PROBLEMS OF NEW FACULTY MEMBERS IN COMMUNITY COLLEGES Thesis gov Hm Degree of Ed. D. MECHEGéN STATE UNEVERSE’TY Hugo Emil Siehr 1962 itihcaaé This is to certify that the thesis entitled Problems of New Faculty Members in Community Colleges presented by Hugo Emil Siehr has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ed.D. degree in Education I Major fliessor Due August 17, 1962 0-169 LIBRA R Y Michigan Sta to University PROBLEMS OF NEW FACULTY MEMBERS IN COMMUNITY COLLEGES BY Hugo Emil Siehr AN ABSTRACT OF A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial ful illment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION College of Education 1962 a”. ABSTRACT PROBLEMS OF NEW FACULTY MEMBERS IN COMMUNITY COLLEGES by Hugo Emil Siehr The general problem to be investigated was the identi- fication of problems perceived by new faculty members in community colleges, the identification of administrative practices which the new instructors recognized as most help- ful in alleviating their problems, and the formulation of suggestions for the improvement of procedures used in orienting beginning instructors in community colleges. The design of the study was centered about three questions: 1. What kinds of problems do new faculty membersein community colleges encounter? 2. What kinds of administrative procedures are now being used in community colleges? 3. Are the administrative procedures now being used relevant to the solution of problems which new instructors identify as important to them? To answer these questions information was obtained from 2,783 new faculty members serving in 429 public and private community colleges in fifty states and territories of the United States by means of a seven-page questionnaire. Participants were asked to check each of seventy-two items listed for identification as a problem, for difficulty, and for persistence. In a second section of the questionnaire Hugo Emil Siehr new community college instructors were asked: (1) to identi- gy nineteen administrative procedures used by colleges in the orientation of beginning teachers as to their use or non-use, and (2) to indicate how helpful the practice was if used, or how helpful the instructor thought the procedure would have been, had it been used. Nine problems which were ranked above the first standard deviation from the means of the frequency scores, the difficulty scores, and the persistence scores were de- fined as major problems. These were the following problems: 1. Lack of time for scholarly study. 2. Adapting instruction to individual differences. 3. Dealing with students who require special attention to overcome deficiencies. 4. Acquiring adequate secretarial help. 5. Understanding college policies regarding teaching load. 6. Challenging superior students. 7. Obtaining needed instructional materials. 8. Grading or marking students' work. 9. Understanding college policies to be followed in curriculum development and revision. These nine problems were analyzed to discover signifi- cant differences in the means of their difficulty scores when the respondents were separated according to the in- stitutional factors of nature of control, and size of the community college, and according to the personal character— istics of sex, marital status, age, level of preparation Hugo Emil Siehr year employed, teaching experience and type of courses taught in the community college. A "t" test was used to analyze differences of the means according to each control factor. Significant differences at the .05 level were found for ten combinations of problems and control factors, and at the .01 level for twenty-seven combinations of problems and control factors, each problem showing differences according to two or more control factors. The persistence of all problems was examined by com- paring differences in persistence scores between first year instructors and third year instructors. Although personal problems, institutional problems, problems of structure, policies and procedures of the individual college, instruc- tional problems, and problems of professional improvement showed a lower percentage of third year respondents identify- ing these groups of problems as persisting than first year respondents, certain individual problems tended to persist more than others. In the analysis all problems marked "high" in any one or all of the categories frequency, difficulty, and per- sistence, differences were identified according to the same nine control factors used in the previous stage of the analysis. Eighty of the 189 combinations of problems and control factors showed differences in identification. Implications for the improvement of orientation prac; tices in an individual community college are contingent upon Hugo Emil Siehr the individual administrator discovering which problems are most critical for the new instructors in the college where he serves. According to the findings of the study, however, the following questions could well be asked: 1. 2. Do beginning instructors in this college have sufficient time for scholarly study? Are new instructors in this college aided in adapting instruction to individual differences and in dealing with students who require special attention to overcome deficiencies? Is suffi- cient time provided for individual instruction? Is adequate secretarial help provided for begin- ning instructors? Are the policies of this college regarding teach- ing load fair to the new instructor? Are efforts being made to explain these policies to the new teaching staff? Are new instructors aided in challenging superior students? How is this being done? Are new instructional materials being provided ~ and are beginning instructors being aided in the -yproper use of new materials? Does the administration encourage the discussion of problems involved in grading or marking stu- dents' work for beginning instructors? Are college policies involved in curriculum development and revision clearly explained to new instructors? Are new instructors encouraged to participate in and contribute to curriculum de- velopment and revision? Are materials, such as a schedule of classes, course outlines, texts, and a faculty handbook supplied to the new instructor upon his appointment? 10. 11. 12. 13. Hugo Emil Siehr Is a conference with the department or divisional chairman arranged for the new instructor upon his appointment? Is a lighter teaching load set up for the new in— structor? Are regular departmental or divisional meetings scheduled to aid the beginning instructor? Is a faculty sponsor provided for each new faculty member? PROBLEMS OF NEW FACULTY MEMBERS IN COMMUNITY COLLEGES BY Hugo Emil Siehr A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION College of Education 1962 I‘ll .lll Gfifflsl ‘5’ ' ,' .d\ f I .i) (ch ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to thank the professional associates who made this study possible. Dr. Karl Hereford, chairman of the Guidance Committee, and Dr. John Jamrich, director of the project, guided the study from its inception and rendered valuable counsel at each stage of its development. Dr. John Jamrich and Dr. Max Smith were instrumental in securing the cooperation of the American Association of Junior Colleges. Dr. Thomas Merson of the Association and Dr. Burton Friedman of the College of Education worked with the writer in the construction of the questionnaire. Dr. John Paterson made valuable suggestions in the design of the study. To these professional colleagues and to Dr. Donald Leu and Dr. John Useem the writer is indebted for advice and counsel. The support of the Cbllege of Education and the American AsSociation of Junior Colleges is hereby acknow— ledged. Without the help of these organizations the study could not have been completed. ii Chapter I. II. III. