING INSTRUMENT ................ BASIC PRINCIPLES OF EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION ........ POSTTEACHING INSTRUMENT ................. CHARACTERISTICS OF PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS ...... CONTINGENCY TABLES FOR PRETEACHING RESPONSES OF RESPONDENTS AND NONRESPONDENTS ............ CONTINGENCY TABLES--DATA FOR HYPOTHESES ONE, THO, THREE, AND FOUR .................... MEAN RATINGS FOR QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS .......... CONTINGENCY TABLES--HYPOTHESES FIVE AND SIX ....... vii Page 97 99 lOl lO4 106 l09 113 118 l20 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This chapter contains a statement of the problem to be exam- ined, the specific purposes of the study, the reasons it is important to conduct the study, and an overview of the generalizability and limitations of the study. Statement of the Problem Improved programs of orientation and in-service training for new community college faculty are critically needed. To be effective, these programs must be based on the expectations of the new faculty members. Inadequate information exists regarding these expectations. What problems do they expect to face in the community college class- room? What teaching skills do they feel will be important for success? What is their self-perceived level of competence as teachers? To what extent do they want assistance in developing their teaching skills? This study was designed to gather basic information related to the above issues from new faculty members in community colleges. This information will assist faculty developers in designing more effective orientation and in-service programs. The largest group for whom this information is needed are the part-time or adjunct-faculty,1fln)make up a major segment of the teach- ing staff of almost all community colleges. These faculty members, 1 drawn heavily from business, industry, government, the arts, and the professions, bring to the classroom the refined and up-to-date subject— matter backgrounds necessary to provide the diverse course offerings of the comprehensive community college or the specific programs of technical colleges. "Their [part-time faculty] ability to instruct effectively and to bring to the college, in a useful form, the life experiences they have is central to community college success" (Kozoll, Means, & Weichenthal, 1978, p. 3). Most of this group, however, enter community college teaching with little or no experience or training as teachers. As high as 98 percent lack community college teaching experience (Thomason, 1977), and one-third to two-thirds lack teacher training or experience of any kind (Grymes, 1976; Thomason, 1977). Coupled with their high turnover rate and the fact that institutions provide little or no assistance to new faculty in developing their teaching skills, the quality of the instruction provided by many new part-time faculty can be questioned. The need to improve orientation and in-service training pro- grams for new faculty has been widely acknowledged in the literature over the last decade (Bender & Breuder, 1973; Bender & Hammons, 1972; Brawer, 1975; Collins & Case, 1974; Gallagher, 1977; Greenwood, 1980; Hoenninger & Black, 1978; Hoffman, 1978; Leslie, Kellams, & Gunne, 1972; McDougle, 1980; Nelson, 1978; Parsons, 1980; Smith, 1981; Vogler, 1980; Weichenthal, Means, & Kozoll, 1977). There is general agree— ment that orientation programs and programs to improve instructional skills of new faculty are minimal to nonexistent, leading Bender and Hammons (1972) to observe: "It is frightening to think of the number of students who help break-in new adjunct faculty each year" (p. 22). "Most colleges offer some form of orientation . . . aimed at making the new instructor aware of his surroundings and aware of the minimal expectations of the institution. However, such efforts do little to improve instruction" (Hoenninger & Black, 1978, p. 25). The call for assistance to part-time faculty comes also from the four-year college/ university sector, where Gallagher (1977) stated: "Adjunct faculty can no longer simply be ignored. Too many such faculty teach too many students for this to be a viable option" (p. 6). A major problem exists in implementing effective efforts, however, since program developers have a limited information base related to the self-perceived needs of newly hired faculty. Adult- 1earning theory and research as well as the experiences of staff developers confirm the necessity of basing effective orientation and training programs on the self-perceived needs of the participants (Buchan, 1979; Hoffman & Pool, 1979; Knowles, 1970; McCatty, 1973; Tough, 1968). In addition, since no generally accepted objective measure of teaching skills exists, we remain dependent on perceptions. The perceptions of students, colleagues, and administrators provide additional important measures. But they are not the subject of this research. Although needs assessments of full-time and part-time faculty exist, information specifically related to ngw_part-time faculty in two-year colleges is inadequate. The intention of the current study is to contribute to filling this gap. It provides basic information related to the perceptions of newly hired faculty regarding the nature of community college instruction, their personal instructional-development needs, as well as their preferred formats for receiving orientation and in-service assistance. Community col- lege faculty cannot successfully model instructional practices after those typically found in secondary schools or universities with their different student populations and divergent goals (Cohen, 1966). The overwhelming majority of new part-time faculty members have not experienced the open-door student body with its special challenges for instruction. The information gathered in this study will assist program designers to understand better the degree to which the expec- tations of new faculty are realistic and to adjust the content and timing of programs appropriately. Facing a turbulent and challenging future, community college administrators can no longer assume that subject-matter competency is adequate for the task of instruction. With a student population that ranges from low normal to genius, with a curriculum that includes everything from seventh grade arithmetic through calculus, and with a year-after-year attri- tion rate that looks like the casualty figures from the Battle of Verdun, it is ridiculous for community colleges to assume that competence in subject matter is synonymous with compe- tence as a teacher. (Collins & Case, 1974, p. 3) Such factors as shrinking financial support and steady inflation, declining numbers of high school graduates, more varied student pro- files, societal demands for accountability and productivity, as well as new awareness by students all demand that instructional quality not be left to chance. In summary, there is a generally acknowledged need for improved programs of orientation and in-service training for new faculty in two-year colleges. A major problem in developing effec- tive programs is the lack of adequate information regarding the self-perceived instructional needs of newly hired faculty. This lack of information is the problem addressed in this study. Purpose of the Study To begin to meet the challenge of consistent instructional quality, it is necessary to understand better the faculty-development needs of new faculty. Several needs assessments involving both full- and part-time faculty have been reported (Black, 1979; Blue, 1979; Eaton, 1964; Epstein, 1978; Falk, 1975; Fellows, 1975; Fent, 1978; Grymes, 1976; Gunderson, Lindahl, & Miller, 1971; Hoffman & Pool, 1979; Justice, 1976; Kozoll, Means, & Weichenthal, 1978; Long, 1978; Parsons, 1978; Persinger, 1977; Schultz & Roed, 1978; Smith, 1977). These assessments tended to deal with orientation to the campus and with administrative details such as distribution of paychecks, grade reporting, and illness procedures. Some also considered needs related to instruction. All of these assessments sampled part-time faculty in general, or within a particular discipline area, or lumped together with full-time faculty. None considered the specific self- perceived needs of ngw_faculty. This study focused specifically on the instructional- development needs of ngw_full- and part-time faculty members for the purpose of: 1. Determining the extent and nature of the changes that occur in the self-perceived instructional needs of new faculty during their initial classroom experience (first term of teaching in their current community college assignment). 2. Assessing changes in the receptivity of new faculty toward organized faculty-development activities. 3. Examining the variations in the above factors by faculty subgroups based on age, sex, amount and type of previous teaching experience, and discipline area. 4. Determining whether the perceptions of new part-time faculty differ from those of new full-time faculty in the areas described above. Importance of the Study This study contributes to filling an information gap in the area of the self-perceptions of new part-time faculty regarding instruction. It provides an improved basis for designing effective orientation and training programs to upgrade the quality of instruc- tion. The following factors describe the reasons for gathering this information. 1. The need for preservice training and orientation as well as in-service assistance to part-time faculty is critical. One blatant omission in most reports [on community college teacher preparation] is the failure to consider the part-time faculty. Yet this group is the most rapidly growing segment of the faculty. Some accommodation to preparing them will have to be made. And it will have to come through in-service training. (Brawer, 1975, p. 17) "This [part—time faculty] is admittedly the clientele now getting the least help though probably needing it the most" (Collins & Case, 1974, p. 9). 2. It is imperative that assistance be provided early rather than waiting for a crisis of student dissatisfaction as has too often occurred in the past. Centra (1976),in his widely recognized national study, found that student ratings of teachers showed significant improvement at the .001 level during the first year of teaching. In succeeding years, improvement slowed substantially. He concluded that beginning teachers can especially profit from teaching-improvement activities. Considering the numbers, backgrounds, and turnover rates of part-time faculty, early assessment of teaching skills and provision of opportunities for development are even more significant. Early attention to teaching skills with new faculty also serves to emphasize the primacy of teaching in the community college. It expresses the tangible commitment of the institution to quality teaching and should be expected to affect positively the attitudes of new faculty members. 3. To maximize the effectiveness of training efforts with adults, thegpotential participants must be receptive to the program. Unlike children, who often learn in order to accumulate knowledge for some unspecified future use, research suggests that adults want to learn those things that they see as being responsive to self-perceived problems and needs (Knowles, 1970). Tough (1978) showed that adults engage in large amounts of self-directed learning rather than choos- ing participation in other-directed group activities. McCatty (1973), inz1study of learning patterns among professional men, found that 75 percent of their learning activity was self-directed. One reason for this self-direction is to maintain control over the content to be learned and to keep learning focused on perceived needs. Faculty-development specialists and part-time faculty them- selves have confirmed the necessity to respond to perceived needs. "Part-time instructors especially resent programs that are planned solely by administrators and not tailored to meet their individual needs" (Hoffman & Pool, 1979, p. 26). Black (1979) found significant differences in the perception of the instructional needs of part-time faculty held by the faculty members themselves and by the administra- tors who supervised them. Buchan (1979) pointed to the failure to consider faculty needs as well as administrative needs as one of the major obstacles to successful staff-development activities. "The voluntary nature of participation in most professional development activities requires that the subject matter of these activities be relevant to the needs of the part-time faculty members" (Weichenthal, Means, & Kozoll, 1977, p. 3). Administrative perceptions of the needs of new faculty are readily available to faculty developers and pro- vide the basis for most existing programming. This study provides another critical perception--that of the new faculty members them- selves. 4. Assessing changes in perceived instructional needs during the initial teaching experience assists in providing guidance when it is of greatest significance to the recipients. If the concerns change over time, it is logical to sequence activities to best meet the needs at each stage of development (Book & Eisenberg, 1978). No information of this type is available related to part-time faculty in community colleges. 5. By_examining differences between part-time faculty sub- populations and between part-time and full-time faculty, this study assists in tailoring programs even more closely to specific needs. It also serves to increase awareness in supervisors and staff develop- ers of the particular needs of new part-time staff members from dif- ferent backgrounds and disciplines. In summary, effective instructional faculty-development pro- gramming must be based on an adequately specific understanding of the perceived instructional needs of new part-time faculty before they begin to teach and the changes that occur in those perceptions during the initial teaching experience. This study was intended to provide this basic information. Overview of the Generalizability and Limitations of the Study Data for this study were collected in 12 colleges located in six states. More general studies have shown that needs are not sig- nificantly different by institutional type (Fent, 1978) and that faculty tend to be "fairly similar" across community colleges, with greater variation existing within institutions (Brawer, 1974). Basic instructional principles and tasks fundamental to any teaching method served as the basis for the data-gathering instrument used in this study (Davis, Alexander, & Yelon, 1974; Gagné, 1970). Thus the results may be expected to be valid in varied settings, regardless of the specific instructional delivery system in use. The data-gathering techniques and instruments are such that the study 10 can be duplicated on a small-scale basis in individual institutions as a check on its local validity. Although the focus in this study is on new part-time faculty, the results should be equally applicable to new full-time faculty with similar backgrounds and levels of experience. This study may also have implications for training of graduate teaching assistants in colleges and universities, adult and community education teachers, tutors, and leaders in nonformal educational settings. Any of the following factors may limit the validity of the results reported. Data were collected in institutions located pri- marily in the midwestern section of the United States. These insti- tutions were selected on the basis of their practical accessibility to the researcher. Instruments were distributed by a contact person in each institution, and beyond provision of specific instructions to these individuals (Appendix A), uniformity of distribution procedures cannot be guaranteed. The participation of potential subjects in the research was solicited by each institutional contact person; however, response was voluntary. The data-gathering instrument used was short, based on the perception that adequate levels of voluntary participation would not result if an extensive and time-consuming questionnaire was used. This limitation restricts the specificity of the results but was considered to provide data adequate for responding to the research questions of this study. Finally, no adequate means exists to determine whether sub- jects provided their real perceptions or responded as they felt they 11 should. In other words, to what extent were subjects truthful in their responses? This difficulty exists in all survey research, and no adequate system for checking is available. Summar The need for improved orientation and in-service activities for newly hired faculty in community colleges is widely acknowledged. Research and experience have shown that effective instructional pro- grams for adults must be designed around self-perceived needs of the participants. The self-perceptions of new faculty in community colleges are ngt_adequately understood. The purpose of this study is to examine the perceptions of newly hired faculty regarding the nature of community college instruction, their personal instructional- development needs, and their preferred formats for receiving assist- ance. The results are intended to assist instructional-development- program designers provide effective orientation for new faculty, to make programs more responsive to perceived faculty needs, to provide various types of assistance when it is most relevant to the recipi- ents, and to determine whether programming should be tailored to particular faculty subgroups. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE The review of related literature is divided into four major sections as follows: (1) Status of Part-Time Faculty in Community Colleges, (2) Quality of Instruction Provided by Part-Time Faculty, (3) Needs Assessments of Part-Time Faculty, and (4) Status of Orien- tation Programs and In-Service Programs for Part-Time Faculty. Status of Part-Time Faculty in Community Colleges The literature that describes the status of part-time faculty is fairly extensive and of recent vintage. Extent of Use The number of part-time faculty has grown steadily over the past two decades; however, consistent figures are hard to find. The American Association of Community and Junior Colleges reported that_ part-time faculty made up about 33 percent of the total number of faculty in 1960, about 40 percent by 1970, 53 percent by 1975, and 56 percent in 1979 (AACJC, 1961, 1971, 1976, 1980). Guthrie-Morse (1979) reported even more startling figures: an 88 percent increase between 1973 and 1977 in the use of part-time faculty nationally, with only a 1 percent increase in full-time faculty over the same period. Cohen and Brawer (1977) reported a 78 percent increase in 12 13 Florida between 1970 and 1974 and an 8 percent decrease in full-time during the same period. Total numbers increased from less than 49,000 in 1971 to nearly 120,000 in 1979 (Sanchez, 1980). Clearly, the growth in the use of part-time faculty in community/junior colleges over the past decade has been rapid and substantial. Use of part-time faculty is not uniform across disciplines. Generally, use is heavier in vocational-technical areas and in business. Use is also heavier off campus, at night, and in noncredit areas. Lesser concentrations also occur in the arts, social sciences, commu- nication, and mathematics (Hunt, 1979; St. John, 1979; Sewell, Brydon, & Plosser, 1976; Waddell, 1978). The number of part-time faculty employed in higher education can be expected to continue to increase over the next decade. As resources available to higher education decline, the financial advan- tages of using part-timers will take on greater importance. In addition, since full-time faculty wages continue to fall further and further behind the private sector, talented individuals may opt for nonacademic careers and be available to higher education only in a part-time capacity (Leslie, Kellams, & Gunne, 1982). Advantages of Using Part-Time Faculty From the institutional perspective, the reasons for the rapid growth in use of part-time faculty are many. The following advantages were culled from several sources (Albert & Watson, 1978; Harris, 1980; Koltai, 1976, 1977; Leslie, Kellams, & Gunne, 1982; Weichenthal, Means, & Kozoll, 1977): l4 - Lower rates of pay - Few, if any, fringe benefits - Limited office space - Flexibility; no long-term commitments - Ability to staff new and diverse course offerings - Up-to-date subject-matter backgrounds and practical experience - Credibility for the college in the community Part-time faculty are usually paid on an hourly or a per-class basis. Savings are estimated from 20 to 80 percent of the cost of an equiva- lent full-time instructor (Hoffman, 1980; Lombardi, 1976). The rationale offered in defense of lower rates of pay for part-time instruction is that teaching represents only a portion of the total responsibility of full-time faculty (Lombardi, 1976). Part-time faculty are typically hired to teach a particular class or classes during a particular time period and are re-employed only when and if the specific need reoccurs. They are generally not eligible for tenure status (Albert & Watson, 1978). Since many part— time faculty are employed outside the college in the areas that they are teaching, they often are more aware of current developments in their area of expertise (Bender & Hammons, 1972). Part-time faculty also provide a direct link between the college and the community it serves. They are often able to speak to the community with a differ- ent kind of credibility from those whose loyalties to the college are full-time (Weichenthal, Means, & Kozoll, 1977). Disadvanta es of Using Part-Time Eaculty Heavy use of part-time faculty also creates problems for institutions. Harris (1980) pointed out that it is difficult to 15 attract, hire, and retain qualified part-timers; tenure and pro-rata pay are growing concerns; part-time faculty create problems of commu- nication with students since they often are not fully aware of events and services available in the institution; and they require increased management resources. He concluded that the problems created may, in the 19805, make the