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS RELATIVE TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF ORIENTATION PRACTICES FOR NEW COM- MUNITY COLLEGE INSTRUCTORS BASED ON AN ANALYSIS OF THEIR PROBLEMS . .‘. . . . . Significance of the Problem . . . . Purposes of the Study . . . . . . . Questions Investigated in the Study Limitations of the Study . . . . . Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . Overview of the Dissertation . . . DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . Method of Obtaining Data . . . . . . . Identification of Data . . . . . . . . Content of the Questionnaire . . . . . Adequacy of Problems and Administrative Procedures in the Questionnaire . . . The Population of the Study . . . . . Analysis of the Degree of Helpfulness of Administrative Practices . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHARACTERISTICS OF COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL CHARACTERISTICS NEW FACULTY MEMBERS . . . . . . . . . Characteristics of Community Colleges . Summary and Conclusions . . . . Distribution of Respondents by States and Type of Community College . . . . Personal Characteristics of the Respondents . . . . . . Professional Characteristics of the Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . CLASSIFICATION OF PROBLEMS OF NEW FACULTY MEMBERS IN COMMUNITY COLLEGES ACCORDING TO FREQUENCY, DIFFICULTY, AND PERSISTENCE . iii Page H H OCXJUI-bt-t 11 12 12 14 16 17 18 23 26 28 29 35 37 4O 45 57 59 Chapter Ten Problems Ranking Highest in Frequency . . The Range of Difficulty Scores Ten Problems Ranking Highest in Difficulty Scores . . Problems Ranking Highest in Persistence Scores . . . Non- Persistent Problems Summary v. IDENTIFICATION OF MAJOR PROBLEMS PERCEIVED BY NEW FACULTY MEMBERS IN COMMUNITY COLLEGES . . . . . . . . . . Identification of Major Problems in the Study Discussion of the Nine Major PrOblems. Identification of Minor Problems in the Study . . Persistence of Problems Between First Year Respondents and Third Year Respondents Summary . . . . . VI. DIFFERENCES IN THE IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEMS BY NEW FACULTY MEMBERS IN COMMUNITY COLLEGES . . . . Purpose and Outline of the Analysis Analysis I - Differences in Average Degree Of Difficulty Scores of the Nine Major Problems According to the Nine Control Factors . Differences in the IdentificatiOn of Major Problems by New Instructors in Public Community Colleges and New Instructors in Private Community Colleges . Differences in the Identification of Major Problems by New Instructors in Small Community Colleges and New Instructors in Large Community Colleges . . Differences in the IdentificatiOn of Major Problems by Sex . Differences in the IdentificatiOn of Major Problems by Marital Status of the Respondents . . . . . . iv Page 67 73 74 80 82 83 83 90 93 99 111 113 113 116 116 118 119 119 Chapter Differences in the Identification of Major Problems by Age of the Respondents . . . Differences in the Identification of Major Problems by Type of Degree Held by the Respondents Differences in the Identification of Major Problems by First Year Community College Teachers and by Second and Third Year Com- munity College Teachers . Differences in the IdentificatiOn of Major Problems by Previous Experience of the Instructors Differences in the Identification of Major Problems by Level of Courses Taught by the Respondents . . Discussion of the MajOr Problems in Terms of Significant Differ- ences Found in Connection with the Nine Institutional or Personal Factors Summary of Analysis I . Analysis 11 - Differences in the Identification of All Problems Rated as "High" in Frequency, Difficulty, or Persistence When Considered in Relation to the Nine Control Factors Classification of All Problems Rated "High" in Any One of the CategOries Frequency, Difficulty, or Persistence by New Instructors in Public Community Colleges and by New Instructors in Large Com— munity Colleges . . Classification of All Problems Rated ”High" in Any One or All of the Categories Frequency, Diffi— culty, and Persistence by New Instructors in Small Community Col— leges and by New Instructors in Large Community Colleges . . Classification of All Problems Rated "High" in Any One or All of the Cate- gories Frequency, Difficulty, and Persistence by New Male Community College Instructors and New Female Community College Instructors V Page 120 121 122 122 123 123 128 130 133 137 142 Chapter Classification of All Problems Rated "High" in Any One or All of the Categories Frequency, Difficulty, and Persistence by Single New Community College Instructors and by Married New Community College Instructors Classification of All Problems Rated "High” in Any One or All of the Categories Frequency, Difficulty, and Persistence by New "Young" Community College Instructors and New "Old" Com- munity College Instructors Classification Of All Problems Rated ”High" by Any One or All of the Categories Frequency, Difficulty, and Persistence by New Community College Instruc- tors Holding a Bachelor’s De— gree Only and by New Instruc- tors Holding a Master's or Doctor' s Degree . . i Classification of All Problems Rated "High" in Any One or All of the Categories Frequency, Difficulty, and Persistence by New First Year Instructors and New Second and Third Year In- structors in Community Colleges Classification of All Problems Rated ”High" in Any One or All of the Categories Frequency, Difficulty, and Persistence by New Community College Instruc- tors with Some College Teach— ing Experience and by New Com- munity College Instructors with No College Teaching Experience Classification of All Problems Rated ”High" in Any One or All of the Categories Frequency, Difficulty, and Persistence by New Community College Instruc- tors Teaching College Parallel Courses Only and by Those New Community College Instructors Teaching "Other" Courses vi Page 146 149 152 156 160 164 Chapter Summary of the Analysis II . Summary Of the Differences in Analysis II . . . . . . . . . VII. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES USED IN THE ORIENTATION OF NEW INSTRUCTORS Respondents' Reactions to the Nineteen Administrative Pro- cedures . Ranking Of Used Administrative Procedures by Average Degree of Helpfulness . . Ranking of ”Not Used" Adminis— trative Procedures by Average Degree of Helpfulness Compared to the Ranking of "Used" Ad- ministrative Procedures by Average Degree of Helpfulness Ranking of Administrative Pro— cedures by Combined Average Degree of Helpfulness Rating Compared to Their Use . Ranking of Administrative Pro— cedures by Respondents Survey of Write-In Responses Summary of Administrative Procedures Used by Community Colleges . VIII. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES Summary A Summary of AnSwers to the Three Major Questions Outlined in the Design of the Study Are the Administrative Procedures Now in Use Relevant to the Solution of Problems Which New Instructors in Community Colleges Identify as Critical? Suggestions for Further Study vii Page 167 173 179 179 180 184 187 191 193 197 199 199 205 209 212 Chapter Page Implications for Administrative Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 viii LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 Classification of Community Colleges Par- ticipating in the Study by States and Type of Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Classification of Public and Private Com- munity Colleges of the Fifteen States Ranking Highest in Number of Partici- pating Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Highest Ranking States in Participating Community Colleges by Certain States Compared to the Total Number of Com— munity Colleges in Those States . . . . . . 3.4 Fifteen Highest Ranking States in Partici- pating Public Community Colleges Com- pared to the Total Number of Public Com- munity Colleges in Those States . . . . 3.5 Fifteen Highest Ranking States in Partici- pating Private Community Colleges Com- pared to the Total Number Of Private Community Colleges in Those States . . . . . 3.6 Classifications of Community Colleges Participating in the Study by Enroll— ment and Type of Control . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 Classification of Respondents by States and Type of Community College . . . . . . . 3.71 Classification of Respondents by Public and Private Community Colleges of the Fifteen States Ranking Highest in Re— turned Usable Questionnaires . . . . . . . 3.72 Sex of New Faculty Members in Community Colleges Responding to the Question— naire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Page 30 31 32 33 34 36 38 39 4O Table ‘x3.8 3.90 3.91 3.92 3.93 'm‘3.94 3.95 “3.96 3.97 3.98 ~“3.99 \‘3.991 "3.992 Number of Respondents Classified by Sex and by Type of Community College Served Number of New Faculty Member Respondents Classified According to Sex and Year First Employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of New Faculty Members in Certain Age Groups Classified by Sex . . . . . . Number of Faculty Member Respondents Classified by Year First Employed and Type of Community College . . . . . . . Marital Status of New Faculty Members in Community Colleges Responding to the Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . Age of New Faculty Members in Community Colleges Responding to the Question- naire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of Faculty Members in Certain Age Groups Classified by Type of Community -College . . . . . . . . . . . . fl . A‘- \ can.-. I Highest Degree Held by New FaCulty Member Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Highest Degrees Held by Faculty Members in Public vs. Private Community Colleges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Initial Teaching Assignments of New Faculty Members in Community Colleges as Compared to Their Major in Highest Degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I L k I ‘ o r Prev1ous FTOfCSSIOnal Exper1ence of New Community College Faculty Members Participating in the Study . . . . . . . Previous Professional Experience of New Community College Faculty Members Participating in the Study . . . . . . . Most Recent Teaching Experience of Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X \ ‘20. Page 40 41 41 43 44 44 45 47 47 48 49 49 50 Table \3.993 3.994 3.995 3.996 3.997 3.998 3.999 5.2 5.3 Subject Areas Represented by Major in Highest Degree of the Respondents . Subject Matter Area Taught in First Year at the Community College by the Respondents . . . Type of Courses Taught by Respondents During the First Year in This College Type of Assignment Respondent Reported During First Year in this College Further Information on Respondents' Type of First Year Assignment Primary Reasons Why New Faculty Members Came to These Community Colleges Aspirations of New Faculty Members in Community Colleges Participating in the Study . . . . . Ranking by Frequency of the Seventy-Two Problems Considered by AITNNew~Faculty Member Respondents in Community Colleges Ranking by Average Degree of Difficulty Scores of the Seventy—Two Problems Considered by All New Faculty Members in Community Colleges . Ranking of the Seventy—Two Problems According to the Total Number of Respondents Indicating that the Problem Persisted . Problems Ranking More Deviation Above the Problems Ranking More Deviation Above the Difficulty Scorg; . Problems Ranking More Deviation Above the Scores . . . . . . Than One Standard Mean in-5539252521' Than One Standard Mean in Average Than One Standard Mean in Persistence xi O M ‘1./'--‘ Page 52 53 54 54 55 56 57 . ,7 , . If 1’17“!!! ’J, 61 69 75 86 88 Table ‘\5.4 \5.5 “5.6 5.7 5.90 5.91 6.2 Problems Ranking Above the First Standard Devision From the Mean in Frequency, Difficulty, and Persistence Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Problems Ranking Lower Than One Standard Deviation Below the Mean in Frequency Scores 0 O O O O O O ‘0 O O O O O O O O 0 Problems Ranking Lower Than One Standard Deviation Below the Mean in Difficulty scores I O O O O O I O O I O I O O O O 0 Problems Ranking Lower Than One Standard Deviation Below the Mean in Persistence Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Problems Ranking Below One Standard Deviation From the Mean in Frequency, Difficulty, and Persistence Distri- bution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Per Cent of First and Third Year Respond- ents Who Indicated Persistence of Problems Compared to the Per Cent of All Respondents Who Indicated That These Problems Persisted . . . . . . . . . . . Persistence of Different Types of Problems Between First Year Respondents, Third Year Respondents, and All Respondents . . Summary of the Results of Significance Tests of the Nine Major Problems Accord- ing to the Nine Control Factors . . . . . Classification of All Problems Rated "High" in Any One or All of the Cate- gories Frequency, Difficulty, or Per+ sistence by New Instructors in Public Community Colleges and by New Instruc- tors in Private Community Colleges . . Classification of All Problems Rated "High" in Any One or All of the Cate- gories Frequency, Difficulty, and Per- sistence by New Instructors in Small Community Collegesand by New Instructors In Large Community Colleges . . . . . . . xii Page 89 94 95 96 97 99 109 114 131 138 Table Page 6.4 Classification of All Problems Rated "High" in Any One or All of the Categories Fre— quency, Difficulty, and Persistence by New Male Community College Instructors and by New Female Community College Instructors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 6.5 Classification of All Problems Rated "High" in Any One or All of the Categories Fre- quency, Difficulty, and Persistence by Single New Community College Instructors and by Married New Community College Instructors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 6.6 Classification of All Problems Rated "High" in Any One or All of the Categories Fre— quency, Difficulty, and Persistence by New "Young" Community College Instructors and New "Old" Community College Instructors . . . 