financial rationale seem short-sighted. Leslie, Kellams, and Gunne (1982) stated: Many faculty members and administrators we have interviewed confess openly to serious doubts [about part-time faculty]. They have little question about the qualifications, enthusiasm, or good faith of their part-time faculty. But lack of commu- nication channels, absence of information and feedback, and the at-best informal evaluation leave them very uncomfortable about whether part-timers can be an integrated part of any coordinated instructional program. (p. 86) Several part-time issues have received substantial legal and legislative attention. These include job security and the right to tenure, equitable compensation, inclusion of part-timers in full-time collective bargaining units, fair representation for part-timers in collective bargaining, position of part-time faculty during program cutbacks, and circumstances under which part-timers must be accorded procedural protection of their civil rights (due process) (Leslie & Head, 1979). Although there is considerable inconsistency from one jurisdiction to another, courts have generally found that part-time faculty g§g_establish a property right to continued employment and must be accorded reasonable due process. Generally, pro-rata pay or "equal pay for equal work" has not been upheld on the basis that duties are not equal. The general trend has been for inclusion of part-time in collective bargaining units and strengthening of their 16 position therein. This final trend is important since it allows tenure, pro-rata pay, and other issues to be subjects of collective negotiation and further strengthens part-timers' claims by estab- lishing a legal "community of interest" with full-time faculty (Head & Kelly, 1978). Although courts and legislatures have clearly strengthened the position of part-time faculty, the question of the extent to which that has occurred is unclear. Plosser and Hamel (1976) concluded that, at that time, court cases had, in general, restricted college rights. Leslie and Head (1979) found as follows: In legal terms, part-time faculty members are indeed the mar- ginal persons of academic employment policy. Their rights have been carefully circumscribed in ways that seem to preserve admin- istrative prero ative and the vested interests of full-time faculty. (p. 66) It is probable that both of these statements are accurate, differing only in their frame of reference. Still other negative issues that have been typically raised include limited commitment to the institution, lack of understanding of the community colleges' purpose and philosophy, inadequate compre- hension of the diversity and special needs of an open-door student body, inaccessibility of students outside the classroom, and lower academic qualifications. McCabe and Brezner (1978) concluded that part-time faculty are often overused for the wrong reason (to reduce costs) without regard for program and other implications. Perspective of the Part—Time Faculty The part-time faculty themselves raise several complaints that stem, in part, from the advantages for the college. Turner 17 (1979) found low pay, no fringe benefits, and no job security were the main sources of dissatisfaction. Beman (1980) held that part- time faculty are held to higher standards than full-time since poor performance brings quick dismissal. Able (1977) contended that part- time teachers are denied the opportunity to prove themselves and then are penalized for not showing merit. She suggested that commitment to the college, an often-noted problem, is usually measured by "visibility." With off-hour schedules, inadequate office space, and systematic exclusion from college, division, and department affairs, it is hard to be visible. Greenwood (1980) stated, "It is curious that the routine means of dealing with full-time faculty are not even considered for part-time faculty members" (p. 55). He offered, as one example, office space. This is automatic for full-time but seldom provided for part-time. When it is provided, it is usually a "bull pen" arrangement. This does not meet the need for student- teacher conferences, is demeaning to the individual, and sends a subliminal message to students that this person is second-rate in the eyes of the college. Characteristics of Part-Time Faculty_ The stereotype of the part-time faculty member is the mature person with a full-time job elsewhere who teaches mainly for the enjoyment of it. This stereotype persists in the literature. "Since these individuals teach because they want to, rather than to make a living. . ."(Harris & Parsons, 1975, p. 3). Still another source referred to part-time faculty as mature personal and professional role 18 models (Ernst & McFarlane, 1978). By contrast, the national survey of Cohen and Brawer (1977) showed that nearly half were 35 years of age or younger, and fully one-third had no employment other than part- time teaching. Grymes (1976) found that the most commonly listed reason for part-time teaching (65 percent) was money. Quanty (1976) found that 17 percent of the faculty at a particular college derived more than half of their income from part-time teaching. Variety characterizes the part-time faculty member, as described in the literature: the graduate student, the employed person "moonlighting" to make money, the person teaching just for enjoyment and stimulation, the housewife "sunlighting"andcnfly'wishing to work part-time, the retired person, business and professional pe0ple, technicians, permanent part-timers who would like to be full-time, and even commuting part-timers who make full-time work out of more than one part-time teaching job. Leslie (1978) pointed out the need to avoid preconceptions and to resist generalities in treating part- time issues. Summar The number of part-time faculty has increased rapidly in recent years. They are not uniformly distributed across discipline areas. Major advantages of using part-time faculty are economics and flexibility. Problems seem to focus on overuse. In the past decade, courts and legislatures have provided some clarification of the legal rights of part-time faculty and of the colleges that hire them. Part-time faculty contend that they are second-class citizens, not l9 integrated into the mainstream of the institution economically or politically. They are a highly varied group of people without which community colleges would be hard pressed to operate. Friedlander (1979) concluded as follows: If college administrators wish to employ part-time faculty without sacrificing the quality of services provided to stu- dents, they will have to change their policy toward adjunct faculty from one of neglect to one of concern and they will have to treat their part-time instructors as professionals whose work is vital to the success of the college rather than treating them as hourly employees who can be hired and fired at will. (p. 70) Quality of Instruction by Part-Time Faculty_ The literature in this area is decidedly divided, and a definitive assessment cannot be offered. Most existing studies seek to compare the quality of instruction offered by part-time faculty to that offered by full-time faculty. Various reports have suggested that part-time quality is either better than, the same as, or worse than full-time. Although the current study does not assume or require that a difference exists, it is relevant to examine the topic. Friedlander (1979b) indicated that there is no statistical evidence that part-time instruction is inferior to full-time. He then proceeded to show that part-time faculty, on the basis of three separate national studies, show distinct differences from full-time faculty in areas likely to affect the quality of instruction (teach- ing experience, continuity of employment, degree attainment, amount of participation in selection of course materials, required reading, use of media, use of out-of—class activities, use of instructional support services, grading practices, availability to students, and 20 involvement in professional-growth activities). Based on their significantly lower scores, Friedlander concluded that to the extent that these factors affect quality instruction, part-time quality is lower. In a study of use of instructional resources by 138 full- and part-time vocational-technical teachers, Lolly (1980) found signifi- cant differences in the use of 6 of 21 resources known to be available to all of these teachers. In spite of this, he concluded that no significant overall difference existed. Seitz (1971) found part- time faculty less well prepared for teaching both academically and experientially, less knowledgeable about the educational environment, less committed to community college education, and holding less favor- able attitudes toward their college. Tuckman and Caldwell (1979) suggested that lack of incentive for part-time faculty to improve their skills, in the form of salary scales, may lead to lowered quality of instruction. Smith (1980) summed up this side of the issue when he said: "If the basic goal is promote student learning, the first step is to face the issue of how to help adjunct faculty improve the quality of their instruction" (p. 24). From the alternative perspective, Koltai (1977) suggested that part-time faculty are an "intrinsic part of the success and quality of community college education" (p. 20). Able (1977) strongly defended part-timers against charges of lack of commitment and underqualification. Ernst and McFarlane (1978), in an article entitled "Are We Shortchanging Our Students by Using Part-Time Faculty?," responded with a strong "no" and, in fact, concluded that 21 part-time faculty have enhanced the quality of instruction. Cruise, Furst, and Klimes (1980) compared full- and part-time instruction using three measures: students' evaluation of instruction, teacher self- evaluation, and administrator evaluation. They found differences on individual items on the three evaluation instruments but no statis- tically significant differences on the evaluations as a whole. They concluded, therefore, that part-time instruction was more cost effective. In a study using student ratings, student-retention ratios, and subsequent student achievement in advanced courses as dependent variables, Willett (1980) found no significant differences between full- and part-time faculty. The number of students followed into advanced courses was small (48), and the nature of the data suggested the desirability of replicating this portion of the research with a larger sample. Leslie, Kellams, & Gunne (1982) suggested that it is not the characteristics of the part-time faculty themselves that determine whether they enhance or detract from the quality of instruction. Rather, the key is how they are selected, supported, and assigned in each institution. In summary, no definitive answer to the question of quality of part-time instruction can be offered. Some impressive data have suggested lower quality, but no conclusive evidence can be presented. It is useful to offer a caution with regard to lumping together all part-time faculty as "good" or "bad." As is true of most characteristics 22 of community colleges, great variety surely exists. The evidence that at least some need assistance with teaching is clear. Needs Assessments of Part-Time Faculty A number of needs assessments involving part-time faculty were reported in the literature. Assessing and comparing these in detail is difficult because the type of group being sampled and the methods and instruments used are highly variable. The findings of several of these assessments are found in Appendix B. Some generali- zations are possible, based on these assessments. 1. When discipline or subject-matter concerns are included in the assessment, they_are highLy rated. (Note Justice, 1976; Long, 1978; and Schultz & Roed, 1978 in Appendix B.) 2. Other areas consistently rated high in the surveys are ways to teach, ways to motivate students, and how students learn. The assessment that relates most directly to instruction-related needs found part-time faculty members responding most positively in two areas: miscellaneous items (handling paperwork, use of audiovisual equipment) and evaluation items (Black, 1979). 3. There is substantial interest expressed byypart-time faculty in instructional-development activities, depending on the way the questions are asked. Fent (1978) found 65 to 75 percent express- ing interest in the areas included in his study (Appendix B). Justice (1976) found interest levels as high as 51 percent. Schultz and Roed (1978) found 30 to 60 percent positive response, and Black (1979) up to 88 percent. Long (1978), using a Likert-type scale, found a range 23 of means from 3.8 to 4.5 on a 5-point scale for the ten items listed in Appendix B and had only one rating below 3.0 among all 22 items in his survey. Fellows (1975), by contrast, used open-ended questions and received very little response. The questions "What skills or knowl- edge would help you do a better job?" and "In what specific areas related to teaching would you like more information?" were asked by an administrator in an interview situation. Fifty-four of 75 subjects failed to identify any needs, and most of the remainder identified only one need. Fellows attributed this low level of need identifica- tion to a failure of the subjects to recognize the possibilities. Clearly, however, the setting itself contained an element of threat, which may have affected the subjects' willingness to expose their true perceived needs. 4. Needs assessments show limited differences between faculty in different teaching areas. Kozoll, Means, & Weichenthal (1978) reported great similarity between the needs of vocational-technical faculty and other part-time faculty. Epstein (1978) concluded that experiential and academic differences do not significantly affect perceptions of in-service needs. 5. Need perceptions of part-time faculty and their super- visors do seem to differ, however. In her study of deans/directors of continuing education, department Chairpersons, and part-time faculty, Black (1979) found significant differences in the percep- tions of the three groups. One-hundred percent of the deans/directors, 97 percent of the Chairpersons, and 88 percent of the part-time faculty 24 saw a need for instruction-related assistance. When the specific areas of need were addressed, however, chi-square tests showed sig- nificant differences between the groups on 36 of 45 questionnaire items. 6. Data related specifically to the needs of newly hired part-time faculty or to changes inypart-time faculty perceptions over time could not be located. Longitudinal data were collected in a study of graduate and undergraduate teaching assistants at Michigan State University (Book 8 Eisenberg, 1978). This study examined the "communication concerns" of 94 subjects at the beginning, midterm, and end of an academic quarter. Responses to an open—ended question- naire were grouped according to: Concerns related to Selj}-credibility, acceptance by students, subject-matter competence, ability to control the class, nervousness, etc. Concerns related to Method--lecturing, organization of the class, responding to questions, grading, etc. Concerns related to Im act--motivating students, are students learning, intellectual development, etc. At the beginning of the session, Self concerns made up 32 percent of the total statements, Method concerns 24 percent, and Impact concerns 15 percent. At midterm, Self and Method had reversed: Method 29 per- cent, Self 24 percent, Impact 15 percent. By term-end, Self concerns had further declined, with Method and Impact concerns staying constant: Method 29 percent, Self 21 percent, Impact 15 percent. Differences were also found among subgroups of the population. Examples include significant negative correlation between education training or experience and Self concerns as well as significant 25 positive correlation between education training and Impact concerns. To the extent that this study is generalizable, it supported the existence of changes in the perceptions of part-time community college faculty during their initial teaching experience in the community college. These researchers concluded that the content of training sessions offered before, during, and after exposure to the students in the classroom should be different (Book & Eisenberg, 1978). In summary, several needs assessments of part—time faculty using varied methods and samples were reported. They showed signifi- cant interest in subject-matter concerns as well as instructional development related to teaching. Limited evidence suggested that needs are similar among part-time faculty across various disciplines but differ between part-time faculty and the administrators who super- vise them. One study showed changes over time in the perceptions of teaching assistants at the university level. Status of Orientation Programs and In-Service Programs for Part-Time Faculty The literature provided some limited information on faculty- development programming for part-time faculty. The need for such programming was commonly noted. Persons without teacher training or experience are often fearful of the teaching process and the class- room (Sellen, 1980). Administrators charged with recruitment of part-time faculty have reported to the writer that qualified persons sometimes refuse opportunities to teach because of fear or insecurity related to the teaching process. Book and Eisenberg (1978) found that the most common type of concern among new graduate and undergraduate 26 teaching assistants in a university was concern about their own per- sonal competence and relationships with students. Part-time faculty are often more willing than full-time to engage in development activities. Reasons for this observation prob- ably relate to a desire to reduce their feelings of isolation and less likelihood to see themselves "finished products" with reference to teaching. In addition, since they do see themselves as "part-time" educators, admitting a need for instructional improvement is inherently less threatening (Gallagher, 1977). Programs, however, seem to be less common than are the sugges- tions that programming is needed. Thomason (1977) found part-time orientation programs in 60 percent of Texas community colleges. No mention was made of instruction in his list of topics covered by these programs. Moe (1977), in a survey of 114 community colleges, found 68 percent had some orientation program for part-time faculty, 15 per- cent required attendance, and 17 percent provided compensation for attendance. None of these colleges indicated that they had formally surveyed part-time faculty needs, and very few included opportunities to improve teaching. Leslie, Kellams, and Gunne (1982) found that 31 percent of community colleges provide a formal orientation; however, only about 20 percent provide information about students or teaching methods. They stated, "Knowing what to teach, how to teach it, and something about the audience they will be facing remains a prime need until--by trial and error--they learn the answers by hard experience" (p. 82). Greenwood (1980) commented, "Mundane administrative details 27 that grow from making sure 'What's-his-face' has a classlist, a desk copy of the text and a shove in the direction of the classroom pre- dominate in the hustle of term opening" (p. 55). Sewell, Brydon, and Plosser (1976) found that 70 percent of California community colleges offered in-service for full-time, but only 37 percent included part-timers. Lhota (1976), in a survey of 178 colleges nationally, found that 54 percent provided a staff- development program for full-time but only 20 percent for part-time. More recently, in a national survey, 413 two-year colleges reported having an organized program of staff development. Only 60 percent of these acknowledged that "to increase the effectiveness of part-time faculty" was a goal of their program. Further, activities for part- time faculty received low effectiveness ratings in the survey. A major recommendation of this research was the placing of greater emphasis on meeting developmental goals of personnel other than full- time faculty, especially part-time faculty and support staff (Smith, 1981). The need for improved delivery models for part-time faculty development has frequently been cited in the literature. This need was documented in research with 82 "extended-day directors" in the southwestern United States. Significant differences were found between the existing and the preferred practices in recruitment, selection, orientation, supervision, and evaluation of part-time faculty (Hoffman, 1978). Several models have been pr0posed for development programs. Typical examples include a six-step model involving recruitment, 28 orientation, continuous communication, support services, instruc— tional development, and evaluation (Parsons, 1980). Nelson (1978) proposed a competency-based teacher-education model offered on the local campus over 16 weeks. Contents of this course included planning, evaluation, instructional aids, classroom management, and using local resources. Weichenthal, Means, and Kozoll (1977) developed an exten- sive handbook for facilitators of part-time professional development. Their recommendations related primarily to the orientation process or were very general in nature. McDougle (1980) provided an example of the structure and content of a minimal but common type of orientation program for part-time faculty. It consisted of a packet of written materials andaapre-session meeting with key college personnel. The contents of the packet were also typical of many reported in the literature. These included: (1) gradebook; (2) library handbook; (3) procedures relating to faculty duties; (4) guidelines for preparing a course syllabus; (5) handbook entitled "Tips for Teaching"; (6) procedures for submitting grade reports; (7) payroll information; (8) procedures for getting course materials typed and duplicated; (9) information on how to obtain faculty office space, faculty mailbox, and parking decal; and (10) sample copy of student—evaluation form. Finally, Vogler (1980) proposed a comprehensive plan for development of part-time faculty, based on an evaluation model. He included three phases: (1) a competency-based system for recruitment and hiring to assure the selection of well-qualified persons; (2) a renewal system once they have been hired, which includes formative 29 evaluation, clear developmental expectations, linkage to a full-time employee (buddy system), and inclusion in all in-service activities of the institution; and (3) a broad-based evaluation procedure with expanded reward options built in. These "expanded rewards" included such things as positive communications, stress on success and progress, and quick institutional decision making, which tends to shift lead- time flexibility to the part-time faculty member. In summary, programs of orientation and staff development are offered to part-time faculty by some institutions. The content of almost all tends to focus on administrative details, some of which are clearly necessary. Few, if any, adequately deal with questions of instructional improvement. The comment of Bender and Breuder (1973) remains appropriate nearly a decade later: "It can be con- cluded that very little is done to assist part-time faculty to improve their instruction or to have a better understanding of the people they serve" (p. 34). CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY This chapter consists of the following sections: Introduction, Definitions of Important Terms, Overview of Research Design, Research Questions, Research Hypotheses, Population and Sample, Instrument and Data Collection, Statistical Model of Analysis, and Validity Concerns. Definitions of Important Terms The following operational definitions provide a common basis for understanding. Faculty: Staff members who (1) work directly with students and (2) have as their primary function instruction, including plan- ning, delivery, and evaluation. Part-time faculty (adjunct faculty): Faculty employed to teach less than full-time, as defined by the employing institution. New faculty: Those faculty who are in the first term at their current institution. Community college (junior college, technical college): Refers to all types of two-year postsecondary institutions. Faculty development: Process intended to assist faculty to increase their job efficiency or effectiveness. 30 31 Instructional development: One component of faculty develop- ment designed specifically to address the process of teaching. Instructional-development activities: Organized institu- tional programs for the development of the instructional skills of faculty. May use a variety of formats, locations, or times. Skill limitations: Performance at a level that is less than ideal. This term is intended to include but ngt_be restricted to those shortcomings that are serious, gross, or below average. Instructional needs: Skill limitations directly related to the teaching process. Self-perceived instructional needs: Those teaching-skill limitations that are consciously recognized by an individual. Receptivity: A self-report measure of the degree to which a subject is willing to spend time and effort in organized instructional- development activities aimed at improving instructional skills. Experimentally accessible population: All new faculty at the institutions at which questionnaires were distributed. Overview of Research Design This study took the form of a longitudinal survey of new faculty members in selected community colleges. A panel of subjects responded to the same instrument before and after the completion of their initial term of teaching in order to explore time-ordered rela- tionships in perceived instructional needs and receptivity to organized instructional-development activities. This allowed analysis of changes in individuals and subpopulations. Subjects were surveyed at the 32 beginning of their teaching assignment. They then experienced a "treatment," teaching for one term, and were resurveyed. It was ngt_ the intention of this study to establish causal relationships but rather to examine the extent and nature of the changes that occurred for purposes of instructional-development-program design. This research builds on existing general needs assessments by focusing on the changes that occur in the self-perceived needs and receptivity of new part-time faculty during their initial period of teaching. These self-perceptions have been shown to be vitally important in terms of adult-learning theory and faculty-development experience. Research Questions Answers to research questions such as the following are help- ful to faculty—development-program planners. First, do changes occur in the perceived importance of selected basic teaching competencies during the initial term of teaching and, if so, what is the nature of these changes? Response to this question will allow faculty- development-program planners to understand better the expectations of new faculty as they enter community college teaching. It will also allow those program planners to evaluate the changes that occurred during that initial experience as well as to compare both preteaching and postteaching expectations to the conclusions of experienced com- munity college teachers and researchers. Second, do changes occur in self-perceived effectiveness in these same basic teaching competencies over the same period and, if so, what is the nature of these changes? This information assists 33 program planners in understanding the self-perceived strengths and weaknesses of new part-time teachers, and how realistic those initial perceptions are, based on the changes that occur. Third, do changes occur in perceived instructional needs? These first three research questions provide a basis for tailoring the content and timing of training activities to maximize the potential effect on participants. Fourth, do changes occur in receptivity to organized instructional-development activities during the initial term of teaching and, if so, what is the nature of these changes? This information will assist program planners in decisions regarding neces- sary incentives for faculty participation as well as program formats and timing. Finally, do the changes that occur in perceived importance, perceived effectiveness, instructional needs, and receptivity vary between defined faculty subgroups and, if so, what is the nature of this variation? Response to this final research question provides input to faculty-development-program planners regarding the degree to which activities should be tailored for specific faculty subgroups. Research Hypotheses From the research questions for this study, the following hypotheses were drawn. 1. Preteaching perceived importance ratings will differ from postteaching ratings. 34 2. Preteaching self-perceived effectiveness ratings will differ from postteaching ratings. 3. Preteaching instructional need will differ from postteaching instructional need. 4. Preteaching receptivity_ratings will differ from post- teaching ratings. 5. The changes that occur in ratings of importance, effective- ness, instructional need, and receptivity will differ between faculty subgroups defined on the basis of the amount of previous teaching experience and the level of previous teaching experience. 6. The changes that occur in ratings of importance, effective- ness, instructional needs, and receptivity will ngt_differ between faculty subgroups defined on the basis of age, sex, current occupa- tion in addition to teaching, discipline, full-time or part-time status, and institution. Significant percentages of new part-time faculty have been shown to be inexperienced in working with postsecondary students and adults, to be unfamiliar with the diversity resulting from the "open door" policy of most community colleges, and to be new to teaching in general. Thus their initial perceptions of importance and effec- tiveness, before exposure to students and the classroom, are expected to be somewhat unrealistic. If, as predicted, changes in one or both of the first two hypotheses occur, then changes in instructional needs are also to be expected. No adequate evidence exists to justify prediction in the area of receptivity. The hypothesis that differences will occur is based 35 on personal experiences of the researcher in working with community college personnel in instructional development and on the fact that differences are anticipated in the first three hypotheses. If changes occur in perceived importance, effectiveness, and instructional needs, it is reasonable to anticipate changes in the subjects' willingness to spend time and effort in organized training activities. Since the amount and type of previous teaching experience are the significant factors leading to prediction of differences in the preceding hypotheses and since they are directly related to the subjects' perceptions of the teaching process, they are expected to produce differences when isolated as independent variables. The factors in Hypothesis 6 are not directly related to the teaching process and are not, therefore, anticipated to produce dif- ferences when isolated. Limited and mixed previous research generally supports this prediction (Blue, 1979; Book & Eisenberg, 1978; Epstein, 1978). Population and Sample The target population of this study consisted of new full- time and part-time faculty in two-year community colleges. The term "part-time" is not used consistently in the literature. The opera- tional definition employed here avoided the unnecessary problem of evaluating hours taught, type of contract, method of compensation, and many other defining factors used by various institutions. It also defined the group that each institution would see as potential candi- dates for part-time faculty instructional-development activities. 36 The definition of "new" faculty was selected because it describes the population a staff developer would be working with in orientation and early in-service activities. Persons having previous community college experience qualify as "new" if they are new to the current institution. Although it is reasonable to expect that this subgroup may show smaller changes in perceived need due to their previous experience, there was no reason to exclude them from the sample. Specifically excluded from this study were experienced full- time faculty members teaching on an overload basis, nonteaching coun- selors and librarians, as well as tutors and others performing similar limited instructional functions. The experimentally accessible population for this study con- sisted of all persons fitting the given definitions from 12 community colleges in six midwestern and southern states. These institutions were selected on the basis of the availability of persons willing to serve as an institutional coordinator for purposes of identifying persons who qualified as subjects and distributing questionnaires to them in a time frame compatible with the design requirements of this research. The investigator attempted to reach all members of the experi- mentally accessible population. It is clear that some potential subjects were missed due to the number of institutions and individuals involved and the need to make initial contact in a timely fashion. The requirement of a second response from subjects also resulted in a loss of some subjects. 37 Instrument and Data Collection Data were collected using an instrument developed specifically for this study (Appendix C). Design requirements included a question- naire brief enough to allow for efficient administration and approp- riate to the varied discipline areas and teaching methods present in the sample. No adequate pre-existing form could be located. Items A through G on the front side of the preteaching questionnaire collected background data on the participants. This information was used to distribute postteaching questionnaires and to divide the sample for analysis of subgroups. Part A of the instrument was designed around basic principles of effective instruction (Appendix D) as presented by Davis, Alexander, and Yelon (1974) and Gagné (1970). These authors regarded the prin- ciples, or events, of instruction as fundamental to effective teach- ing regardless of the age of the students, the nature of the subject matter, or the teaching method in use. For purposes of the instru- ment, the principles were stated in terms of faculty competencies. Ten competencies were described, nine based on the principles and one (the second item in Part A) to reflect the commonly acknowledged community college problem of teaching students with widely divergent backgrounds, abilities, and goals in the same classroom. Language was altered to remove terminology that would not be expected to be familiar to the noneducators who made up a large part of the sample. The subjects were asked to rate each of the ten basic teaching com— petencies in Part A on a five-point Likert—type scale, in terms of 38 (1) its perceived importance for successful teaching in the commu- nity college and (2) his/her own self-perceived effectiveness in that area. An instructional need was considered to exist when a subject perceived that the importance of a particular competency exceeded his/her own effectiveness. The numerical values for instructional need were generated by subtracting the effectiveness rating from the importance rating for each teaching competency and setting all nega- tive results to zero. Part B sought information regarding the participants' percep- tions of various formats for providing instructional-development programming. Five statements reflected programming options commonly reported in the literature: voluntary participation, required attendance, payment for participation, and individualized self—study materials. Subjects were asked to indicate the likelihood of their choosing to participate under each set of conditions. The postteaching questionnaire (Appendix E) differed from the preteaching form in two ways: (1) replacement of the background-data items on the front side with a statement recalling the individuals' previous choice to participate and a review of relevant information related to the purposes and procedures of the study and (2) a change from future to past tense in the question regarding effectiveness. A11 questionnaire items were identical on the preteaching and post- teaching forms. The instrument was pilot-tested with a sample of 21 subjects. Included were staff-development personnel representing potential 39 users of this research, faculty members representing the potential subjects, and persons from the community who were not presently connected with a two-year college, representing noneducators who are typically employed as part-time faculty. Primary concerns in the pilot test were the length of time required to complete the instru- ment, clarity of format and layout, elimination of confusing language or jargon, and general reactions to the questionnaire and to the individual items it contained. The special concern was to avoid making the instrument too simplistic for experienced teachers while maintaining adequate clarity for noneducators. Minor changes in language and format of the instrument resulted. To respond to the research questions of this study, initial data collection was required in the relatively brief period of time after new part-time faculty had been employed but before they began to teach. This presented special problems for three reasons: (1) various institutions begin theirsessions at different times, (2) it is common for part-time faculty to receive notice of teaching assignments only a few days or even a few hours before the beginning of the class, and (3) the last days before a term opening are usually hectic and confusing times for supervisors of part-time faculty. Given these considerations, participating institutions were selected on the basis of the availability of a person inside the institution willing to serve as a coordinator. These persons identified poten- tial subjects based on written guidelines (Appendix A), distributed the questionnaires at the appropriate time for their institution, 40 received returns in sealed envelopes to preserve confidentiality, and forwarded these to the researcher for analysis. The second phase of the data collection occurred near the end of the subjects' first teaching experience. The postteaching instru- ment was distributed through the institutional coordinators to all the initial respondents. The second questionnaires were returned through the campus coordinators. Again, sealed envelopes were used to protect confidentiality. A direct mail follow-up was conducted with all nonrespondents. Statistical Model of Analysis Hypotheses l, 2, 3, and 4 predict that preteaching ratings of importance, effectiveness, instructional need, and receptivity will differ from postteaching ratings. Importance, effectiveness, instructional need, and receptivity ratings were tabulated in con- tingency tables in which preteaching ratings were the column variables and postteaching ratings were the row variables. A set of ten tables was generated for each of the first three hypotheses, one table for each of the ten items in Part A of the data-gathering instrument (Appendix C). A set of five tables was generated for Hypothesis 4, one table for each of the five items in Part B of the data-gathering instrument. A second identical group of tables was generated using only the part-time portion of the sample. The McNemar Test for Significance of Changes was used to search for differences between preteaching and postteaching percep- tions (McNemar, 1962, pp. 224-27). This test is particularly suited 41 to designs of the type used in this study in which the same indi- viduals are sampled before and after an experience and in which meas- urement is on an ordinal scale (Siegel, 1956). The McNemar Test is based on frequency counts entered in a table of the following general type. Before - + + A B After - C D Cell A contains subjects who increased their rating from pretest to posttest, that is, expressed greater importance, greater effectiveness, greater need, or greater receptivity on the posttest. Cell 0 con- tains those subjects who decreased their rating, that is, expressed less importance, effectiveness, need, or receptivity on the posttest. Cells B and C contain those subjects who did not change their rating from pretest to posttest. The null hypothesis (Ho) predicts that A and D are equal to the quantity §(A + D); that is, change in both directions is the same. D 2 (A ; D yields values distributed Evaluating the expression as chi-square with df = 1, provided the sum A + D equals 20 or more (McNemar, 1962, p. 227). For smaller values of A + D, a correction fOr continuity is necessary. This correction involves subtracting one from the absolute value of the quantity A - D. 42 Use of this nonparametric McNemar test sacrificed some sensi- tivity in detecting small differences, that is, increased the proba- bility of a Type II error (8). Where the data allow comparison with a parametric t-test, the power-efficiency is approximately 95 percent when A + D is small, decreasing to about 63 percent when A + D is large (Siegel, 1956). This restriction was not considered a major problem for this research since small differences are not of sub- stantial interest to potential users, instructional-development- program designers. A basic chi-square test of independence X2 = ZIQ_%_§IE. was used for tests of Hypotheses 5 and 6, which compare subgroups from the total sample. Where appropriate, the correction for continuity was incorporated. The data from each question for each variable (importance, effectiveness, instructional need, and receptivity) were tabulated in 2 x k contingency tables. The subgroups were the column variables, subjects who changed their rating from pretest to posttest was one row variable, and subjects who did not change their rating was the other row variable. This resulted in 35 tables for each of the eight sets of subgroups in Hypotheses 5 and 6. The initial sub- groups, derived from the data-gathering instrument, were combined as necessary to meet the requirement that 80 percent of the expected cell frequencies (E) be 5 or more and that all E values be 2 or more. All tests were carried out at the a = .05 level of signifi- cance. A significant chi-square value did not indicate where in the table/sample changes occurred (MC, in the case of the chi-square test of independence, the direction of those changes. The additive 43 property of the chi-square values, however, allowed examination of the contributions of each cell of a table to the total chi-square value for the table, thereby showing whether the change was uniform across the sample or concentrated in particular cells. Comparison of the observed and expected values in each cell gave evidence of the direction of change. Validity Concerns Validity concerns are of two general types defined by Campbell and Stanley (1966). Internal validity, in the context of this study, relates to whether changes detected in the subjects are real and whether major undetected change occurred. External validity refers to whether the results of the study are applicable to the target population in general or are in some way unique to this sample. Since the current study is survey research designed to detect change in the sample but not to establish cause, the sources of concern for internal validity are limited. Whereas internal validity is a necessary pre- condition for meaningful research of any type, the more complex ques- tion for this study is whether the results may be used beyond the experimental setting. Internal validity for survey research relates to the question of whether or not the instrument elicits the actual perceptions of subjects. One can never be sure in assessing perceptions or opinions that the subject's responses on a questionnaire reflect his/her actual feelings on the subject. The response that seems to be desired by the researcher or that is socially acceptable sometimes vies with the 44 truth in the mind of the respondent. No adequate "lie detector" scale exists (Bradburn & Sudman, 1980, p. 174). The tendency consciously or unconsciously to shade responses increases with the level of threat of the questionnaire items (Bradburn & Sudman, 1980). Although an attempt was made to avoid highly threatening language, questions of personal effectiveness may create anxiety for inexperi- enced faculty. The design of the instrument and the data-collection procedures were designed to minimize this threat. The degree to which it affected the responses, however, cannot be determined. Since instruments were distributed by an institutional coordinator in each college, uniformity of distribution procedures cannot be guaranteed. Guidelines for identification of potential subjects were provided to the coordinators (Appendix A), and all instructions to the subjects themselves were included in writing on the questionnaire. Possible variation in the responses caused from this source was considered to be minimal. Effects from all of the above sources were further minimized by the fact that the major concern of this researcher was changes in perception from the initial to the final questionnaire. Since these concerns would be expected to operate in the same way on both the initial and the final forms, their effect on the presence or absence of change in the subject's perceptions was reduced. Statistical regression did not represent a viable source of change in this sample because the subjects were not selected on the basis of their extreme views. 