150 6.7 Classification of All Problems Rated "High" in Any One or All of the Categories Fre— quency, Difficulty, and Persistence by New Community College Instructors Holding a Master's or Doctor's Degree . . . . . . . . 153 6.8 Classification of All Problems Rated "High" in Any One or All of the Categories Fre- quency, Difficulty, and Persistence by New First Year Instructors and New Second and Third Year Instructors in Community Colleges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 6.9 Classification of All Problems Rated ”High" in Any One or All of the Categories Fre- quency, Difficulty, and Persistence by New Community College Instructors with Some College Teaching Experience and by New Community College Instructors with No College Teaching Experience . . . . . . . . . 161 6.91 Classification of All Problems Rated "High" in Any One or All of the Categories Fre- quency, Difficulty, and Persistence by New Community College Instructors Teaching College. Parallel Courses Only and by Those New Community College Instructors Teaching -"Other” Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 xiii Table Page 6.92 Differences in the Identification of Problems in the Second Part of the Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 6.93 Differences in the Identification of Major Problems Between Steps One to Six of the Analysis and Step Seven . . . . . . 177 7.1 Ranking of Used Administrative Procedures by Average Degree of Helpfulness . . . . . . . 181 7.2 Ranking of "Not Used” Administrative Procedures by Average Degree of Help- fulness Compared to the Ranking of "Used" Procedures by Average Degree of Helpfulness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 7.3 Ranking of Administrative Procedures by Combined Average Degree of Help— fulness Rating Compared to Their Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 7.4 Ranking of Administrative Procedures by Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 xiv CHAPTER I QUESTIONS RELATIVE TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF ORIENTATION ERACIICES FOR NEW COMMUNITY COLLEGE INSTRUCTORS BASED ON AN ANALYSIS OF THEIR PROBLEMS The general problem to be investigated was the identi- fication of problems perceived by new faculty members in community colleges, the identification of administrative practices which the new instructors recognized as most helpful in alleviating their problems, and the formulation of suggestions for the improvement of procedures used in orienting beginning instructors in community colleges. Significance of the Problem The rise of the two-year college is one of the newest and most spectacular educational developments in the United States. In 1900 there were no junior colleges. In 1930 there were 178. Today there are 663 attended by approxi- mately 800,000 students or approximately one-fourth of all 1 students enrolled in college. In recent years the term "community college," rather than that of "two-year college," 1Edmund J. Gleazer, "1961 Junior College Directory," American Association of Junior COlleges, Washington, D.C., 1961, p. 40. or "junior college" has been used increasingly in order to stress the strong bond usually existing between the community college and the community it serves. One or more community colleges are operating in fifty states and two territories of the United States and in the District of Columbia.2 There are sixty—nine community colleges in California, forty- seven in Texas, and forty—seven in New York. They range in size from the very small (a private community college in Georgia has an enrollment of forty—five) to the very large (Long Beach, California, City College has an enrollment of 40,000 students). Some of the community colleges are private and expensive to attend; the great majority are public and relatively inexpensive to attend.3 For the student whose aim is a full four years or more of higher education, the community college offers the first two years of an academic program while the student lives at home, thus reducing the cost of education for the student. The vocational-terminal courses offered in community colleges enable the student to complete his education in two years and to enter the job market with improved chanCes of vocational success. The adult education or "night school" courses offered in a community college often draw larger 21bid., p. 36. 3Joseph Stocker, "The Rise of the Junior College," The Kiwanis Magazine (December 1961; January 1962). enrollments than the daytime classes, and enable adults of all ages to attend college classes. There is every reason to expect that additional come munity colleges will be established (approximately twenty- five new community colleges began operation in the Fall of 1961) and that enrollments will continue to rise in order to meet the needs of increasing numbers of young people.4 Approximately 20,000 full time faculty members were teaching in junior colleges in 1959—1960.5 An additional 14,000 part time faculty members were employed in community colleges. The area of staffing community college faculties has always been a somewhat anomalous problem for community college administrators. Candidates for positions who are highly qualified in their academic fields tend to accept positions in four-year colleges and universities rather than in community colleges. The so-called "upgraded" secondary school instructors often are entirely adequate faculty members in community colleges, frequently forming the nucleus of the teaching staff. The competition for qualified tea— chers which community college administrators face from institutions of higher education on the one hand and from the secondary schools on the other, coupled with the growth 41bid., p. 34. 51bid., p. 46. 