45 In summary, the instrument and procedures used were expected to provide internally valid data regarding changes in the perceptions of the research subjects. Threats to external validity are related to the extent to which the results of this survey can be applied to institutions and faculty members other than the research subjects. External validity can never be proven, due to the basically illogical nature of generali- zation. Generalization is always based on the assumption that a myriad of factors affecting the experimental group and the population either have no significant effect or affect both groups in the same way. The researcher can only isolate those factors that would seem to be potentially significant and disregard the rest (Campbell & Stanley, 1966). In spite of these facts, history has proven the use- fulness of generalization. A basic concern for external validity is sampling error or population validity. Do the institutions or individuals included in the sample differ in significant ways from the remainder of the target population? The fact that multiple institutions were used and that they varied in geographic location, size, and mission provides some evidence of representativeness. In addition, Brawer (1974), in an in-depth study of three colleges, found greater variety in faculty members within institutions than between institutions. A related concern was whether the group of volunteer subjects was disproportionately sensitive to teaching concerns. Although par- ticipation was not required, it was hoped that distributing and collecting questionnaires through a personal contact in each institution 46 would encourage participation and result in reaching a large portion of the experimentally accessible population. In addition, since the majority of instructional-development programming for part-time faculty is offered on a voluntary-participation basis, the sample is likely to reflect the group that might be expected to use materials developed on the basis of this study. Testing concerns, the effects of a pretest and posttest, are unavoidable in longitudinal research. The question is whether the content of the preteaching and/or postteaching questionnaires or the process of completing them sensitized subjects to teaching concerns and thus altered the changes that occurred as compared to a non- surveyed group. The use of a nonpretested control group was considered and rejected due to the number of subjects in the experimentally accessible population. Since the time interval between pretest and posttest was substantial (at least several weeks) and it was percep- tions that were being measured, not achievement, the effect should be expected to be small. It is also important to consider that in those institutions that might choose to use the results of this study in program planning, new part-time faculty are likely to be subjected to a local needs-assessment instrument, making the experimental and application settings similar. As with any longitudinal panel study, mortality is a poten- tial problem. Mortality refers to the introduction of differences due to differential characteristics of those subjects who continue in the research and those who drop out. Does a common difference exist among those who dropped out that makes the completers 47 unrepresentative of the population? No such difference was identi- fied in this sample. Several factors that typically affect the validity of longi- tudinal research in general were not of importance in this study. The nature of the instrument used and the nature of the sample did not suggest that an instrument x sample interaction should be expected; that is, no sufficient reason existed to anticipate that the instru- ment affected this sample differently from the population. The possibility exists that some factor related to when the research was done served to alter the results and make them specific to the group surveyed. Did something happen in one or more of the subject institutions, i.e., strike, student unrest, promulgation of new regulations, that served to create or suppress change in the subject group? No major events of this type are known to have occurred. Replication of the survey would give evidence with regard to this con- cern. The Hawthorne effect, the extent to which being part of an "experiment" affected the subjects' reactions, was also considered to be possible. Did being asked to complete the questionnaire by a person of authority alter the responses as compared to a group solicited by mail, or compared to an unsurveyed group? Since the use of control groups was considered impractical, no direct evidence was available. If such an effect occurred, it can again be noted that institutions choosing to use the results of this research would be likely to make similar requests of new faculty. 48 Finally, Campbell and Stanley (1966) called for making experimental conditions as similar as possible to the application setting in order to maximize generalizability. Snow (1974) expanded on this concept in what he called "representative design." He argued that an educational system should be treated as an ecology in which many variables interact with one another and with the human actors in a complex and largely uncontrollable fashion. Thus, to maximize generalizability, experimental conditions should be representative of the natural environment in which the results will be used. The design of this study was highly representative in that it sampled real colleges and their new faculty members, identified local per- sonnel to distribute and collect the data-gathering instruments, treated the subject's actual teaching assignment as the "experimental treatment," and used a survey process similar to that which would be anticipated in institutions choosing to make use of the results of the study. In summary, although external validity can never be fully established, evidence was presented that the results of this research can be used in instructional-development program design for new faculty in community colleges. Summar An instrument specifically designed for this study was used to survey newly hired faculty in community colleges before and at the completion of their first term of teaching. The subjects indicated their perceptions of the importance of ten basic faculty-member 49 competencies for successful teaching, their Self-perceived effective- ness in each of these ten competencies, and the likelihood of their choosing to participate in instructional-development activities under five different sets of conditions. The McNemar Test for Significance of Changes and the chi-square test of independence were used to search for changes in the subjects' perceptions during their initial teaching experience. Hypotheses of change were based on the general finding that new faculty in community colleges tend to be inexperienced as teachers and unfamiliar with the diversity found in community college classrooms. The primary concern for internal validity in the study related to the extent to which the responses of the subjects were truthful. No appropriate scale was available. Concerns for external validity included sampling error, use of volunteer subjects, testing concerns, mortality, and the Hawthorne effect. The experimental design was highly representative of the natural environment in which the results would be used by instructional-development-program planners. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS This chapter contains the characteristics of the study respond- ents, tests of hypotheses, and a summary of the results of the study. Characteristics of the Study Respondents Responses to the initial questionnaire were received from 180 subjects representing 12 institutions. The percentage of the experimentally accessible population represented is not known with accuracy due to the unavailability of figures for the total number of newly hired faculty in all participating institutions. In three of the larger institutions, which together contributed about two-thirds of the total sample, the percentages were approximately 75 percent, 65 percent, and 45 percent. In a few of the smaller institutions, 100 percent of the new faculty were included. These known figures suggest that an appropriate estimate of the percentage of the experi- mentally accessible population who responded to the preteaching ques- tionnaire lies between 50 and 75 percent. Usable postteaching responses were received from 145 subjects, or 81 percent of those responding to the preteaching form. Table 1 summarizes the demographic characteristics of all respondents, the full-time segment, the part-time segment, and the nonrespondents--that is, the group who completed the first questionnaire 50 51 Table l.—-Summary of descriptive variables for respondents and nonrespondents.a % of Total 1 of % of % of Non- Descriptive Var1ab1es Respondents Full-Time Part-Time respondents .46.: Under 30 35 45 32 37 30-39 47 39 50 37 40 and over 17 15 18 26 251 Female 52 61 49 43 Male 48 39 51 57 CURRENT OCCUPATION IN D H Related to courses taught 48 27 54 59 Not related to courses taught 21 12 23 21 Others 32 61 23 21 DISCIPLINE Business 28 21 3O 23 Sciences 21 33 17 9 Arts 15 21 14 17 Health careers 15 12 16 9 Vocational/technical ll 12 11 26 Others 10 O 14 17 STATUS Part-time 77 O 100 89 Full-time 23 100 O 11 INSTITUTION College A 43 O 55 60 College B 17 3O 14 17 College C 10 O 14 6 College D 10 24 5 14 Others 20 45 13 3 AMOUNT OF PREVIOUS TEACHING EXPERIENCE More than one year 65 67 64 45 One year or less 16 21 14 24 None 20 12 22 3O LEVEL OF PREVIOUS TEACHING EXPERIENCE Elementary/secondary only 12 3 15 9 Four-year college/univ. only 15 24 13 6 Connmnity college only 14 O 18 6 None 19 12 22 29 Other or combinations 4O 61 33 51 aTotal may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. bPercentages are based on a total of 145 respondents, 33 full-time, 110 part-time. and 35 nonrespondents. 52 but who failed to respond to the second questionnaire. Examination of this table shows that the subjects were young, 35 percent under 30 years of age and 83 percent under 40 years of age. The full-time segment was slightly younger, and the part-time segment was slightly older. The nonrespondents showed a noticeable increase in the old- est group. These findings parallel the findings of Cohen and Brawer (1977) who found, in a national study, that nearly half of the part- time faculty population was 35 years of age or younger. The total respondents and the part-time segment were evenly balanced by sex. The full-time segment had fewer men, whereas the nonrespondents showed fewer women. Sixty-nine percent of the total respondents and 77 percent of the part-time segment had other employment. This supports the gen- erally reported finding that most part-time faculty are teaching in addition to another job. Approximately half of both the total respondents and the part-time segment were employed in a field related to the courses they were teaching. Only about one-quarter of the full-time were so employed. The largest percentages, by discipline, were in business (28 percent) and the sciences including the social sciences and mathe- matics (21 percent). The full-time segment was concentrated in the arts and sciences (54 percent) with a reduced number in business (21 percent) and none in the category "Others." The part-time faculty were most numerous in the "Business" and "Other" categories. The literature reported heavier use of part-time faculty in business/ vocational/technical, and noncredit areas. This is compatible with 53 the findings of this study. Nonrespondents showed a different pat- tern, with fewer in business, sciences, and health careers and more in the remaining categories, especially vocational/technical. A slightly larger percentage of the nonrespondents were part- time faculty. This finding was expected since institutions tend to have poorer communication with part-timers and thus they might be less likely to receive or return the final form. The institutions in the study were different in size as well as in their tendency to employ part-time faculty (Appendix F). Conse- quently, the largest institution in the sample, which employed several hundred part-time faculty, provided 43 percent of the total respondents and 55 percent of the part-time respondents. Four of the 12 institu- tions provided 80 percent of the total respondents and 87 percent of the part-time. The zeros for Institutions A and C reflect the fact that the new full-time faculty at these schools were not surveyed. The major effect of this omission was to increase the part-time to full-time ratio. That ratio was higher for the sample (77 percent) than was reported in the literature (56 percent) (AACJC, 1980). Nonrespondents were concentrated in Institutions A, B, and C. There was a very small nonresponse rate in the eight smaller institutions included in the "Other" category. The two previous-teaching-experience variables, amount and level, produced little variation between the total respondents and the part-time segment. The full-time segment did show some signifi- cant variation, with a smaller portion having no previous experience and a larger portion coming from a four-year college background. The 54 "Other or Combinations" category contained a wide variety of nonformal educational experiences or varying combinations of the preceding categories. The larger number of full-time faculty in this category suggested that they may have had more diverse teaching backgrounds than did the part-timers. These results were compatible with the find- ings of Friedlander (1979b) and Seitz (1971), who reported that part- time faculty had lower levels of previous teaching experience than did full-time. The nonrespondents were also concentrated in the lower experience categories. Twenty-nine percent of the respondents had some previous teaching experience in a community college, either alone or in combination with experience at other levels. The majority of these were one year or less; however, as much as five or six years of community college experience was present. Tables 2 and 3 summarize additional information related to the initial respondents and the final respondents. The chi-square test of independence was applied to each of the eight descriptive variables, yielding the results in Table 2. Each of these eight tests showed no statistically significant difference between the respondent subgroups and the nonrespondent subgroups. Table 3 compares the preteaching responses of the respondents and the nonrespondents, again using the chi-square test of independence. No significant dif- ferences in ratings of "importance," "instructional needs," or "recep- tivity" were found. Two of the ten "effectiveness" ratings did differ between the two groups. These were Item 4, "open communication," and Item 7, "make learning as pleasant as possible." In both cases, a significant number of nonrespondents rated their expected effectiveness 555 Table 2.--Comparison of number of respondents and nonrespondents in descriptive variable subgroups.a Variable: Age N. Under 30 30-39 40 6 Over 179 64 81 34 Respondents 144 51 68 25 Nonrespondents 35 13 13 9 Chi-squareb = 1.69 (df - 2, table value - 5.99) Variable: Sex N_ Female Male 180 90 90 Respondents 145 75 70 Nonrespondents 35 15 20 Chi-square = 0.57 (df = 1, table value 8 3.84) Variable: Occupation Related to Not Related to Other Than Teaching N_ Courses Taught Courses Taught None 154 89 37 28 Respondents 120 69 30 21 Nonrespondents 34 20 7 7 Chi-square = 0.36 (df - 2, table value - 5.99) Variable: Discipline Health Voc./ N_ Business Sciences Arts Careers Tech. Others 180 48 33 28 25 25 21 Respondents 145 40 30 22 22 16 15 Nonrespondents 35 8 3 6 3 9 6 Chi-square 8 8.95 (df - 5, table value = 11.07) Variable: Status N_ Full-Time Part-Time 178 37 141 Respondents 143 33 110 Nonrespondents 35 4 31 Chi-square = 1.66 (df = 1, table value = 3.84) Variable: Institution N_ College A College 8 College C College D Others 180 83 31 17 19 30 Respondents 145 62 25 15 14 29 Nonrespondents 35 21 6 2 5 l Chi-square - 8.00 (df = 4, table value = 9.49) Variable: Amount of Teaching More Than One Year Experience N_ One Year or Less None 174 106 30 38 Respondents 141 91 22 28 Nonrespondents 33 15 8 10 Chi-square - 4.04 (df - 2, table value = 5.99) Variable: Level of E1./Sec. or Conmunity TeaCEing Experiencec N_ 4-Year College College None 104 44 22 38 Respondents 87 39 20 28 Nonrespondents l7 5 2 10 Chi-square a 4.41 (df = 2, table value . 5.99) aPersons who responded to the first questionnaire but not to the second. bCalculated using the basic chi-square test of independence. cRespondents with experience at several levels were eliminated, resulting in lower N for this variable. 56 n mzpm> mpnmp ._ u we "cashed ummz cw mmzpm> Ppm use caspoo mmmcm>wuuwmeu cw m use p meuH .a xmucmaa< cw mean .u xwucmaa< cw nonwoucou mama? we mcwucoz pumxm .mm.m .mm. A.mR* .mo. v we .ww.m u m:_.0> mpnmu .N u “Zuu n .ucoomm on» op no: pan mgwmccowpmmsc umcwe on» on nmccoammg on: mcomgmam keoo.o NN.N m~.F muocpoz we apmwem> .o mm.o m_.P m~._ mummh memgmca .m mm.o mp.m mn.~ mmapu a~wcmmco .m mm.o eom.~ «ewo.o acmmmmpa mcwcemmS .N Pm.o mn.m «aFo.o :mw>mm use mowuomca .o Pm.o nmcwscwm CH .mp mN.o UEd m~.o cowucmpu< cwmpcwcz .m mm.o umNVFmsuw>wucH .ep oP.o «mo.m_ om.m covumuecaseoo :mao .e NP.N ewe; CH .mp eeoo.o mm.o em.o mamcumcoEmo .m «emo.o Lamaczpo> .~_ mm.o um.o em.— apwpwn< acmcmmwwo .N Fm.o cowomscomcH use xmmm .FF 85¢.N uwm.o omo.m mmmchemcwcmmz ._ mmwwwm swam mcwmccowummzc -wmmmme mmwmwwwp mocmagonsm nsmpH mcwmccompmmso Amm:_m> acmzcmuwcuv mmpcmucoammcco: ecu mucmucoammc mo mmmcoammc mc_;ommpmca mo :omwcoaeouuu.m mpnmp 57 lower on these items. This difference may be explained by the fact that nonrespondents were more likely to have little or no previous teaching experience. In summary, initial responses were received from 180 subjects representing 12 institutions and an estimated 50 to 75 percent of the experimentally accessible population. The postteaching response was 145 or 81 percent of the initial respondents. The demographics of the sample generally matched information reported in the literature for part-time faculty. The subjects were young (83 percent less than 40 years of age), evenly divided by sex, and largely employed in addition to their teaching (69 percent). By discipline, they concen- trated in business (28 percent) and the sciences (21 percent), with fewer than expected in vocational/technical areas (11 percent). Seventy-seven percent of the respondents were part-time. Two-thirds had more than one year of teaching experience, whereas 20 percent had none. The level of previous teaching experience was widely and evenly distributed. Twenty-nine percent of the respondents had at least some previous exposure to community college teaching. When the respondents were compared to the group who failed to respond to the postteaching questionnaire, no meaningful differences were detected. Tests of Hypotheses One, Two, Three, and Four The following section reports the results of tests of each hypothesis. Statistical results for each of the first four hypotheses are summarized in Tables 4, 6, 7, and 9. Entries in these tables for each questionnaire item include the number of subjects who responded 58 to the item, the number who rated the item lower on the postteaching questionnaire, the number who rated the item higher on the post- teaching questionnaire, the total percentage of respondents who changed their rating of the item, and a chi-square value showing whether there was significant directional change in the group response. At the bottom of each table are mean values for the first three col- umns. These mean values were used to calculate the overall values for percentage of changed ratings and group chi-square, which appear at the bottom of the final two columns. The data on which these tables are based are included in Appendix H. Two types of change in the sample are represented by the values in the two right-hand columns of these tables. The first is the percentage of individuals who had a different perception after teaching than they had before, without regard to the direction of the change. This measure relates to the question of how realistic the perceptions of the new faculty members were as they entered community college teaching. The second is whether the grggp_of respondents shifted toward a significantly higher or lower rating for each item after teaching. This second measure relates to whether the group of new faculty changed significantly from their preteaching perception. To illustrate in another way, it would be possible for 100 percent of the subjects to change their rating from pretest to posttest, a fact of interest to a faculty-development-program designer; however, if half increased and half decreased their rating, no group directional change would result, and the calculated chi-square value would be zero. 59 These two measures relate to change/no change and increase/ decrease dimensions of the data. A third measure of change in the respondents is shown in Tables 5 and 8. These consist of a tabulation of the actual preteaching and postteaching responses of the subjects. Frequency counts for each scale position (1-5) are expressed as a per- centage of the total response for each questionnaire item for each variable (importance, effectiveness, need, and receptivity). This permits analysis of (l) which questionnaire items were rated higher or lower, (2) the distribution of the ratings for each item, and (3) how the distribution of ratings changed from preteaching to post- teaching. It allows response to the question of how much the ratings changed. Appendix I contains the mean preteaching and postteaching ratings for readers who prefer the data in that form. This presents the same type of information as Tables 5 and 8. Hypothesis One Preteaching perceived importance ratings will differ from postteaching ratings. Table 4 summarizes results related to Hypothesis One. Ibg_ overall group chi-square value of 1.21 was NOT SIGNIFICANT at the .05 level and did not support the hypothesis. Two of the ten individual items did receive significantly lower importance ratings on the post- teaching questionnaire: Item 5, "maintain student attention and interest," and Item 7, "make learning as pleasant as possible." The remaining eight items showed no significant directional change. 6O Aem.m n eewe> open» .. u wuv memeezu we moceuwwwemwm Lew “mew sneeze: osu mewme ueuep:u_eu .8. v m. a .u xwueeee< cw ueeweueee meme, we oewuge: ueexme m~.— we NN on mow FN.P we aw mm cc. me=_e> new: ow._ mm mm mm oo_ .e.o Nm mm mm «up .mueguee mewsoeeu we auewce> e em: .o_ 85 s 8 mm 2: 85 5 R R 3; .38”. 9368.... 88a: .m mm.o me Fm mN mop mp.o me m~ NM new .egeow muceueum ewe; use» nae: cw mmepe onwcemco .m awe.o Ne cw pm wow «mv.u «e Fm —q New .opewmmee we weemeowe me mcwcceew exe: .w a: w a an 2: 8.. mm a z. 3: 45:2 e; 8:83 Lew mowuwceuceeee euw>ece .o aum.m we mp em oo. ¢N~._p me op we cop .umoceuew uee cewuceuue acoueum eweucwe: .m oo.o we NN mm o—F mm.— we mN mm mew .eewueuwceeeeu cone we «casemeeue oueocu .e oo.o ac em ow wow wo.o we em mm New .mppwxm _e»:es Le weewmxge euecumeeeeu »_o>wueowwu .m Nu._ mm em mm mow mw.o me mm on cow .mowuwpwee ueocewwwu we mueeueum e» ueeu< .m 85 new em a 2: .35 .elm a on 3. .3352... 82. e552 9...: ._ mmcwuem mmewoex mmewuem a maewuez mmewuem mmcwumm .I eweaem uomcegu uemeeeocm uemeecuec m emummum uomcecu uomeococm uemeegooo : mama” wcweccewumeso wgu we a we .ez we .ez . we a we .ez we .ez ..1 eewwlucee mueeueeemem pp< .eoceuLeQEH “ego wwmezueexz Lew mmcwuec mewgoemuamee use mcwzueouoce :oo3uoe neocogewwwouu.e open» 61 Isolation of the part-time portion of the respondents showed nearly identical results. The overall group chi-square value of 1.23 was ppt_significant at the .05 level. The same two individual items were seen as less important by the part-time group. The trend for all items was for equal or lesser perceived importance after experi- ence with teaching. The two items on which significant change occurred were similar in that they both related to affective aspects of student learning. The reason for the perceived decrease in importance of these items was not clear from these data alone. The percentage of individuals who changed their importance rating showed a mean value of 47 percent for the total sample, 48 percent for the part-time portion, and a range of 38 percent to 54 per- cent for both. Thus, on the average, nearly half of the subjects changed their perception of the importance of these teaching competen- cies during their initial term of teaching. Whereas more individuals expressed a lower perceived importance, ratings were divided such that no significant group change resulted. Table 5 shows that the items were given high importance rat- ings. Between 63 and 95 percent of the respondents rated the ten com- petencies to be of "major" or "critical" importance for successful teaching. The items receiving the largest percentage of "critical" (5) ratings on the pretest were Item 4, "open communication"; Item 5, "maintain attention and interest"; and Item 1, "meaningfulness." The lowest ranking of importance went to Item 10, "use a variety of methods." 62 .e>ppumwwm mOe3p< n O .m>puomwwm Oppeemz u v .e>ppemwwm OpposepmeooO n O .e>ppoewwm soupem u N .e>ppuewwm se>mz .eesepseeep peopupsu n O .eusepgeeep gene: u e .eesepseeep eueceuez u m .eesepseeep sesp: u N .useuseeep pez pu p n .Ospusees e» esu accuses OOp peeem pes Ne: .Opp use Oep Opepespxessse u.m .meOeuseusee we uemmmeexme O pO OO O p O NO NO N p Op we ON O O ON Ne NN O O .muesues Op Oc Om N O Op Oe Om N O ON NO ON N O Op NO ON N O Ospsueep we Nuepse> e um: .Op Op OO NN O p pp OO ON e p ON pO ON O p ON OO pN N p O NN Op O O O OO Op o O ON ve ON O p ON NO «N e p .mpmeu e>pueewwe usesees .O pp ON Op p O pp OO ON p O Om NO Op O O Om «O O O O .sseep museuspm Opes Np OO Op O O Op NO Op O O pe pO O O O pe pO O O O peg» mNe: sp mmepo e~wseOsO .O Op pO ON N O up NO pN O O ON me on e O Op «O NO e O .epapmmee we NN pO Np O O Op NO Op O O ON Ne NN N O ON pv ON N O psemeeps me Ospsseep ego: .N O OO pm N O pp NO ON e O ON pO NN N O ON Oe ON N p .zep>es use «opposes ON NO Op p O ON OO Op p O ON Oe pN O O ON Ne NN O O L.ew mewppsspsesee eup>ese .O mp NN Op O O mp ON mp N O OO NO N p O OO mO pp p O .ummseusp use mp ON O O O Op pO O O O NO Oe N O O OO me O O O sepusepue pseuepm spepswez .O NO OO O O O mm OO O O p Oe Ne N O O OO me O p O .sepueepssseee seee Oe co N p O OO Nu O p O pO OO O p O «O pe O p O we ecesemeEOe so eueesu .e Np ON O O O Op ON pp p p on Oe pN p O em Ne Op p O .mpppxm pauses Op NO Op O p ON OO Op O p cm Ow Np e O OO «O Op e O Le peupmass muesumseEeO .O Np OO ON p O Op OO ON N O ON OO NN p O NN NO ON p O .mepppppae usesewwpu N ON Op p O O pN Op N O OO O: Op O O mm Ne Op O O we mpsmueum e» peeu< .N Op pO O O O O ON Np O O OO cc O N O NO we O p O ewes .pewOspseee Op ON O O O Op ON O O O me pO O p O NO NO O p O mes uses segues peennem exez .p O c m N p O c m N up O o m N p O O m N Op memsesmem memsesmem memsesmem memsesmem eeppupses peuep eeppluses pepep seep espessepumeeo OOOzO>ppOOOOO OOzppoewwe use mosepsessp--emOspues Ospseeeupmes use Ospseeeumss we Osppmp411.O epnep 63 Items 4 and l remained high on the posttest, but Item 5 showed the largest decrease in "critical" ratings, 14 percent from 49 per- cent to 35 percent. Item 7, "make learning pleasant," showed the lowest posttest rating of importance and also showed a significant decrease from the pretest. Item 2, "adapt to students of different abilities," is com- monly listed as an important skill for success in an open-door com- munity college classroom. It received an average rating on both the pretest and posttest as compared to the other competencies. Hypothesis Two Preteaching self-perceived effectiveness ratings will differ from postteaching ratings. Table 6 summarizes results related to Hypothesis Two. Ibg_ overall group chi-square value of 5.45 was SIGNIFICANT at the .05 level and supported the hypothesis. Six of the ten individual items received significantly lower effectiveness ratings on the postteaching questionnaire: Item 4, "create an atmosphere of open communication"; Item 6, "provide opportunities for practice and review"; Item 7, "make learning as pleasant as possible"; Item 8, "organize class in ways that help students learn"; Item 9, "prepare effective tests"; and Item 10, "use a variety of teaching methods." Isolation of the part-time portion of the respondents resulted in an overall group chi-square value of 3.10, which was large but ppt_ significant at the .05 level. Four of ten individual items achieved significance, all in the direction of lower perceived effectiveness after teaching. These were Item 4, "create an atmosphere of open 611 .Oe. v N. .pOO.m n espe> epeeu .p u wuv meOsesO we euseupwpsOpO sew peep seeezuz es» Ospm: ueuepeupeua .O xpusees< sp uesweuseu meeup we Ospuse: ueexue Op.m Om Op ON NOp aO0.0 Nm Op On NOp moepe> see: .Np.O .Mm Np mm Nep .eN.N mm ON NO NOp .meosees Ospsueeu we Nuewses e um: .Op OO.N Om Op ON NOp aON.O Om Op On OOp .mpmeu e>ppeewwe esesess .O ON.N Om mp ON NOp amm.O Om Op OO NOp .sseep musousam spes pesp nae: sw mmepu e~pseOLO .O «O0.0 Om Np ON NOp up0.0 Om Np Om pOp .epepmmee me usemeops me Ospsseep exez .N «O0.0p OO Op OO OOp aOO.NN OO Np OO NOp .xop>os use eupuuess sew wepupssusesse oup>ecs .O Np.O MM pp mp OOp ON.p .MM Op ON OOp .awesepsp use seppseupe pseueum swepspez .O .3. O NO. Op mm Sp ‘8. N OO 8 NO OOp .sepueopsefiseu some we usesemespe eueesu .O pn.O NN Op mp NOp ON.O NO ON ON NOp .mpppxm peusue so peupmxss muesumsoeeu ape>ppoowwu .m ON.p Om Np ON OOp OO.N pO ON Om OOp .mewuwppee usesowwpu we museusum e» ueeu< .N ee.p Ne Op eN Ne. OO.N ON Op eN NOp .paweepseee egos espsteap axes .p «seeem mOspueO «Oswuem mOsppeO I. eseseO mOspueO mOspuem mOsppeO .1 we a ho ueOsesO uemeesesp .ez uemeesoea s e0 .ez ueOsesO uemeesosp uemeosueO s wO n we .02 we .02 s -pse eEOpp espesseppmoao espp-esea II musouseemem pp< PEN I. .mmose>ppoewwe ”exp mpmespesaz sew mOspuee Ospsoeeupmes use Ospsueeuess seezpen meusosewpr--.O epsep 65 communication"; Item 6, "provide opportunities for practice and review"; Item 7, "make learning as pleasant as possible"; and Item 10, "use a variety of teaching methods." The percentage of individuals who changed their rating showed mean values of 37 percent and 36 percent for the total and part-time respondents, respectively. The range was slightly different: 27 per— cent to 52 percent for the total respondents and 22 percent to 47 per- cent for the part-time portion. These results indicate that the anticipated level of effec- tiveness of a significant portion of the subjects was unrealistic. Comparing these effectiveness responses to those related to importance in Hypothesis One, more change occurred in Hypothesis One (47 percent) than in Hypothesis Two (37 percent); however, there was greater agree- ment regarding the direction of change in Hypothesis Two. Note that only one item, Item 7, "make learning as pleasant as possible," showed significant change on both importance and effectiveness. The subjects were less effective than they anticipated but also saw this competency as being less important. Table 5 showed that the ten competencies were given high effectiveness ratings, although not as high as their ratings of impor- tance. Between 60 and 92 percent of the sample indicated on the post- test that they were "usually" or "always" effective. The highest pretest ratings went to Item 4, "open communication"; Item 1, "mean- ingfulness“; and Item 5, "maintain attention and interest." The lowest pretest rating of effectiveness went to Item 10, "variety of teaching methods." These are the same items that received the highest 66 and lowest pretest ratings of importance. This suggests that while the anticipated levels of effectiveness were unrealistic, the subjects did accurately predict those competencies on which they would be most and least effective. The three high-ranked items remained high on the posttest, and Item 10 continued to have the lowest rating. As with importance, Item 2, "adapt to students of different abilities," received an average rating. Unlike its importance rating, it showed a sharp posttest decline in "usually effective" ratings (4) and a sharp increase in "occasionally effective" ratings (3). Hypothesis Three Preteaching instructional need will differ from post- teaching instructional need. Table 7 summarizes results related to Hypothesis Three. Ibg_ overall chi—square value of 0.72 was NOT SIGNIFICANT at the .05 level and did not support the hypothesis. Two of the ten individual items did receive significantly higher instructional need ratings on the postteaching questionnaire. These were Item 4, "create an atmosphere of open communication," and Item 6, "provide opportunities for practice and review." The remaining eight items showed no significant direc- tional change. Isolation of the part-time portion of the respondents resulted in a group chi-square of 0.11, which was ppt_significant. Neither did any individual item achieve statistical significance. The percentage of individuals who changed their rating of instructional need showed a mean value of 37 percent for the total (57 .Oe. V.Nu .pOO.O u espe> epsep .p u wuv meOsesO we eoseopwpsOpO sew umep seeazoz es» Ospm: uouepeopeue .O xpuseee< sp uuspeuseo meoup we Ospuse: aoexme pp.O OO ON Op NOp NN.O NO ON ON NOp mespe> see: O0.0 ON Op Op OOp ON.p ON ON Np NOp .muesues Ospsueou we Opowse> e on: .Op O0.0 NO ON ON OOp O0.0 NO OO ON OOp .mumop e>puuowwe «Leaves .O O0.0 OO ON Op OOp N0.0 OO OO pN OOp .sseep museuepm spus pesp axe: sp Omepu onseOLO .O O0.0 .MM pp Np OOp O0.0 .mm Op Op OOp .epepmmes we usemeepe me Ospsseep use: .N pO.N NO NN Op OOp .ON.O OO OO Op OOp .zmp>es use eopuuese sew mepupseuseeee euw>ecs .O NO.N OO Op ON OOp OO.p OO NN NO OOp .umosoasp use seppseppe psoueam speuspez .O OO.N OO ON Op OOp .O0.0 OO O Np OOp .sepueupsesseg seee we usesemeEQe epeesu .O OO.N OO Np ON OOp O0.0 OO ON ON pOp .mpppxm peuses Le peopmNse epespmseeeu Npe>ppuewwm .O O0.0 .mm ON ON OOp ON.O mm NO OO OOp .mewppppae usesewwpu we mpsouspm e» useu< .N O0.0 NO NN Op OOp p0.0 OO ON ON OOp .pOOOspseee uses Ospsseep use: .p mOspueO mOsppeO mOspueO .1 mOspueO mOspueO mOsppeO ammuwm ueOsesO uemeususp uemeesueO s aemunwm ueOsesO uemeesusp uemeesueO .m . we a we .ez we .ez . we a we .ez we .ez eeepp espesseppmeeo museuseemem pp< espp-ecea E- g- ”a 'I‘ ".1“ "algflgngu.u~qvnlh N ES ”fin unkind.“ ”1h "fina'd via“... EPIC- '1'- fill .muees pesepuuespmsp ”oossp mpmespeexz sew mOsppes Ospsueeppmes use Ospsoeeuess swezpee moosesewwwO--.N epeep 68 respondents and 36 percent for the part-time portion. The range was 23 percent to 47 percent and 22 percent to 44 percent, respeCtively. These levels were lower than those for importance (Table 4) but equal to those for effectiveness (Table 6). Both of the significant individual items in this table sug- gest greater perceived instructional need after teaching. The majority of the other items also showed larger numbers in the "increased" col- umn. Item 5, "maintain student attention and interest," is a notable exception, showing a large difference toward lower need on both lists. This would appear to be related to the fact that this item also showed significantly lower importance ratings in Table 4 but was unchanged in Table 6, effectiveness. Table 8 shows the calculated preteaching and postteaching instructional-needs ratings. These were generated by subtracting the effectiveness rating for each item from the importance rating for that same item and setting negative results to zero. Thus the instructional— needs ratings ranged from zero to four and reflected the amount by which importance was perceived to exceed effectiveness. Only a small number of differences greater than one are reflected in the table. The largest pretest instructional-need per- centages were on Item 1, "meaningfulness"; Item 5, "maintain atten- tion and interest"; and Item 8, "organize the class in ways that help students learn." The smallest pretest need was on Item 6, "practice and review"; Item 7, "make learning pleasant"; and Item 10, "use a variety of teaching methods." (59 .awoose epaoz Npaapcpeee n O .eaooge ob Npesps N2a> " O .eoo;_pasps aeetaeos u N .amooge cu spasppc: u N .amooge so: epaoz u p u .mseppeeu e>ppepcumeu Ngseu «es eu msoOEOz .pOO .e oemv meepe> ueuepeupeue .Ospusees ep eeu useocee OOp peace ues Ne: .Opp use OOp Opeuespxessee n_m .meOepsoesee me uemmesaxme O p O ON pN O p O ON ON O O O ON ON O o O Op ON Ouocuwz we xuwpse> .Op O p N ON OO o p N ON OO O p N ON pN O p O ON OO OOOON oseness .O o O O OO NO O p O pO OO p O O OO NO p O O OO NO mmepu onseOso .O o O N Op NO 0 o N Op ON O O O pN ON C O p NN NN usemempn OspsseOO .N O o O ON ON p p O ON ON O o p ON ON 0 O p ON OO xwp>mm O ouwuuesa .O OO OO Op O N OO NO Op O N O O p OO OO O p N OO OO OO OO pp O O pO NO Op O N uespseem wp .Op O O O pO OO O O O OO NO sepusepp< speuspe: .O N OO NO Op O O OO OO O O O O p OO OO O O p OO OO Np OO ON Op O Np pO OO Op N ue~ppeeup>pusp .Op O O p ON ON O O p NN NN seppeupsOEEeO son .O pO NO ON O O OO OO NN O O O O N ON ON p O O ON NN OO OO pN O p OO OO ON O p upes wp .Op O O O ON pN O O N ON NN mppwxm muespmsoEeO .O O OO OO pp O O OO pO O O p p O pO OO p p O OO OO Op OO OO N p Op OO OO N p Leepsepe> .Np O O O ON NO O O O OO OO wepppppn< usesewpr .N Op pN OO Op O Op ON OO Op O O O N pO NO O O O pO OO pmes O NO OO Np O pp OO OO Op N seppeEseOsp peO seem .pp O O N NO pO O O N NO OO use mmespewOspseez .p O O O N p O O O N op O O N p O O O N p eO memseemea memseemem memseemem memseewem eepp-pses pepep Eepp espesseppmeeo wepp1uses pepew swap espesseppmeso wpp>ppeOOOO OOOOz Oppeeees use muees peseppoesumspnuemOswues Ospseeepumee use Ospzoeeuese we OsppmpO--.O epsep 70 On the posttest, Items 8 and l remained high; however, Item 5 dr0pped, being replaced by Item 2, "adapt to students of different abilities." Item 7, "make learning pleasant," had by far the lowest posttest rating. Items showing the largest increases in instructional-need ratings from pretest to posttest were Items 4 and 6, "open communica- tion" and "provide practice and review." These were the same items that showed significant chi—square values in Table 7. Item 5, "main- tain attention and interest," showed the largest decrease in perceived need from pretest to posttest. Hypothesis Four Preteaching receptivity ratings will differ from post- teaching ratings. Table 9 summarizes results related to Hypothesis Four. Ihg_ overall group chi-square value of l.32 was NOT SIGNIFICANT at the .05 level and did not support the hypothesis. One of the five items did receive significantly lower receptivity ratings on the postteaching questionnaire: Item l5, "participate effectively if participation was required." The remaining four items showed no significant directional change. Isolating the part-time portion of the respondents yielded an overall chi-square of 2.05, which was g9§_significant. Two individual items from the five did achieve significance: Item l2, "participate on a volunteer basis," and Item l5, "participate effectively if par- ticipation was required." .OO. v.mu 71 .pOO.O mape> mpaeu .p u Ouv moOsesO No museupupsOpO so» «mop sesmzuz mgu Ospm: uuuepsupeun .O xpusmss< sp uwspeusou maeup we Ospusoz uuexme OO.N OO ON OO OOp NO.p OO OO OO OOp waspe> sew: «O0.0 OO pN OO OOp «OO.N OO NN pO OOp .umspaaos sopuespupuses pp Opo>puuopmm mueapupueea .Op .sesOoss NN.O OO ON NO OOp O0.0 OO OO OO OOp umpaumcums:\uo~ppe=up> -pecp cm s. muespupugea .Op m~.p .OO NN cm mop ON.O .mm mm on NO— .om oe cu epea Op apeapupugea .Op OON.O .mm NN OO OOp ON.O OO pO NO OOp .mpmen L:5“:ng e so eueapupuses .Np NO.p OO ON OO NOp OO.p .mm OO OO NOp .mopup>puue «zone sopueELowsp use xmom .pp mOspueO mOspueO mOspueO mOspuem mOspueO mOspueO «mmuwm qusecu uwmemsusp ummemsuoO .m nwmmuwm umOsegu uomemsusp uomewsqu .m . *0 R *0 .02 $0 .02 . $0 N *0 .02 $0 .02 GEUHM QLwMCCOmvmmDU weppnuses musmusosmmm pp< .Oup>pusmuws "sac; mpmosuogzr so; mOspues Ospguemuumos use Ospguewumss smozpmn moosmsomOpO--.O opaep 72 The percentage of individuals who changed their receptivity ratings was the highest for any of the four hypotheses, showing a mean value of 53 percent and a range from 48 to 56 percent for the total respondents. The part-time portion showed a mean of 55 percent and a range from 48 to 57 percent. These results are especially interesting in light of the responses to previous hypotheses. The highest level of total change for the first four hypotheses was registered here. With the excep- tion of Item l4, decreased receptivity uniformly exceeded increased receptivity. The subjects were significantly less likely to volun- teer and significantly less amenable to required participation after their term of teaching. Hypotheses One and Two showed limited change in perceived importance of the teaching competencies and significantly lower perceived effectiveness. On the surface, the results seem contradictory. Although the causes of change were not the subject of this research, it is relevant to speculate about some possible reasons for these apparently contradictory findings. One is the pressure of time, a very common reason given for failure to be involved in staff development. Teaching may have been more time consuming than antici- pated. Other activities on the job or in the individual's personal life may have higher priority than teaching-improvement activities. This is especially true for part-time faculty, many of whom have other employment (77 percent in this study) and do not see teaching as their primary job. 73 Another possibility relates to the fact that the subjects' originally high expectations for the role of faculty member in an institution of higher education were dashed by the reality of the classroom, creating a kind of general disillusionment. Part-time faculty have been characterized as the "stepchildren“ of the community college, not being allowed full participation in the life and services of most institutions. This, too, may have created or enhanced a sense of disappointment during the initial term of teaching. A third possibility is that, having become a part of the institutional system rather than a newly hired faculty member, some subjects were less intimidated at the end of their first term of teaching and consequently were freer to respond in ways apparently less acceptable to the institution. Finally, the fact that they were not as effective as they anticipated may have made teaching-improvement activities more threat- ening for some subjects and thus decreased rather than increased the likelihood of participation. Faculty expressed substantial interest in instructional- development activities, a result that supports similar findings in other studies reported in the literature. Even though Item 12, "participate on a volunteer basis," and Item 15, "participate effec- tively in a required program," showed significant decreases from pre- teaching to postteaching (Table 9), their postteaching ratings remained high. Table 8 showed that pretest and posttest ratings of recep- tivity were somewhat lower than ratings of importance and effectiveness 74 in Table 5. The courses of action indicated as most likely both before and after teaching were Item 15, "participate effectively if required," and Item 13, "participate if paid for doing so." The lowest ratings went to Item 11, "seek out information so that you could participate." Fifty-seven percent of the sample indicated, both before and after teaching, that they would be very likely to "choose to partici- pate on a volunteer basis." Seventy-six percent indicated on the posttest that they would be very likely to "participate effectively" in a required program. At the opposite extreme, 20 percent indicated that they would be unlikely to "seek out information," 13 percent that they would be unlikely to "participate in a voluntary program," and 7 percent that they would be unlikely to “participate effectively" in a required program. In summary, tests of the first four hypotheses found gg_over- all difference in preteaching and postteaching ratings of importance (Hypothesis One), instructional need (Hypothesis Three), and recep- tivity (Hypothesis Four). Ratings of effectiveness (Hypothesis TWO) were significantly lower on the postteaching questionnaire, indicating that the subjects felt that they were not as effective as they pre- dicted they would be. Significant differences on individual items occurred for each hypothesis. Two of ten competencies were rated as being of less perceived importance. Six of ten competencies had sig- nificantly lower effectiveness ratings. Two of ten competencies had significantly higher instructional-need ratings. Respondents indi— cated lower receptivity on two of five items. 