4; of enrollments and the consequent need for more instructors, accentuates the problem of securing faculty members and makes it imperative that new instructors are successfully oriented to their positions. In the light of this situation the problem of the study emerged. The problem of securing, orienting, and re- taining well qualified instructors, already a crucial problem in many areas, will become more criticalnin the next decade with the press of rapidly mounting enrollments. Although personnel orientation practices have been studied in elementary and secondary schools and in small colleges, few studies of orientation practices have been 6 In order to provide basic conducted in community colleges. information for community college staff orientation needs and practices the present study was designed and conducted. Purposes of the Study The primary purposes of this study were: (1) To determine the kind of problems perceived by nEW faculty members in community colleges, (2) to identify the ad- ministrative procedures which new faculty members in commun- ity colleges recognize as helpful in resolving their problems, (3) to correlate orientation practices now in use for new k 7— 6Chester W. Harris and Marie R. Liba (eds.) Encyclo- pedia of Educational Researgh (2nd ed.: New York: The Mac— millan Company, 1960), 55. 702-Z10. instructors in community colleges and the problems of the individuals to be oriented, and (4) to formulate suggestions for improving administrative practices on the basis of the problems identified as important, and on the basis of ad- ministrative procedures which new faculty members identified as being helpful in solving their problems. study. Qgestions Investigated in the Study Seven principal questions were investigated in the These are: What were the institutional characteristics of the community colleges submitting data for the study relative to size of the college and type of control, public or private? What were the personal and professional character- istics of new faculty members supplying data for the study? . What kinds of problems did new faculty members in community colleges perceive as being more critical than others? Which problems do new community college instruc- tors perceive to be critical? What kinds of administrative procedures for orienting new faculty members are now employed in community colleges? Which orientation procedures were identified as being most helpful by new faculty members in community colleges? Are the orientation practices now in use relevant to the solution of critical problems perceived by new community college instructors? Certain related questions were also considered and in- vestigated.More specific questions related to the personal and professional characteristics of new faculty members were: 1. 2. 6. What were the age, sex, and marital status of new faculty members?:x:atr.t.ug. «311.. What was the academic preparation of nééifacultyfi members in community colleges? What were the patterns of prior teaching experi- ence of new community college faculty members? What were the primary reasons new'community college teachers came to their respective institutions? it* ‘"°” iii What were the initial assignments Of beginning instructors in community colleges? i :3 I. ‘ “ 1 . L' F; _‘ ‘* What were the professional aspirations of new community college instructors? Questions related to identification of problems by beginning instructors in community colleges were: 1. Which problems do new faculty members in com- munity colleges identify most frequently, and which of these problems are reported to persist? Which problems caused the greatest degree of difficulty to beginning instructors? Do first year faculty members in community colleges perceive their problems as being more persistent than do teachers who have served three years in these institutions? Are there significant differences in the degree of difficulty of critical problems perceived by new faculty members in relation to the institutional factors of college size, nature of control, and type of course taught? Are there significant differences in the degree of difficulty of major problems perceived by new faculty members in relation to personal factors of sex, age, marital status, level of preparation, previous professional experience, and year employed? Additional questions related to orientation practices were: 1. What other administrative practices not extensively used by community college administrators in help- ing new faculty members, might be effective in re- solving their problems? 2. What direct suggestions to improve orientation practices in community colleges are made by the new faculty members themselves? Other questions which might have been investigated but were not included in the study are the following questions: 1. Are there differences in the perceptions Of certain problems by instructors teaching in different subject matter fields? Green, in the study of probationary community college teachers in California, attempted this type of investigation and found that there were significant differences of seven- teen of ninety items between the responses of social science and science teachers. The type of item checked was signifi- cantly related to whether the instructor was teaching in the area of social science or of science. Green also found that there were significant differences in the identification of problems items between social science instructors and tea- chers in technical-vocational subjects.7 2. Are there differences in the identifications of problems by instructors with different types of teaching experience? 7Charles B. Green, "The Problems of the Beginning Junior College Instructor" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Uni— versity of California, Los Angeles, 1960), p. 98. This question was also investigated by Green who found that certain problems were checked more frequently by pro- bationary instructors with experience below the community college level than by instructors with previous experience only in four—year colleges and universities. 3. Is the degree of difficulty of major problems identified by new faculty members related to the turnover of faculty members in these community colleges? 4. Are there certain types of institutions which seem to be using better administrative techniques for orienting new faculty members than other types Of institutions? 5. Is there any regional difference in the identifi- cation Of problems of new faculty members in com- munity colleges? 6. What is the optimum work load of a beginning com- munity college instructor? 7. What is the new community college instructor's image of the community college? These are important questions which were not investi- gated. Comments by some of the respondents indicated their importance. A number of the foregoing questions are being investigated in a study being conducted currently by the Florida State Department of Education.8 Limitations of the Study This study is limited to an analysis of the data ob- tained from questionnaires completed by 2,783 new community 8Florida State Department of Education, "Florida's Com- munity Junior Colleges: Their Contributions and Their Future," Faculty State Junior College Advisbry Board's Study, Faculty Opinion Survey (in progress). ' college instructors located in 429 public and private com- munity colleges in fifty states and territories of the United States. Further limitations were imposed by the fact that the 2,783 usable questionnaires represented 49 per cent of the questionnaires sent to 5,628 new community college faculfly members. Conclusions were necessarily limited to this sample. Time was another limiting factor. A period of four months elapsed between the first request for names of new faculty members and the coding Of the last questionnaire. The method of investigation and the selection of questions to be investigated also imposed limitations on the study. Hypothesis generating procedures were limited to the questions previously outlined. A further limitation was im- posed by the questionnaire method of gathering data. The study was also limited by the statistical techni- ques employed in analyzing the data. The first technique involved a com a ' on of the means of the difficulty scores of problems between dichotomous groups representing the institutional factors of size of the college, type Of control, and type of courses taught, and the personal factors of the respondents,sex, age, marital status, degree held, teaching experience, and year employed. A comparison of the ranking M of problems according to frequency of mention, difficulty, and persistence of the problems in relation to the same institutional and personal factors was the second technique employed. 