75 All items were generally highly rated. Items that consistently showed the highest ratings on the first three variables (importance, effectiveness, and instructional need) were Item 1, "make subject matter more meaningful"; Item 4, "create an atmosphere of open com- munication"; and Item 5, "maintain student attention and interest." The lowest-rated items across the three variables were Item 10, "use a variety of teaching methods," and Item 7, "make learning as pleasant as possible." On the fourth variable, receptivity, the highest—rated items were Item 15, "participate effectively in a required program," and Item 13, "participate if paid." The lowest-rated item was Item 11, "seek out information so that you could participate." Tests of Hypotheses Five and Six Hypotheses Five and Six differ from the others in that they concern differences in the responses of subgroups of the sample. Sub- groups were constructed based on amount of previous teaching experi- ence, level of previous teaching experience, age, sex, current occu- pation in addition to teaching, discipline, status, and institution. Contingency tables were created with the subgroups as the column variables and change from pretest to posttest/no change from pretest to posttest as the row variables. Each variable yielded 35 contin- gency tables—-ten for ratings of importance, ten for ratings of effectiveness, ten for ratings of instructional need, and five for ratings of receptivity. Consequently, each set of subgroups yielded 35 chi-square values for use in responding to the hypothesis. Data for Hypotheses Five and Six are included in Appendix J. 76 Hypothesis Five The changes that occur in ratings of importance, effective- ness, instructional need, zuui receptivity will differ between faculty subgroups defined on the basis of the amount of previous teaching experience and the level of previous teaching experience. Table 10 summarizes results related to Hypothesis Five. Ihg_ small number of significant differences detected did NOT SUPPORT the hypothesis. Hypothesis Six The changes that occur in ratings of importance, effective- ness, instructional need, and receptivity will not differ between faculty subgroups defined on the basis of age, sex, current occupation in addition to teaching, discipline, full-time or part-time status, and institution. Table 10 summarizes results related to HypOthesis Six. Ihg_ small number of significant differences detected SUPPORTED the hypothesis. The number of tests showing statistical significance was almost exactly equal to that which would be expected on the basis of 35 tests at the .05 level if no real difference existed in the popu- lation. Only the status and discipline variables exceeded expecta- tions, and neither of these was adequate to suggest any practical significance. The results indicated that the changes that occurred in the subjects' perceptions were not significantly influenced by any of the eight descriptive variables measured in this study. The results suggested that it is not necessary for instructional- development-program designers to tailor programming on the basis of these eight variables. 77 Table lO.-—Summary of multiple comparisons of faculty subgroupsa-- Hypothesis Five and Six. # of Tests Showing % of Tests Showing Descriptive Variable Sig. Diff. Between Sig. Diff. Between Subgroupsb Subgroups Hypothesis Five Amount of previous teaching experience 2 5.7 Level of previous teaching experience 2 5.7 Total for two variables 4 5.7 Hypothesis Six Age 2 - 5.7 Sex 1 2.9 Current occupation in addition to teaching 0 0 Discipline 3 8.6 Status (full- or part-time) 4 11.4 Institution 2 5.7 Total for six variables 12 5.7 aDetailed data in Appendix J. bg_= 35 tests per variable, p.< .05. 78 In summary, no significant difference was detected between the preteaching and postteaching responses of subgroups based on the eight descriptive variables in Hypotheses Five and Six. This did ngt support Hypothesis Five, which predicted that differences would exist based on the level and amount of previous teaching experience. The finding supported Hypothesis Six, which predicted no difference between subgroups based on age, sex, current occupation in addition to teach- ing, discipline, status, and institution. Summary of Results One hundred eighty subjects, an estimated 50 to 75 percent of the experimentally accessible population, responded to the preteaching questionnaire in this study. One hundred forty-fiVe subjects or 81 percent of the initial respondents made up the final group of respond- ents. Analysis of the descriptive variables that were collected showed the respondents to be similar to the descriptions of part-time faculty reported in the literature. Comparison of the respondents with those who failed to respond to the postteaching questionnaire showed no meaningful difference between the two groups. Table 11 summarizes the results of tests of the hypotheses in this study. The subjects' overall perceptions of the importance of the ten teaching competencies and their instructional needs related to the competencies did not change significantly from preteaching to postteaching. The self-perceptions of effectiveness expressed by the subjects were significantly lower after teaching. No overall change in receptivity was detected. Significant change was indicated in 79 .mo. v No .op m—noh 0» smumz u .m was m mopauh cu League vac_:am¢ »_ u m. Emu. muocuwz so zum_ca> no. Emu_ :o_u:ouu< =_ouc_uz u m emu— uu~._n:uw>_vcu n ep Emu~ mama» mucaoca n a swu_ cowuou'czesou zone a e Emu~ u_om u~ u m. ewu_ mmo_u m~p=~mco u m em- m___xm muocumcoewo n m smu— meucspo> u m. amu— ucamampa m:_cco04 u N Emu_ mm_u__wn< u:~c~»»_o u w smu— cowuuscouc~ use xmom u pp Emu. 3m_>mm a mu_uumca n m Emu_ mama—awoc_coox u — Emu—a .a ego .5 .u .e mm—amh cu Luuumo zomp:»_pmz_ kucoqnam x~.m .m=hu4 a hzaoz< .m m h¢h_>_»auuu¢ .e m Emu_ a. emu~ m smu— N Emu. N Emu~ m Eou_ umucoaaam o Emu_ mawuz N smu~ _ emu_ o seam _ emu_ aoz -.o v emu. usm 4_humuuu .N m Emu~ e an_ o sao_ eastoaasm N sass N Emu~ p E¢u_ op smug — Emu~ uoz p~.— m Em- Rue muzo mm_m mcwzo;m msmu_ mwmcogu a m_mm;uoaxz gfihfifllfid “”lnufiflnh "Harp““fi‘rlh l Punt) H.“I uo:_;ummwmwo It fl..lh.l“h.wh.lynql. .. n" u»'l h.“ N .R "lb”TPI I “main“.n “1 Aul|l.m..1 IFIHHII afiuulailij .xvaum m_cu soc» mm:_u: “F mulfllll .71“. _» zucmmmmc mo xuosE=mnn.p_ upon» 80 individual items under each of these four variables. When the respond- ents were subdivided on the basis of the eight descriptive variables in Hypotheses Five and Six, no meaningful differences were observed. The total percentage of subjects who changed their perceptions from preteaching to postteaching ranged from a low of 37 percent in Hypotheses Two and Three to a high of 53 percent in Hypothesis Four. This suggests that large numbers of new faculty brought perceptions and expectations to the teaching situation that were unrealistic. Examining the preteaching and postteaching ratings showed that all items received generally high ratings for all four variables. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter consists of the following sections: Summary of the Research, Conclusions, and Recommendations. Summary of the Research Introduction This study examined the perceptions of newly hired faculty in community colleges regarding the nature of community college instruction, their personal instructional-development needs, and their preferred formats for receiving assistance. The purpose of the study was to provide important pieces of basic information necessary for effective orientation and in-service program design. The results are intended to assist instructional-development-program designers in providing assistance early in the faculty member's tenure, to make programs more responsive to perceived faculty needs, to provide various types of assistance when it is most relevant to the recipients, and to determine whether programming should be tailored to particular faculty subgroups. Review of Literature The overwhelming majority of new faculty are part-time, their numbers having increased rapidly in recent years. The literature 81 82 related to part-time faculty was confined almost entirely to the past decade. They are not uniformly distributed across discipline areas, being concentrated in business, vocational/technical, and noncredit programs. Major advantages of using part-time faculty are economics and flexibility. Problems focus on overuse. In the past decade, courts and legislatures have provided some clarification of the legal rights of part-time faculty and of institutions. Part-time faculty contend that they are second-class citizens, not integrated into the mainstream of the institution economically or politically. They are a varied group of people without whom community colleges would be hard pressed to operate. The quality of instruction provided by part-time faculty has been questioned; however, no definitive conclusions are possible. Some data suggest lower quality, but no conclusive evidence can be presented. As is true of most characteristics of community colleges, great variety surely exists. There is evidence that at least some new faculty need assistance with teaching. Several needs assessments of part-time faculty, using varied methods and samples, have been reported. They have shown significant interest in subject-matter concerns as well as instructional develop- ment related to teaching. Limited evidence has suggested that needs are similar among part-time faculty across various disciplines but differ between part-time faculty and the administrators who supervise them. One study showed changes over time in the perceptions of teaching assistants at the university level. 83 Programs of orientation and staff development are offered to part-time faculty by some institutions. The content of almost all tends to focus on administrative details, some of which are clearly necessary. Few, if any, adequately deal with questions of instruc- tional improvement. Design of the Study This study took the form of a longitudinal survey of new faculty members in selected community colleges. Subjects responded to the same instrument before and after their initial term of teaching. It was not the intention of this study to establish causal relation- ships but rather to examine the extent and nature of perceived changes that occurred for purposes of instructional-development- program design. Five research questions were examined. The first four research questions sought to determine the extent and nature of changes in (1) the subjects' perceived importance of ten basic teaching compe- tencies, (2) their self-perceived effectiveness in those same areas, (3) changes in instructional needs in those same areas, and (4) changes in receptivity to organized programs of instructional development. The fifth research question sought to compare subgroups from the total respondents. The target population for this study consisted of newly hired full-time and part-time faculty in community colleges. The experimen- tally accessible population consisted of all persons fitting this definition from 12 colleges in six midwestern and southern states. 84 Data were collected using an instrument specifically designed for this study. The first part of the instrument was based on basic principles of effective instruction, which were stated as faculty competencies. The second part contained sets of conditions under which instructional-development programming might be offered. Instru- ments were distributed and collected in sealed envelopes by a volun- teer coordinator in each institution. Contingency tables were generated from the data and analyzed using the chi-square test of independence and the McNemar Test for Significance of Changes. All tests were carried out at the o = .05 level. The primary concern for internal validity in the study related to the extent to which the responses of the subjects were truthful. No lie-detector scale was available. Concerns for external validity included sampling error, use of volunteer subjects, testing concerns, mortality, and the Hawthorne effect. The experimental design was highly representative of the natural environment in which the results will be used by instructional-deve10pment-program designers. Results of the Study Responses to the preteaching questionnaire were received from 180 subjects representing 12 institutions and an estimated 50 to 75 percent of the experimentally accessible population. The final research group consisted of 145 subjects or 81 percent of those who responded to the preteaching questionnaire. Demographic information was collected and analyzed. Results showed the respondents to be 85 similar to part-time faculty nationally as they were described in the literature. No meaningful differences were detected between the respondents and the nonrespondents. Changes in the perceptions of subjects were recorded in three ways: (1) the percentage of subjects who changed their ratings from preteaching to postteaching; (2) whether the resulting group change was significantly directional--that is, significantly higher, sig- nificantly lower, or divided; and (3) direct comparison of pretest and posttest responses. Hypothesis One predicted significant change in ratings of importance. Forty-seven percent of the subjects changed their rating. Two of ten individual items showed significant change. The group chi-square value of 1.21 was not significant and did not support the hypothesis. Hypothesis Two predicted significant change in ratings of effectiveness. Thirty-seven percent of the subjects changed their rating. Six of ten individual items showed significant change. The group chi-square value of 5.45 was significant at the .05 level and supported the hypothesis. Hypothesis Three predicted significant change in ratings of instructional need. Thirty-seven percent of the subjects changed their rating. Two of ten individual items showed significant change. The group chi-square value of 0.72 was not significant and did not support the hypothesis. Hypothesis Four predicted significant change in ratings of receptivity. Fifty-three percent of the subjects changed their rating. 86 Two of five individual items showed significant change. The group chi-square value of 1.32 was not significant and did not support the hypothesis. Hypothesis Five predicted difference between the response patterns of subgroups defined on the basis of the amount and the level of previous teaching experience. A difference between subgroups was indicated in only 4 of 70 individual tests, and the hypothesis was not supported. Hypothesis Six predicted no significant differences between subgroups created on the basis of age, sex, current occupation in addi- tion to teaching, discipline, full-time or part—time status, and institution. Difference between subgroups was indicated in only 12 of 210 individual tests, supporting the hypothesis of no significant difference. Conclusions This section analyzes the results in terms of their implica— tions for potential users of the research. Responses to the research questions posed in this study should assist faculty developers with designing effective orientation and early in-service materials for new faculty. 1. Do changes occur in the perceived importance of selected basic teaching competencies during the initial term of teaching, and, if so, what is the nature of these changes? The results showed that a meaningfully large number (38 to 54 percent) of the subjects changed their perceptions from preteaching to postteaching. This suggests 87 that the expectations of new faculty regarding what skills will be important for success are somewhat unrealistic. Orientation programs should include information on the community college student profile and the kinds of teaching skills that experienced faculty have found to be important. The overall group chi-square value of 1.21 did ngt_suggest a significant directional shift in importance ratings. This masks the fact that two items, Item 5, "maintain student attention and interest," and Item 7, "make learning as pleasant as possible," did show a sig- nificant decrease in importance ratings. Both of these items are basically affective in nature and indicate a need to reinforce with new faculty the important relationship between affective and cogni- tive outcomes of instruction. The items receiving the lowest importance ratings were Item 7, "make learning pleasant," and Item 10, "use a variety of teaching methods." Training programs should indicate clearly the reasons why these are considered to be important for effective instruction. 2. Do changes occur in self-perceived effectiveness in the ten basic teaching competencies during the initial term of teaching, and, if so, what is the nature of these changes? The results showed that a meaningfully large number (27 to 54 percent) of the subjects changed their perceptions from preteaching to postteaching. This suggests that the expectations of new faculty regarding their own competency are somewhat unrealistic. The overall group chi-square value of 5.45 supported the existence of a significant shift toward lower ratings of effectiveness on the postteaching form. On individual 88 items, the respondents indicated that they were significantly less effective than anticipated in "maintaining open communication" (Item 4), "providing opportunities for practice and review" (Item 6), "making learning pleasant" (Item 7), "organizing the class" (Item 8), "testing" (Item 9), and "using a variety of teaching methods" (Item 10). Item 10 also received the lowest effectiveness ratings. These findings indicate that programs of orientation and in-service for new faculty should include (1) emphasis on the impor- tance of affective variables like open communication and pleasant learning conditions as well as practical methods for achieving these ends; (2) suggested organizational patterns that incorporate a syste- matic approach to setting learning objectives, using effective presen- tation skills, and providing the practice, review, and feedback necessary to assist comprehension and retention; (3) basic principles and methods of classroom evaluation, and (4) description of alterna- tive teaching methods and information on sources of assistance in planning for and using these alternate methods. 3. Do changes occur in instructional needs? The results showed that a meaningfully large number (23 to 47 percent) of the subjects changed their perceptions from preteaching to postteaching. The overall group chi-square value of 0.72 indicated no significant directional change. The two individual items that showed directional change, Item 4, "open communication," and Item 6, "provide opportu- nities for practice and review," were both in the direction of greater need after teaching. The trend of the other items was also toward greater need with the exception of Item 5, "maintain student attention 89 and interest," which showed a notable but ngt_statistically signifi- cant trend toward less need. The opposite trend for this item related to the fact that it was seen as substantially less important in Table 4. The items most frequently identified as "needs" on the post- test were Item 1, "meaningfulness" (45 percent); Item 2, "adapt to students with different abilities" (41 percent); and Item 8, "organ- ize the class in ways that help students learn" (46 percent). Training should obviously include information related to these areas of per- ceived need. These results would seem to indicate that training activities would be increasingly effective as the first term of teaching pro- gresses and need increases. Two factors may affect the validity of this conclusion, however. First is the fact that the needs shown here were determined by analyzing a discrepancy between effectiveness and importance ratings, which may not be consciously perceived by the individual subject. Second is the results of Hypothesis Four, which showed lower postteaching receptivity. 