10 Definition of Terms Full—Time Faculty Members For the purpose of the study, the term, "full-time faculty member," was applied to a community college staff member who spent half or more than half his time teaching in the community college. If a fulletime staff member per- formed administrative or counseling functions but also spent half or more than half time teaching, he was included as a full-time faculty member. Full-time administrators or full—time counselors were not included. New Faculty Members The term, "new faculty member," referred to the full- time teacher, with or without prior teaching experience, who was first employed by the community college on or after the Fall of 1959, and who was still retained on the present teaching staff of the community college at the time of the study (January-April, 1962). Communitngolleges The term, "community college," referred to those colleges in the 1961 Directory of the American Association of Junior Colleges with the exception of Canadian institu— tions and Wisconsin teachers' colleges. However, the ad— ministrators of some of the junior colleges listed in the 1961 Directory did not consider their institutions to be 11 community colleges. This response indicates a need for the reclassification of two-year colleges by the American Associ- ation of Junior Colleges into "Community Colleges" according to an acceptable definition of a "community college" and "other two-year colleges." The percentage of returns by colleges, 66 per cent, would have been appreciably higher had there been a method of distinguishing "community colleges" from "other two~year colleges." Overview of the Dissertation The dissertation is divided into eight chapters. The design of the study is described in Chapter II. The characteristics Of participating community colleges and the personal and professional characteristics of new faculty member respondents to the questionnaire are presented in Chapter III. Problems of new faculty members in community colleges are classified by the characteristics of frequency, difficulty, and persistence in Chapter IV. Major problems and minor problems were defined and identified in Chapter V. The analysis of the problem data is presented in Chapter VI. Administrative procedures used by community colleges in the orientation of new faculty members are described and analyzed in Chapter VII. The summary, conclusions, and implications for administrative practices are presented in Chapter VIII. CHAPTER II DESIGN OF THE STUDY In order to answer the questions in Chapter I, the following procedures were outlined and completed: 1. A method of collecting relevant data was devised. 2. A population was selected. 3. The data were collected. 4. Methods of analyzing the data were determined. 5. The data were analyzed and a summary of the results of the data analysis was made. 6. Implications for administrative procedures in orienting beginning instructors in community colleges were derived from a summary of the results. Method of Obtaining Data Data relevant to the investigation of the problems outlined in Chapter I could have been obtained by a number of different methods or combinations of methods. What was the source of the data? Should information be obtained from community college administrators, from the instructors themselves, from the literature, from previous related studies, or from a combination of these sources? A review of the literature revealed four recent studies in this 12 13 1 general area: (1) a study by McCall entitled "Problems of New Faculty Members in North Central Association Colleges and Universities of Less Than 3,000 Enrollment," (2) a study by Green,2 "The Problems of the Beginning Junior College Instructor," and two studies by the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education entitled, (3) "Orienting New Faculty,"3 and 64) "An Evaluation of Some Staff Orientation Practices,"4 Only the Green study was based on a population of in- structors in community colleges and this population was limited graphically to the State of California. Basic data for answering questions relative to the problems of in— structors in community colleges throughout the United States, and to the relevance of orientation practices in the solution of problems was lacking. The questionnaire method was selected as the best available method of gathering data from a nationwide population of community college instructors. 1Harlan R. McCall, "Problems of New Faculty Members in North Central Association Colleges and Universities of Less Than 3,000 Enrollment" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1961). 2Charles B. Green, "The Problems of the Beginning Junior College Instructor" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1960). 3"Orienting New Faculty," AACTE Bulletin, XII:13 (Washington, D.C.: The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1960). 4"An Evaluation of Some Staff Orientation Practices," AACTE Bulletin, XIV:2 (Washington, D.C.: The American Associ— ation of ColIeges for Teacher Education, 1960). 14 The instructors themselves were selected as the source of data because the Green study showed significant differences in the identification of problems by instructors, by deans of instruction, and by department chairmen.5 Identification of Data Characteristics of Community Colleges Participating in the Study The 1961 Junior College Directory was the primary source of the institutional data used in the study. Each question- naire was numbered so that it could be identified with the community college in which the respondent served. The in— stitutional characteristics of the type of community college, and the enrollment Classification of the college could thus be obtained from the 1961 Junior College Directory. Personal and Professional Characteristics of New Faculty Members Questions involving the personal and professional characteristics of new faculty members, previously outlined in Chapter I, are repeated here: 1. What are the age, sex, marital status, and first year employed data of the new faculty members? 