4. Do changes occur in receptivity to organized instructional- develgpment activities, and, if so, what is the nature of these changes? The number of subjects who changed their perceptions regarding recep- tivity was the largest in the study, ranging from 48 to 56 percent. The questions asked under this hypothesis were phrased in terms of the likelihood of the subject's "choosing" a particular course of action and thus were attitudinal in nature. Consequently, the results repre- sented a meaningfully large shift in the attitudes of the subjects 90 toward instructional-development activities. The overall group chi- square value of 1.32 did not indicate significant directionality for the set of responses. Analysis of the individual items that showed significant change clearly indicated lower receptivity. After teaching, subjects were less likely to volunteer and less likely to participate effectively if participation was required. This seems contrary to the fact that Table 7 showed increased levels of need on individual items and Table 6 showed lower levels of perceived effec- tiveness after teaching. Some possible explanations of this result were presented previously. (See pages 72-73.) These results emphasize the need for effective orientation and for providing meaningful programming early, before receptivity declines. Also indicated is the need for appropriate incentives to encourage new faculty to assess and develop their teaching competen— cies. If required programming is contemplated by program developers, the results suggest that orientation activities will be better received than later in-service activities. Analysis of the preteaching and postteaching responses showed that in both cases the highest—rated items were Item 13, "participate if paid," and Item 15, "participate if required." In spite of the fact that a decrease occurred from preteaching to postteaching, the level of positive response to these items supported requiring orien— tation activities and/or using payment for participation as an incen- tive. The conclusions drawn under each of these hypotheses were based on the dominant group responses. Examining Table 9 shows, for 91 example, that in contrast to the group as a whole, nearly one in four subjects indicated increased receptivity after teaching. An effective program should provide the early activities for the domi- nant group but also recognize the 23 percent who are more likely to choose programs offered later in the term. This same caution may be applied to all of the conclusions drawn. It is necessary to remember that individuals, not groups, participate in and benefit from activi- ties. 5. Do the changes that occur in perceived importance, per- ceived effectiveness, instructional needs, and receptivity vary between faculty subgrggps, and, if so, what is the nature of that variation? Results of Hypotheses Five and Six clearly indicated that no meaning- ful differences existed between the faculty subgroups defined in this study. The results did not support a need to tailor programming to particular subgroups. In summary, the results of this research supported the follow- ing conclusions: 1. New faculty hold partially unrealistic expectations as they enter community college teaching. 2. Orientation programs should include information on the community college student profile and the teaching competencies that experienced faculty have found to be important in the community col- lege classroom. 3. There is a need to reinforce the important relationship between affective and cognitive classroom outcomes. 92 4. Orientation and in-service programs should include prac- tical methods for achieving affective outcomes, ways to organize a class, methods of evaluation, and information on a variety of teaching methods. 5. Programming should be provided early, before receptivity declines. 6. Incentives for participation become increasingly necessary as the term proceeds and receptivity declines. Payment for participa- tion is seen as an incentive. 7. Required programming is supported by the data. If par- ticipation is required, the earlier the programming is offered, the more effective participation will be. 8. It is not necessary to tailor programs to the particular subgroups of new faculty defined in this study. Recommendations Recommendations for Program Development The results and conclusions of this research suggested guide- lines for the development of effective orientation and early in-service activities for new faculty in community colleges. The recommendations that follow were based on this research and the assumption that the teaching competencies used in the data-gathering instrument repre- sented principles of effective instruction and, if used effectively and creatively, serve to increase student learning. 1. Instructional-development activities should be a required part of the orientation and in-service program for new faculty. 93 Required programs receive substantially higher ratings than volun- tary programs. Consider provision of incentives for effective par- ticipation. The results suggested that payment for participation is a positive incentive. 2. Emphasize the importance of the basic teaching principles, especially the relationship between cognitive and affective outcomes of learning. 3. Place early emphasis on the importance of and methods for organizing the class to help students learn, making subject matter more meaningful, developing an atmosphere of open communication with students, and making learning as pleasant as possible. As the term progresses, shift the emphasis toward maintaining student attention and interest, providing practice and review for retention, preparing tests, and using a variety of teaching methods. 4. Provideaavariety of instructional-development opportunities throughout the term in order to recognize individual differences and meet individual needs. An effective orientation program before teach- ing is important but is only the first step in meeting the changing instructional-development needs of new faculty. No single time frame is best. Although it is important to recognize individual differences, the results clearly indicated that it is n9t_necessary to tailor pro- grams to subgroups of new faculty defined on the basis of age, sex, occupation in addition to teaching, discipline, full-time or part-time status, institution, or previous teaching experience. 94 Recommendations for Further Research 1. Evaluate testing concerns by using a non-pretested control. Comparison of posttest responses of a pretested and a non-pretested group would allow response to the question of whether the content of the preteaching form or the process of completing it sensitized sub- jects to teaching concerns and thus altered the changes that occurred. 2. ngeat the research using another data-gathering instru- mgnt. Other than the results of the pilot test done on the instrument used in this study (pp. 38-39), it cannot be shown that the new faculty actually understood the meaning and implications of the items on the pretest. That is, the changes observed in this study may be changes in the reaction to this instrument rather than changes in perceptions of community college teaching. 3. Repeat this design with a sample of experienced community college_part-time faculty. The fact that no differences were found based on level or amount of previous teaching experience (Hypothe- sis 5) raises the question of whether the changes observed were related to whgn_the pretest and posttest were administered rather than to the fact that this was the subjects' first term of teaching. That is, do experienced faculty show similar shifts from the beginning to the end of the term? It may be that at the beginning of eggh_term, whether or not it is the first term of teaching, there exists an atmosphere of idealism and high expectation while at the end of the term the idealism is replaced by the reality of the past weeks when the high expectations have been only partially fulfilled. If this is true, both new and veteran faculty should show the same changes. 95 4. Use a case-study approach with more in-depth dataygather- ing to attempt to assess the cause of changes detected in this study. Since the results show no differences between institutions, it would be desirable to investigate a smaller sample using interview, class- room observation, videotape, or similar, more intensive data-gathering techniques. This would allow response to several "why" questions that arise from the results Of this study. For example: Why do affective outcomes seem to be rated lower than cognitive outcomes? Do the sub- jects fail to see a relationship between the two types of outcomes? Why does receptivity decline in spite of parallel declines in per- ceived effectiveness? Are the causes personal, sociological, or related to institutional policies and attitudes? Which causal vari- ables can be controlled or manipulated by the institution, and which are outside of institutional control? This would provide important input for instructional-development-program design. 5. Examine the effect of various types of orientation and/or early in-service programs on the perceptions of new faculty. Do faculty who receive orientation and/or in-service programs in their first term of teaching differ from those who do not receive such assistance? Are different types of programs more or less effective in making new-faculty perceptions more realistic, affecting the decline in receptivity, and smoothing the transition of new faculty into the classroom? APPENDICES 96 APPENDIX A INFORMATION SHEET 97 98 INFORMATION SHEET Purpose of the Study: To survey the perceptions of community college teaching held by new faculty members before they begin to teach and after their initial teaching experience. We will examine how realis— tic these initial perceptions are and how they change over the first term/semester of teaching, with an eye toward improving new-faculty orientation to the classroom. Potential Participants: All newly hired faculty who have not taught at your institution previously. Time Frame: The initial questionnaire should be completed before the new faculty member begins his/her teaching assignment or, where that is not possible, within the first week of teaching. The first alter- native is much preferred. The follow-up questionnaire will be dis- tributed at the end of the first term/semester/etc. of teaching experience. Procedure: The participant should read and complete the questionnaire, seal it in the white envelope provided, and return it to you or a designated person. The collected envelopes containing the question- naires should then be returned to me in the large brown envelope provided. I do not know how much postage will be required, but I will reimburse you for this and any other incidental costs, if neces- sary. To assure confidentiality to the respondents, please do not open the white envelopes. Results of the study will be made available to you. If you can use more forms than are included, contact me and 1 will send more. You may 315° simply COPY one of these if you wish. Any other questions? Please write or call me at: Thanks! Richard D. Yarger Director of Staff & Program Development APPENDIX B RESULTS OF SELECTED PART-TIME INSTRUCTIONAL- NEEDS ASSESSMENTS 99 lOO m:_zummu Eco“ -- mmmcaou mcwumou mcwcce_a -fifi «mucowuuaxu acmcco_n mcwcgmw— commmp mcmcwum__ mcpuccm woman .esou -o. mmmcaoulma _c:m_>-o_v:o “cesaopm>mu m=_::a_a :_ weapon? a» co cowuuacumcou mpzcca comma? was: ocwcmuou -o .camw>-o_uam m:_cceo_ commmauwmu me was co_uc:_c>m um~w_a=u_>_cc_ _a:mw>-o_v=m aaoco -w mc_;ueuu do wmcw_a_umwu mcoruoucmmmcq mc_uocm cow¢o=_o>o coon—mg Eoocmmm_u a o:_ummu mcwummu m:_c:uum_ com_>cmq:m mumcoacoucw a msae__xm -N meowqfluaou mm:c_c;umu mcmcccm_ do m:_;uowu m:_cocm a co_uccum:oEmu crews we mm: xmo_o;uxma mcwumou m>ocae_ :o_um:_m>m -o m06L2O¢wc mcowmmaumwu mc_ccmm_ mc_ccao_ muocume m__mxm mcwccmo_ m:_mw>um mswu_ Eoocmmw_u ocwucoc:_oc uuccucco o:_:oacu aaocm a e_uoe UWEmvmua agg0mo__;a-m mucwuzuw - mcwgmmaulwo mac—noun mexuw. m_mmcwuwe mocauum_ co meow: m:_ccmo_ :o_uc:_c>o .ccem_\;oeou o:_;ucmu cowuuacumc_ msmu_ mc_>ocaew uo~__m:cw>wucw vmaumcwu-»_om acovaum m:_mocoowu concoca uw~__c=uw>_ucw acmwaum-c co_um>_uoe co_uo=cumc_ mm:c_:;umu acomzu co_um>wuoe m_mmcmums mew“? ucmuaum Lo» mc_::m_a co_mm:um_c mcwcccoF acmnaum m:_c=uuo_ _c:mm>-own:o mc_cumou-m mowmmumcum mc__a_um_u cw xcomzu mc_zummu xu__a_umam m:_c:uum— coco—2oz; mcomuccwsoxm memu_ mc_ccmm_ mumccmupo :o_uw>wuoe cw myoca: m>wuumeem we zunwu mo co_uocmamca :o_um:Fe>m-m atoms“ ummcmucw mew—awum_u xmo_ouo;uos memu_ Lmuume uummnam m:_ccmw_ _m:m_>-o_v:c m:_uomcu mm>_uummao cw a: ammx mc_zummu mzomccp_mum_e-~ comwco eco~wc< cam—ace: mn_co_u comwguwz mwuoum m mmm__ou mco mwmm__ou N_ vamp—cu mco mmm¢__ou NP mmm__ou wco mmmm_~ou mp mamm—_ou mv Axfivv “MN u z ~m_ u 2 mm u 2 Na. u z ”Romy cow n 2 mm_ u z “umuv new u z Rummy NNN u z Amkmfiv uaom a Roam—V accused A-m_v ;s_5m Aaaapv Lam:_mtma ~s_=;om Am~a_v maestaa Am~¢_v aces AmNm_V beau Aafimfiv ¥8a_m .ucQEmmmmmc zucm co» >u_co_cn wo Lmvco c? umummp mEmu~ co_a0604 mmoo__ou we a mm:OQmom u\m_aeCm me>\cozua< ma:0§mmmmm< mvmmz pocowuuscum:_ wewh-ugoa umuumem uo mu_:mma um xwucmaa< APPENDIX C DATA-GATHERING INSTRUMENT lOl 102 Greetings: This form is part of a doctOral research project being carried on in conjunction with Michigan State University. It will require only a few moments of your time to complete. The purpose of the research is to allow improved orientation to connmnity/junior college teaching for future faculty members providing benefits to faculty. students. and institu- tions. Participation at this time will provide information regarding your current percep- tions of teaching in the community/junior college. Those choosing to participate will be asked to complete a similar form at the end of the first term/semester of teaching. Strict confidentiality will be maintained in handling all data as well as in reporting results. A sunmary of results will be provided to all participants who desire it. Completion of this form will signify that you understand the above explanation of this research and freely choose to participate. My thanks for considering this reqoest! Richatd D. VaigCi A. Name College Mailing Address Phone Number (where you can be reached) B. Age under 30 30-39 40-49 50-59 60* C. Sex female Hale D, Current Occupation (other than teaching, if any) E. Prior Teaching Experience: Please indicate the amount of previOus teaching experience you have had at each level. (Number of years or fractions of years.) Elementary or Secondary Four-Year College or University Conmunity/Junior College Other (Please Specify) F, How would you characterize the c0urse(s) you will be teaching this session? (Please select only ONE category.) Physical Education Vocational/Technical Business Health Occupations Arts (including Communication, History, Literature) Sciences (including Social Sciences and Mathematics) Other )Please Specify) G, How many student contact hours per week will you be teaching this session? Please comptete the ieuetae séde 06 th(s page. Thank yen set you: cropctar~ H 0 0 0 0 .-i U U U U U 0 0 60 I) I) s: :08: 6": > >c> > > a nut! «and vi «Ow-4 >.« «d U Had-l UUU Heady—4U Eu bananas-«L. DU UDUdU>~U OOOOOOOUO uo-uucummgo out: gown-ac. >~u u-uu um :54 w Ofidggsiflhl can. flu 8»... cu do“ 2H SIP-4 2H HUM Zn: "in! man: (II-l 1 2 3 4 5 Ability to make subject matter more 1 2 3 4 5 meaningful to students. 1 2 3 4 5 Ability to adapt teaching to students 1 2 3 4 5 of different abilities. I 2 3 4 5 Ability to effectively demonstrate the mental or physical skills to be learned. I 2 3 4 5 Ability to create an atmosphere of l 2 3 4 5 Open. two-way communication with students. 1 2 3 4 5 Ability to maintain student attention 1 2 3 4 S and interest. 1 2 3 4 5 Ability to provide apprOpriate opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 for practice and review. 1 2 3 4 5 Ability to make learning as pleasant as 1 2 3 4 5 possible. 1 2 3 4 5 Ability to organize class sessions in ways 1 2 3 4 5 that help students learn. 1 2 3 4 5 Ability to construct effective tests to 1 2 3 4 5 measure student learning. 1 2 3 4 5 Ability to use a variety of teaching methods. 1 2 3 4 5 p.‘ N w b 0‘ EARLB THE FOLLOWING FIVE QUESTIONS ELAT TO OPPOR UNITIES TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE TEN TEACHING SKILLS DESCRIBED IN ART ABOVE. LEASE ASSUME THAT ACTIVITIES ARE AVAILABLE AT VARIED TIMES AND PLACES. PLEASE INDICATE THE LIKELIHOOD THAT YOU WOULD CHOOSE TO DO THE FOLLOWING. 0 D O h .. .. E’zaaé O >. 0.2.1000 ZUdOUdv-lou moon-4.1:: ~43 ‘OJOHU U: ”2 :12 ”:L‘ :‘o :8 80 cog—i Ill-‘83 3 :3 I: > 1 2 3 4 5 Choose to actively seek out infonnation about activities in order that you could participate. I 2 3 4 5 Choose to participate on a volunteer basis if activities were brought to your attention. I 2 3 4 5 Choose to participate if paid for doing so. 1 2 3 4 5 Choose to participate in an individualized program on an unscheduled basis. 1 2 3 4 5 Choose to participate effectively if participation was required. Thank you (on youa paaticipatton in (hie study! APPENDIX 0 BASIC PRINCIPLES OF EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION 104 Events of Instruction (Gagne, 197D) Gaining and controlling attention Informing learner of expected outcomes Stimulating recall of relevant prerequisite capabilities Presenting the stimuli inherent in the learning task Offering guidance for learning Providing feedback Appraising performance Making provision for transferability Insuring retention 105 Principles of Effective Instruction (DaviS, Alexander, & Yelon, 1974) Meaningfulness Prerequisites Modeling Open communication Novelty stimulates recall Active, appropriate practice Distributed practice Fading prompts Pleasant conditions and consequences APPENDIX E POSTTEACHING INSTRUMENT 106 107 A few weeks ago you completed a form in the first part of a doctoral research project being carried on in conjunction with Michigan State University. AS indicated at that time, T0 COMPLETE THE RESEARCH I NEED YOUR RESPONSES ON THIS SECOND FORM. It will require only a few moments of your time. As you may recall, the purpose of the research is to allow improved orientation to community/junior college teaching for future faculty members providing benefits for faculty, students, and institutions. Strict confidentiality will continue to be maintained in handling all data as well as in reporting results. A summary of results will be provided to all participants who desire it. My sincere thanks for choosing to participate. Richard D. Yarger Please complete the reverse side of this page and return in the envelope provided. I wish to receive a summary of the results of this research. 108 EARIJ PLEASE RESPOND TO THE FOLLOWING TEN ITEMS av CIRCLING THE APPROPRIATE NUMBERS ON BOTH THE LEFT AND RIGHT HAND SCALES. How important do you feel How effective d each 0 these ten abilities feei‘yafi‘;;;; 1: :22“ is for successful teaching? area? 3: 0 0 0 0 u-d U U U 0 u 0 0.0 0 0 I: :06 {30-45 9 >C> > > U ENG GO *4 fiOv-I A“ vi u unu uuu Hayduo—Iu Du Uhhhnhhdh “U UOUHU>~U OOOUOOOHO UU'OOQOQUQU 3%538%“%E% 3:21: "a 2:3: 2H :u :H {.4 DH Zia-l wmathB-l 4 O‘BJOUU ZOO—louvadou .06 Urdu-15.03 'uOJOhII U: "‘2 2.1.9.- ”:‘5 to :8 80 80-8—1 0H 83 3 D I: > 1 2 3 4 5 Choose to actively seek out infonnation about activities in order that you could participate. 1 2 3 4 5 Choose to participate on a volunteer basis if activities were brought to your attention. 1 2 3 4 5 Choose to participate if paid for doing so. 1 2 3 4 5 Choose to participate in an individualized program on an unscheduled basis. 1 2 3 4 5 Choose to participate effectively if participation was required. Thank you (on youa patticipation in thia Study! APPENDIX F CHARACTERISTICS OF PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS 109 State Michigan Michigan Michigan Iowa Illinois Florida Ohio Iowa Iowa Ohio Missouri Iowa 110 Type of Institution Community college College Community college Community college College Community college Technical college Community college Community college University branch Junior college Community college al(A.A.c..i.c., 1981). Enrollmenta 19,524 9,939 7,542 6,347 5,631 5,066 3,322 2,604 1,985 1,481 901 864 # of Subjects in Sample 62 25 15 6 1 14 aiwwwcn APPENDIX G CONTINGENCY TABLES FOR PRETEACHING RESPONSES OF RESPONDENTS AND NONRESPONDENTS 111 1'12! oLmN uoz u u oLmN u o gm.o ca N” o m“ we cm mm.o m on m" “a mm mm NH.N n mfi a me mm mm mo.o c.. as m“ ON "a No am.o e NH m~ m“ mm on u m < >h~>~hmmumm mmmp co m mcmumm m o:_uam ll U a o=_ua¢ II II < m eatuscaa cu ea~__a=ea>aue_ two; w~ Lomu::_o> co_uaeLoc=~ use xaam ewuu mcpoeco_umw=c .mco_ua5:mmc oo.o a. mm mm Nos mN.o m mw as mm m o omuz amhumuum m~._ n ma mfi mm we we mm.~ m mu m Nv so me mm.~ mm N~ v mm mu NH .mo.o o“ m“ a” OS mm es Ho.o o“. mu m we as mm MN.o cu N~ m “N No HH ow.m m~ ma v m“ mm m em.o NH md e am mm mm cm.p w - w we mm mm mm.m 0H “N m mw mo w u m < muz ou can Legumaou u new < mm_commuou «mae__ou o» xcmmmmumz a ‘ scents: co ssm_La> mumoh mcmnmca mmapu m~mcmmco acmmcmpa mcwccmmg zmw>mm ecu muwuumca cowucmuu< :wcucwmz co_uou_::EEou :mno mumcumcoewo mm_u___n< acocmeawo mmmc_:wmcm:mmz Emu~ wcvmccoPummso mucmucoammm-coz use mpcmucoammm Co mmmcoqmmm mewzuomp-mca Low mmpnob xucmoc_ucou xw.xwucmaa< APPENDIX H CONTINGENCY TABLES--DATA FOR HYPOTHESES ONE. TWO, THREE, AND FOUR 113 Appendix H: IMPORTANCE Meaningfulness Different Abilities Demonstrate Open Communication Maintain Attention Practice 8 Review Learning Pleasant Organize Class Prepare Tests Variety of Methods 114 Contingency tables--data for Hypotheses One, Two, Three, and Four Part-Time (Pre) l 2 3 4 5 Total Sample (Pre) l 2 3 4 5 1 o o o o o 1 o o o o o 2 o o 1 o 1 2 o o 1 o 1 (Post) 3 o o 2 7 3 (Post) 3 0 0 2 5 3 4 0 1 3 41 18 4 o 1 2 34 11 5 o o 1 20 46 5 o o 1 16 32 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 o o o o o 1 o o o o o 2 o o 1 o o 2 o o 1 o o 3 o o 11 11 7 3 o o 7 11 6 4 o o 14 44 17 4 o o 11 28 15 5 o o 2 13 24 5 o o 2 11 17 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 o o o o o 1 o o o o o 2 o 1 o 1 o 2 o o o 1 o 3 o 3 11 9 3 3 o 3 9 8 2 4 o 1 10 35 20 4 o l 9 27 15 5 o o 2 18 28 5 o o o 13 19 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 o o o o o 1 o o o o o 2 o o o o 1 2 o o o o o 3 o 1 2 7 2 3 o 1 2 4 1 4 o o 4 3o 28 4 o o 2 26 24 5 o o 1 22 47 5 o o o 19 31 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 o o o o o 1 o o o o o 2 o o 1 o o 2 o o 1 o o 3 o o 3 11 2 3 o o o 6 2 4 o o 5 39 32 4 o o 5 3o 27 5 o o 2 12 37 5 0 o 2 8 28 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 o 1 o o o 1 o o o o o 2 o 1 2 o o 2 o 1 1 o o 3 o 2 14 15 5 3 o 2 1o 12 5 4 o o 13 35 21 4 o o 11 29 16 5 o o 2 17 16 5 o o 1 11 10 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 o o o o o 1 o o o o o 2 o 2 2 1 1 2 o 2 1 o 1 3 o o 26 18 2 3 o o 19 15 2 4 o 1 13 32 17 4 o o 9 25 12 5 o o o 7 20 5 o o o 5 16 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 o o o o o 1 o o o o o 2 o o o o o 2 o o o o o 3 o o 3 6 3 3 o o 3 5 3 4 o o 7 47 23 4 o o 4 35 17 5 o o 2 20 32 5 o o 2 15 24 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 o o o 1 o 1 o o 1 o 2 o 2 1 o o 2 o 2 1 o o 3 o 2 15 13 o 3 o 2 10 IO 0 4 1 1 15 33 22 4 1 o 11 27 16 5 o 1 4 13 20 5 o 1 3 IO 14 1 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 1 o o o o o 1 o o o o o 2 o 4 5 o o 2 o 4 5 o o 3 o 4 16 19 . o 3 o 3 12 16 o 4 o 2 16 35 14 4 o 1 10 25 12 5 o o 1 14 14 5 o o 1 10 1o 115 Total Sample Part-Time EFFECTIVENESS 3 2 (Pre) 1 2 (Pre) 1 Meaningfulness 00015 1 00986 6 00080 00000 00000 12345 (Post) 00027 1 00416 00390 00000 00000 12345 (Post) Different Abilities 00035 01038 25 00980 00100 00000 12345 00175 O 1 9 O 2 3 12 24 0 12 67 0 O O 0 00000 12345 Demonstrate 00009 1 00336 00663 00000 00010 12345 00071 11 00778 7 11.883 00000 000110 12345 Open Communication 12345 12345 Maintain Attention 00068 00736 7 00450 00000 00000 12345 00078 02329 19 01561. 