2. What is the academic preparation of new faculty members in community colleges? 5Green, op. cit., p. 79. 15 3. What are the previous teaching experience patterns of new community college faculty members? 4. What are the most recent types of instructional experience of new community college teachers? 5. What are the primary reasons new teachers in com- munity colleges came to these institutions? 6. What are the initial assignments of beginning in- structors in community colleges? 7. What are the professional aspirations of new in- structors in community colleges? The items in the introductory section of the question- naire were formulated on the basis of these questions. Problems of New Faculty Members in Community Colleges and Administrative Procedures fOr Orienting New Faculty Members Items for the questionnaire, both problems encountered by new faculty members and administrative procedures de- signed to alleviate such problems, were obtained from different sources. Many items were taken directly from the questionnaire used by McCall in the study, "Problems of New Faculty Members in North Central Association Colleges and Universities."6 Bryam‘s study, "Some Problems in the Pro- vision of Professional Education for College Teachers,"7 was the source of some of the items. Merson's dissertation, 6McCaII, op. cit. 7Harold M. Byram, "Some Problems in the Provision of ‘Professional Education for College Teachers," Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, 1933. 16 "Certification Standards for Junior College Teachers in California," was a source of items for the section on Instructional Problems.8 A preliminary questionnaire was submitted to the members of the Commission on Instruction, American Associ- ation of Junior Colleges and a panel of advisors chosen by the Association. On the basis of its suggestions a final revision of the questionnaire was prepared. The question- naire is included in the Appendices, pages 227-233. Content of the Questionnaire The instrument consisted of four parts. These were: (1) a letter to the new instructor explaining the background and purposes of the study, (2) a check list of personal and professional characteristics of the new faculty members, (3) a list of possible problems of new instructors in community colleges, and (4) a section of administrative practices fre- quently used by colleges. Provisions were made in each section for write—in responses. Eleven Personal Problems were included in the first part of Section I. Ten of these eleven problems were taken 8Thomas B. Merson, "Certification Standards for Junior College Teachers in California" (unpublished Ed.D. disser- tation, University of California, 1952). Dr. Merson worked with the writer at Michigan State University in revising the questionnaire. Many of the problems in the section on Institutional Problems, Instructional Problems, and Profes- sional Improvement were included as a direct result of the discussions with Dr. Merson. 17 directly from the questionnaire used in the McCall study. Nine problems closely associated with the fundamental pur- poses of a community college were included in the next part of Section I. ,These items were included in an attempt to identify certain problems which might be peculiar to instruc- tors in a community college. The seventeen problems listed under Structure Policies and Procedures were obtained from the McCall study. The twenty eight Instructional Problems were taken from the McCall study, the Byram study, and the studies conducted by the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. The seven problems listed under Professional Improvement were suggested by related items in the Green study and the AACTE studies. Administrative pro- cedures listed in Section II were obtained from the McCall questionnaire and from the AACTE studies. Adequacy of Problems and Administrative Procedures in the Questionnaire When viewed in the light of the studies reviewed in the survey of the 1iterature,9the items included were repre- sentative of problems and procedures indicated in previous related studies. The fact that few respondents indicated additional items may be an indication of the adequacy of the items included in the instrument. 9The review of the literature is included in the Appendices, p. 235. 18 The Population of the Study A letter requesting the names of new faculty members was sent to each of the 650 community college presidents serving colleges included in the 1961 Junior College Directory. Four hundred twenty—nine of the presidents submitted 5,628 names Of new faculty members. Questionnaires were mailed to these instructors and 3,220 were returned in two mailings, a return of 57 per cent. Green reported 54 per cent usable returns on a check list sent to 991 community college teachers in California. 'Usable returns totaled 2,783 of the 3,220 question- naires received. Four hundred thirty~seven incomplete questionnaires were eliminated. The respondents evidently experienced great difficulty in interpreting the directions for completing the section on problems. The original directions were as follows: Following is a list of problems encountered by faculty personnel who are new to an institution. Please consider each item carefully. 1. Check column Al or A2 for each item that has been or still is a problem. 2. Check columns B3, B4, or B5 to indicate the degree of difficulty of the problem. 3. Cheek column C6 for each item which was never a problem for you. Those who submitted incomplete questionnaires failed to check both column A and column B, thus making it impossible 19 to interpret the results correctly. When the additional direCtions, "Two checks, one in column A and one in column B, are required, or a single check in column C," were added on the second mailing, fewer in— complete questionnaires were returned. Although the instrument had been pre—tested, this diffi- culty was not revealed. The percentage of return, 57 per cent, and the percent— age of usable questionnaires, 49 per cent, raised a serious question regarding the adequacy of the sample. The sample of 429 community colleges represented in the study, however, was 66 per cent of the community colleges in the 1961 Junior College Directory and these colleges were located geographically in the fifty States and territories in the United States. All enrollment categories of the 429 colleges are represented in approximately the same proportions as the totals indicated in the Directory. The sample Of institutions is, therefore, representative geographically and by enrollment categories of all community colleges in the United States. Methods Used to Analyze Problems The responses of new faculty members to the problems stated in the questionnaire were analyzed on the basis of three criteria: (Frequency of mention of the problem, diffi- culty of the problem, and persistence of the problem. 