00000 00000 12345 Practice & Review 00485 1 00614 14 02241 1 00100 00000 12345 00519 02966 15 02541 1 01100 00000 12345 Learning Pleasant 12345 12345 Organize Class 00.107: 1 00175 15 01780 00000 00000 12345 00159 al. 00636 17 02280 1 00000 00000 12345 Prepare Tests 00324 01607 1.5 12732 02210 00000 12345 13362 02210 00000 12345 Variety of Methods 00105 1 0 I 3 1 5 19 15 O 12 33 O 0 O 2 0 00000 12345 00376 0 2 18 I7 39 1 O 5 l 8 2 23 O O 1 0 00000 12345 116 INSTRUCTIONAL NEEDS Total Sample Part-Time Meaningfulness (Pre) O 1 2 3 4 (Pre) O 1 2 3 4 O 55 22 1 O O O 45 16 1 O O 1 23 35 l 0 O 1 20 23 1 O 0 (Post) 2 2 3 1 O 0 (Post) 2 1 1 O O O 3 O 0 O O O 3 O 0 O O O 4 O 0 O O O 4 O O O 0 0 Different Abilities O 1 O 1 O 58 25 2 0 O O 48 19 2 0 O 1 31 17 3 O O 1 20 11 2 O O 2 2 1 1 O O 2 2 1 1 0 O 3 1 0 1 0 O 3 1 0 0 O 0 4 1 O 0 0 O 4 1 O O O 0 Demonstrate 0 1 O 1 0 80 20 2 0 O O 64 17 2 O O 1 18 15 1 O O 1 10 10 1 0 O 2 2 2 O O O 2 1 1 O 0 O 3 O O O 0 O 3 O O 0 O 0 4 1 O 0 0 O 4 0 0 O O 0 Open Communication 0 1 O 1 0 75 16 0 0 0 O 58 13 O O O 1 29 21 1 0 O I 23 13 1 O O 2 0 2 O O O 2 0 1 O 0 0 3 O O O 0 O 3 0 O O O O 4 O O O O O 4 O O 0 0 0 Maintain Attention 0 1 O 1 4 O 57 32 2 0 0 O 44 26 1 O O 1 24 22 3 0 0 1 17 18 2 O O 2 D 2 1 O O 2 O 1 O 0 0 3 1 O O O O 3 O O 0 0 0 4 O O O 0 0 4 0 0 O 0 0 Practice & Review 0 1 O 1 O 85 14 1 O O 0 66 12 1 O O 1 26 10 O O O 1 18 7 O O O 2 2 3 0 O O 2 1 3 O O O 3 O 1 O O O 3 0 O O 0 O 4 1 O O O O 4 0 0 O O 0 Learning Pleasant O 1 O 1 O 94 16 O O 0 O 75 12 0 O O 1 14 13 O O 0 1 9 8 O O O 2 0 2 1 O O 2 0 2 O O O 3 O O 0 O O 3 O 0 0 O 0 4 0 O O O O 4 0 0 O O O Organize Class O 1 O 1 O 58 17 2 O 1 0 45 14 2 0 1 1 29 29 1 0 0 1 21 20 1 O O 2 1 3 1 O O 2 1 2 1 O O 3 O 0 1 0 O 3 0 0 0 O 0 4 0 0 0 O O 4 0 0 O O 0 Prepare Tests 0 1 0 1 O 66 23 O O O O 52 19 0 O O 1 24 12 2 1 O 1 18 6 O 1 0 2 4 4 2 O 0 2 3 2 2 O 0 3 1 O 0 0 O 3 1 O 0 0 O 4 0 O O 0 0 4 0 0 O O 0 Variety of Methods 0 1 O 1 0 87 12 0 0 O O 67 10 O O O 1 18 12 5 0 O 1 12 9 5 O O 2 2 2 2 0 O 2 1 2 2 O O 3 O 1 1 O 0 3 O 1 O O O 4 0 0 O O O 4 O O O O O 117 Total Sample Part—Time RECEPTIVITY 2 (Pre) 1 2 (Pre) 1 Seek Information 12345 (Post) 13953 111 18902 21 12730 Volunteer 00293 O 3 4 0 7 17 16 2 13 23 32111 10000 12345 12345 If Paid 12345 12345 Individualized 01381 24975 12611 11 23540 11100 12345 01493 2 4 7 2 2 6 26 12 6 15 33 2 2 4 0 11100 12345 Required 00570 13 03959 1 02352 22110 00300 12345 O 0 12345 APPENDIX I MEAN RATINGS FOR QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS ll8 l 159 .u_w mom >m£u mm Eocu om: uo: Lo om: >mE mumumoe ogu umzu 0m wov_>oLa mum x_ucoaam m_cu :_ mo:_m> noun—au_mu ugh .uo>ozo: .suLmomoL c_ comm >_coe neou mm ou_uumea och .u__m>c_ m_ :moE m mo co_um_:u_mu .>_uco:aom ucou tam .mumv _m>eouc_ mm toumoeu on .>__mu_ccuou .uOc n_:o:m >uaum m_:u cm wouum__ou oa>u ocu mo mum: “whoz mm.o mm.o oc.o mm.o _m.m .o.¢ mw.m mm.o Nm.o em.o om.o mm.m QN.m am." oe.o wm.o me.o em.o -.n em.m -.m oq.o «v.0 om.c o¢.o .m.m _o.e mm.m m_.o ON.O am.o e~.o cm.m mo.e em.m om.o NN.O Km.o -.o m~.m mo.e o~.m mm.o oe.o oe.o Ne.o No.c co.v @o.m mm.o o~.o mm.o m~.o n .v mn.e -.¢ m~.o NN.O mm.o om.o mo.v oo.¢ Ho.e ee.o Km.o m¢.o ov.o Nm.m am.m w~.m «v.0 oe.o om.o oc.o do.e so.a No.m umom men umom meg umoa we; umoa mE_u-uema m_asem ~muo~ msmu-ueca m_anm mom“: 4deumuuu oo.¢ "o.v ~m.m mo.e we; Pm~0h mm.m I c> c: Q N M M N ¢ 0') f\ O c Smog -.m co.m o~.v mo.v me.m mv.m No.v mm.m mm.m om.m —m.m mm.m >FH>~hawuwm m~.v oo.¢ m~.m —m.m ~¢.m mo.m mm.¢ mm.c mm.m wN.m —o.v mm.m vv.v mm.v mc.v mm.e oo.v -.v w_.v mo.v om.v mm.v we; umoa umsmu- ween mm.¢ mm.m we; m_aEem .muoh muz_uummem «umawumueoa .Eaemoen um—avmcumcs\nw~w.m:v_>pucm cm cw mumamuwuema .0» on on uwmn »_ muoa_Uwume .mwmcn meu=:_o> a co muoawumueca .mm_u_>_uuo uaoom :o_uceLo»cw “no xmmm .muocume mcwcuomu mo xuw_ec> a mm: .mummu o>_uum»mw «gunmen .cemw_ mucmuaum a_oc was» mxm; cw mmm_u m~wcmmeo .m—n_mmoa ma ucmmom_a mm mcwcgmm_ axe: .zm_>mg new ~u_uumen so» mmwu_::ueoauo mu_>oea .umwemu:_ can co_ucmuum acmuaum c_ou:wo: .cowumu*::EEou cone uo mumsamosuo cm muomeu .m__wxm .mucws go quwmxga wuueumcoEov >Pm>Puumuwm .mm_u__wnu ucwgmuu_u mo mucouaum o» unau< ._=em:_cams wees ewuuos “umwozm oxcz asmun oewacco_umm=o mu v” m“ N~ o— msm: 8.550.538 L8 3:33. cmmzuH 8659:“ APPENDIX J CONTINGENCY TABLES--HYPOTHESES FIVE AND SIX 120 121 The figures in Appendix J are frequency counts arranged in the form of contingency tables. There is one contingency table for each questionnaire item for each descriptive variable. The first page contains tables for ratings of importance, the second page for ratings of effectiveness, the third page for ratings of instructional needs, and the last page for ratings of receptivity. The top row of figures in each table represents the number of subjects who did not_ change their rating from preteaching to postteaching. The bottom row in each table represents the subjects who changed their rating from preteaching to postteaching. The number below each table is the cal- culated chi-square value for that table. Following is a listing of the subgroups used under each descriptive variable. AGE STATUS A_; Under 30 A = Full-time B = 30—39 B = Part-time C = 40 & over INSTITUTION SEX A = CoTlege A A_; Female B = College B B = Male C = College C D = College D DISCIPLINE E = Others A = Business B = Vocational/technical AMOUNT OF PREVIOUS TEACHING C = Health careers EXPERIENCE D = Arts A = More than one year E = Sciences B = One year or less F = Others C = None CURRENT OCCUPATION IN LEVEL OF PREVIOUS TEACHING ADDIiION IO TEACHING EXPERIENCE é’ETementary/secondary only Four-year college/univ. only A = Related to courses being taught DOW) B = Not related to = Community college only courses taught = None C = Others 1232 M— m~ o~ NH N~ H~ N~ Na MN MH Mm M~ Na Ma Ma Na on o NN. .0 Na Mm. N~ w om. c~ MN. c~ no. u o O“ NH 0 Mg m M cfi N Mm o MH m Ofim NH < .mxm .:uN4 MM N~ M" "M Mm.o - - ac N“ o~ oc MN.M N NM MN Mm MM 0M.M Mu M MM MH o~ ~M .ee.~_ m~ c MM m an NM —m.o Md OH Hc Nd N~ Mc cN.~ MN m wM M_ Ma NM Mo.o Nd m NM My cH mm u m < .axm .xu mummp wLmawgq mmo—u m~mcomco “cameo—a mc_ceom4 3m_>mm a mu_uuoea :o_ucmuu< cwoucmoz :o_ucu_c:EEou :wao caucumcoEmo ma_u___n< “cacaec_o mmm:_=umcwcmw2 muzMH HH MH HH MH NH MH M MH cH MH oH NH oH NH M MH u .axm .:u mammN wcoamca mmcHU wNHcmMco ucomcmHa Mcwccomg zmw>mm M wuHuucLN cowucmab< :_auc_az :oHuouHc:EEou cmao mumcumcoEwo ma,u__mn< Hememcc_o mmmcHawmchmo: MMMzM>HNuMNNM 1224 .Nc.m N M N 0 MN NH MH NH NH.N MH M M M MH M MH NH MH.M NH M HH M MH MH HH HH HmcoHuasnmwm moMQHOH>M M M c H NN MH MH MH NN.H M N MH M MH MH NH NH Mc.N NH M M M oH cH cH NH MM.c M M NH N MH MH OH OH NN.N HH M M N MH NH MH MH HM.c MH oH cH M NH MH M NH MM.c NH M M M MH HH NH NH M u M < .axm .zuqu Mo MM>MM cN.c MN HH MM MH.N MH HH MM MH MH cM MM.M NH MH MM MH NH cM MM.H NN cH MM MN.H M M NM MH MH MM .Nq.HH NH m an o" m" we HH.M M M MN MH cH MM MM.N HH MH MN MH MH NM MM.N MH HH MM NH oH HM NM.H NH N MN MH MH MM u M < .Mxm .:M mamMN mceamca mmm_u mNHceMLo ucemcoHa M:_ccmm4 3mH>mm M muHuumca cowucaguc c_auc_az cowucu_czpzou :wao mumcumcoemo ma_u__wn< ”cataccmo mmmcHszchomz < MMMMz MMH M oH < .mxu .zuchH MHMM NH cmmNcaHo> coHumeLoNcH xmmM >NM>HNMMMMm LITERATURE CITED 126 LITERATURE CITED Able, Emily K. “Invisible and Indispensable: Part-Time Teachers in California Community Colleges." Community/Junior College Research Quarterly 2 (October-December 1977). (ED 172 286) Albert, Louis S., and Watson, Rollin J. "Mainstreaming the Part- Time Faculty: Issue or Imperative?" 1978. (ED 178 113) American Association of Community and Junior Colleges. Community and Junior College Technical Directory. Washington, D.C.: ‘American Association of Community and Junior Colleges, 1961, 1971, 1976, 1980, 1981. Beman, Richard R. "Observations of an Adjunct Faculty Member." New_ Directions for Community Colleges-~30 8,2 (1980). Bender, Louis N., and Breuder, Robert L. "Part-Time Teachers--Step- Children of the Community College." Community College Review 1 (April 1973). Bender, Louis w., and Hammons, James O. "Adjunct Faculty: Forgotten and Neglected." Community and Junior College Journal 43,2 1972 . Black, Lynda. "An Instructional Needs Analysis of Part-Time Community College Faculty." Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona State University, 1979. Blue, Monte Lynn. "A Study of Perceived Need Deficiencies of Public Community/Junior College Faculty Members in the State of Texas." Abstract from the Eighth Annual Report to the Texas Association of Junior and Community College Instructional Administrators by the Research Committee. (ED 180 515) Book, Cassandra L., and Eisenberg, Eric M. "Communication Concerns of Graduate and Undergraduate Teaching Assistants." Unpublished research, Michigan State University, 1978. Bradburn, Norman M., and Sudman, Seymour. Improving Interview Method and Questionnaire Design. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,’PUblish- ers, 1980. Brawer, Florence B. "Three Colleges: Three Faculties." Topical Paper No. 41. ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior Colleges, 1974. (ED 091 034) 127 128 . "The Humanities in Two-Year Colleges: The Faculty in Review." Los Angeles: ERIC Center for the Study of Community Colleges, 1975. (ED 111 469) Buchan, Robin G. "Community College Staff Development: The Teachers' Perspective." Paper presented at the Community College Social Science Association Conference, San Diego, California, 1979. (ED 167 206) Campbell, Donald L., and Stanley, Julian C. Experimental and Quasi- Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1966. Centra, John. "Faculty Development Practices in U.S. Colleges and Universities. Project Report 76-30. Princeton, N.J.: Educa- tional Testing Service, 1976. (ED 141 382) Cohen, Arthur M. "Developing Specialists in Learning.“ Junior College Journal 37 (September 1966). , and Brawer, Florence B. The Two-Year College Instructor Today. New York: Praeger Publishers,71977. Collins, Charles C., and Case, Chester H. The On-Site, Programmatic Approach to Staff Development. Los Medanos College, 1974. (ED 101 780) Cruise, Robert J.; Furst, Lyndon G.; and Klimes, Rudolf E. "A Com- parison of Full-Time and Part-Time Instructors at Midwestern Community College." Community College Review 8 (Summer 1980). Davis, Robert H.; Alexander, L. T.; and Yelon, Stephen L. Learning System Design: An Approach to the Improvement of Instruction. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1974. Eaton, John M. "A Study of Orientation of New Faculty Members in Michigan Community Colleges." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1964. Epstein, Charlotte. "The Inservice Training Needs of Part-Time Faculty in the Public Community Colleges of New Jersey, as Perceived by Part-Time Faculty, Department Chairpersons, and Administrators of Part—Time Faculty." Ed. D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1978. Ernst, Richard J., and McFarlane, Larry A. “Are We Shortchanging Our Students by Using Part-Time Faculty?" New Directions for Insti- tutional Research 18 (Summer 1978). 129 Falk, Charles F. "A Study of the Inservice Education and Supervision Needs of Community College Business Instructors in the State of Illinois." Ed.D. dissertation, Northern Illinois University, 1975. (ED 130 710) Fellows, David B. "An Evaluation Plan for Part—Time Faculty in Community/Junior Colleges." Ed.D. dissertation, Nova University, 1975. (ED 133 009) Fent, James E. "Professional Development for Adjunct Faculty in Michigan." Ph.D. dissertation, Walden University, 1978. (ED 172 855) Friedlander, Jack. "Instructional Practices of Part-Time Faculty." New Directions for Community Colleges--30 8,2 (1980). . "Instructional Practices of Part-Time and Full-Time Faculty." Community College Review 6,3 (Winter 1979). (a) . "Instructional Practices of Part-Time Faculty in Community Colleges." Paper presented at the 19th Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, San Diego, California, 1979. (ED 169 971) (b) Gagné, Robert M. The Conditions of Learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1970. Gallagher, John F. "Extending Faculty Development: A Case for Adjunct Faculty." Faculty Development & Evaluation in Higher Education 3 (Summer 1977). Greenwood, Richard 0. "Making 'What's-His-Face' Feel at Home: Integrating Part-Time Faculty." New Directions for Community Colleges--30 8,2 (1980). Grymes, Robert J., Jr. "A Survey and Analysis of Part-Time Instructors at J. Sargeant Reynolds Community College, Virginia." Richmond, Virginia: J. Sargeant Reynolds Community College, 1976. (ED 125 687) Gunderson, Orley D. "A Factor Analysis of Professional Education Competencies and Community College Instructors of Trade and Industrial Education." Ed.D. dissertation, Oregon State Univer- sity, 1971. Guthrie-Morse, Barbara. "The Utilization of Part-Time Faculty." Community College Frontiers 7 (Spring 1979). Harris, David A. "From the President's Perspective: Part-Time Faculty in the 1980's." New Directions for Community Colleges--30 8,2 (1980). 130 , and Parsons, Michael H. "Adjunct Faculty: A Working System of Development." Hagerston, Md.: Hagerstown Junior College, 1975. (ED 115 318) Head, Ronald B., and Kelley, Edward P., Jr. "Part-Time Faculty and 13781aw." New Directions for Institutional Research 18 (Summer Hoenninger, Ronald, and Black, Richard A. "Neglect of a Species." Community and Junior College Journal 49,3 (1978). Hoffman, John R. "Present and Preferred Personnel Practices Involving Part-Time Instructors at Southwestern Community/Junior Colleges." Ph.D. dissertation, East Texas State University, 1978. . "The Use and Abuse of Part-Time Instructors." Community Services Catalyst 10 (Winter 1980). , and Pool, Roger A. "Part-Time Faculty: Their Own Needs Assessment." Lifelong Learning: The Adult Years 2,8 (1979). Hunt, Earl S. "The Distribution, Characteristics, and Employment Benefits of Part-Time Faculty in the Southern U.S." Ph.D. dis- sertation, University of Virginia, 1979. Justice, Patricia. "A Comprehensive Plan for Institutional Staff Development." Final Project Report. Gresham, Oregon: Mount Hood Community College, 1979. (ED 126 983) Knowles, Malcolm S. The Modern Practice of Adult Education. New York: Association Press, 1970. Koltai, Leslie. "King Solomon and the Bowl of Spa hetti." Community and Junior College Journal 48 (September 1977) "The Part-Time Faculty and the Community College." Speech given at the Conference on Part-Time Teachers, Inglewood, Cali- fornia, 1976). (ED 118 174) Kozoll, Charles F.; Means, Robert P.; and Weichenthal, Phyllis. "Staff and Organization Development: An Analysis of Their Interaction in a Community College Setting and Resulting Change." Paper pre- pared for the Adult Education Research Conference, San Antonio, Texas, 1978. (ED 152 989) Leslie, David W. "The Part-Time Faculty Labor Force." New Directions for Institutional Research 18 (Summer 1978). , and Head, Ronald B. "Part-Time Faculty Rights." Educational Record 60,1 (1979). 131 Leslie, David w.; Kellams, Samuel E.; and Gunne, G. Manny. Part-Time Faculty in American Higher Education. New York: Praeger Pub- lishers, 1982. Lhota, Robert L. Multidimensional Model: Adjunct Staff Development. Council of NorthTCentral Community and Junior colleges, 1976. (ED 180 510) Lindahl, Donald G. "Commonalities in the Professional Education Competencies of Selected Community College Vocational Instructors." Ed.D. dissertation, Oregon State University, 1971. Lolly, John L. "A Comparison of the Use of Instructional Resources by Full- and Part-Time Teachers." Community/Junior College Research Quarter1y_5 (October-December 1980). Lombardi, John. "Salaries for Part-Time Faculty: New Trends." Community College Review 3 (January 1976). Long, Edward J., Jr. "Analysis of Professional Development Needs of Part-Time Continuing Education Instructors at St. Petersburg Junior College." Ed.D. dissertation, Nova University, 1978. (ED 162 678) McCabe, Robert H., and Brezner, Jeffrey I. "Part-Time Faculty in Institutional Economics." New Directions for Institutional Research l8 (Summer 1978). McCatty, Cressy. "Patterns of Learning Projects Among Professional Men." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto, l973. McDougle, Larry G. "Orientation Programs for Part-Time Faculty Members." Community College Review 8 (Summer 1980). McNemar, Quinn. Psychological Statistics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962. Miller, Jack D. "A Factor Analysis of Professional Education Compe- tencies and Selected Community College Instructors." Ed.D. dis- sertation, Oregon State University, 1971. Moe, Jackie. "A Staff Development Model for Part-Time Instructors." New Directions for Community Colleges 5 (Autumn 1977). Nelson, Hilding E. "Competency-Based Teacher Education for Community College Instructors: A Partly Self-Instructional Staff Develop- ment Program." San Jacinto, Calif.: Mount San Jacinto College, 1978. (ED 158 829) 132 Parsons, Michael H. "Part-Time Faculty: A Statewide Model for Development." Paper presented at the Northeast Region Confer- ence of the National Council for Staff, Program, and Organiza- tional Development, Mount Laurel, New Jersey, 1978. (ED 161 484) . "Realizing Part-Time Faculty Potential." New Directions for Community Colleges--30 8,2 (1980). Persinger, Garnet R. "Professional Development for Part-Time Faculty." Research and Demonstration Project. Council for North-Central Community and Junior Colleges, 1977. (ED 168 664) Plosser, William D., and Hammel, Joseph H. "Temporary, Contract, or Regular? A Report About Court Cases Involving the Issues of the Status and Pay of Part-Time Faculty in California Community Col- leges." Sacramento: California Community and Junior College Association, 1976. (ED 133 015) Quanty, Michael. "Part-Time Instructor Survey." Overland Park, Kansas: Johnson County Community College, 1976. (ED 127 000) Sanchez, Bonnie M. "Part-Time Community College Instructors." Community Services Catalyst 10 (Spring-Summer 1980). Schultz, Raymond E., and Roed, William J. "Report on Inservice Needs of Community College Part-Time Occupational Instructors." Tucson: College of Education, Arizona University, 1978. (ED 156 290) Seitz, James E. "Professional Orientation and Attitudes of Part-Time Junior College Faculty." Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Illinois University, 1971. Sellen, Jane B. "Successful Continuing Education Teachers: How Did They Get That Way?" New Directions for Continuing Education, no. 6 (1980). Sewell, Donald H.; Brydon, Charles W.; and Plosser, William D. "Report on a Statewide Survey About Part-Time Faculty in Cali- fornia Community Colleges." Sacramento: California Community and Junior College Association, 1976. (ED 118 195) Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw4Hi11 Book Co., 1956. Smith, A1. "Staff Development Goals and Practices in U.S. Community Colleges." Community/Junior Col1ege Research Quarterly, no. 5 (1981 . 133 Smith, Richard R. "Can Participatory Programs Realize Part-Time Faculty Potential?" New Directions for Community Colleges--3O 8,2 1980 . . "Developmental Needs of Community College Adjunct Faculty." Community/Junior College Research Quarterly 2,1 (1977). Snow, Richard E. "Representative and Quasi-Representative Design for Reseagch on Teaching." Review of Educational Research 44,3 1974 . St. John, Edward P. "Academic Discipline of Instruction/Research Employees in Missouri State-Supported Higher Education Institu- tions, 1978-79." Research and Planning Series Report 79-7. Jefferson City: Missouri State Department of Higher Education, 1979. (ED 180 343) Thomason, John. "Faculty Status in the Public Community and Junior Colleges of Texas." Commerce: Center for Community Col1ege Education, East Texas State University, 1977. (ED 138 315) Tough, Allen. "Major Learning Efforts: Recent Research and Future Directions." Adult Education 28,4 (1978). Tuckman, Howard P., and Caldwell, Jaime. "The Reward Structure for Part-Timers in Academe." Journal of Higher Education 50 (November-December 1979). Turner, Marjorie A. "A Study of Perceived Problems Resulting From the Use of Part-Time Faculty Members in Five Se1ected Community Colleges in Florida." Ed.D. dissertation, the Florida State University, 1979. Vogler, Daniel E. "Administering Part-Time Instruction." Community Services Catalyst 10 (Winter 1980). Waddell, Thomas K. "Part-Time Faculty in Arizona Community Colleges. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona, 1978. Weichenthal, Phyllis 8.; Means, Robert P.; and Kozoll, Charles F. "Professional Development Handbook for Community College Part- Time Faculty Members." Champaign-Urbana: Office of Continuing Education and Public Services, College of Education, University of Illinois, 1977. (ED 156 288) Willett, Lynn H. "Comparison of Instructional Effectiveness of Full- and Part-Time Faculty." Community/Junior College Research Quarterly 5 (October-December 1980).