20 _E£gqugncy was defined asflthg_aggregate number of times an item was identified roblem by the respondents either under "Has been, not now" or under "Still persists" in column A of Section I of the questionnaire. _Difficulty of a problem in Segtion I of the question— naire was defined by a weighted score Obtained from column B of the questionnaire_where the respondent checked the fi- _difficult of the problem as "slight," "moderate,"gr "grga I H A weighted scale technique which yielded a difficulty score for each problem based on a Likert scale was used as one of the criteria to identify major problems. The number of responses to each problem indicated.as "great" was multi- plied by three, the number indicated as "moderate" by two, those classified as "slight" by one, and those classified as "never a problem" by zero. The resultant total weighted response for each problem was then divided by the number of respondents who marked the item, including those who marked it "never a problem," and the quotient thus obtained multi- plied by one hundred to express the "weighted score" as a whole number indicating the degree of difficulty of the problem. An eight-step analysis of problem data was then fol— lowed:‘ (l) A frequency score for each problem was obtained by counting the number of respondents who indicated the item 21 as being a problem. (2) A difficulty score was obtained by a weighted scale technique. (3) A persistence score was obtained by counting the respondents who indicated that the problem persisted. (4) Problems which were more than one standard de- viation above the mean of the distribution of the frequency scores, the difficulty scores, and the persistence scores were defined as major problems. This definition of a major problem was applied to the problem data and nine problems were identified as major problems. The basic question, "What kinds of problems do new faculty members in community colleges perceive as more critical than other problems," could then be answered. (5) The fifth step in the analysis of problem data was to compare the persistence of certain problems between W -—--""—— fi— first year instrggtggswgng‘third year instructors; The per- centage of first year faculty members who indicated that these problems persisted was found. The percentage of third year faculty members, who indicated that these same problems persisted for them, was found. Comparisons of the percent- ages for each problem in the two groups then indicated which problems tended to persist over the three year span and which problems tended to become less important. The basic question relative to the persistence of certain problems was then answered according to this information. 22 In order to investigate questions regarding the degree of difficulty and possible statistically significant differ- —— ences of the major problemsfias related to the nine variableSL, sex, marital status, year first employed, age, highest de— gree held, college teaching experience, type of courses taught, public or private community college, and the size of the college, (6) a sixth step in the analysis, based on the comparison of the means of two populations, was employed. The means of the difficulty ratings for each group were determined and compared, the variance was calculated and the statistic t = Y1 — 72 was determined. A "t" SRWNl + I/N2 test was applied to determine the significance of the diffi— culty rating for each of the critical problems in relation to each of the nine personal and institutional factors. Differences were accepted as significant at the .05 level. The reason for accepting the null hypothesis at the .05 level, rather than at the .01 level, is that the design of the study is not a hypothesis testing procedure, but rather a hypothesis generating procedure on the basis of the questions outlined in Chapter I. Where the differences were significant also at the .01 level of significance, this fact was recognized and noted. (7) The classification of all problems as "high," "medium," or "low" according to frequency, difficulty, and persistence was the seventh step of the analysis. Problems ranking above the first standard deviation from the mean were 23 classified as "high." Problems ranking lower than one stand- ard deviation from the mean were classified as "low," and the problems in between were classified as "medium." (8) The need for a somewhat less rigorous definition of a major problem than that employed in Step 4 was the basis of the eighth step in the analysis of problems. Twenty-five problems ranking highest in frequency, difficulty, and per— sistence were redistributed over the nine variables: sex, marital status, year first employed, age, highest degree held, college teaching experience, type of courses taught, type of community college, public or private, and a classi- fication by size of the community college, large or small, in order to identify each of these problems ranked "high" according to at least one of the criteria frequency, diffi— culty, and persistence. Certain problems were classi— fied differently in each dichotomy of the nine variables. Differences in classification of these problems by frequency, difficulty, and persistence were assumed to be related to the variable of classification or to the nature of the individual problem. The problems thus identified were then discussed in terms of the differences found. The specific differences are given in the second part of Chapter VI. Analysis of the Dggree of Helpfulness of Administrative Practices The analysis of the degree Of helpfulness of adminis— trative practices is centered about the following questions 24 related to orientation practices previously outlined in Chap- ter I. 1. Which orientation procedures were reported to be most helpful by the new instructOrs? 2. How effective are the administrative practices used by community college administrators in help— ing new faculty members resolve their problems? 3. What other administrative practices not exten— sively used by community college administrators in helping new faculty members might be ef- fective in resolving their problems? 4. What direct suggestions to improve orientation practices in community colleges were made by the new faculty members themselves? Helpfulness ratings for each administrative procedure listed in Section II of the questionnaire were obtained by multiplying the number of "great" responses by three, "moderate" responses by two, "slight" responses by one, and "none" responses by zero. The aggregate of these weighted scores for each item was then divided by the number of in— structors responding to the item and the resulting quotient multiplied by one hundred to achieve a whole number helpful— ness rating for each item. In this manner, helpfulness ratings were obtained for both the USED and the NOT USED items. The percentage of use for each USED item was found. The ranks Of the degree of helpfulness scores of the items were then compared with the ranks of their use. Certain NOT USED procedures which had relatively high helpfulness ratings were identified. Administrative procedures were also ranked by a combined helpfulness score obtained by 25 adding the ratings of the USED and NOT USED procedures. The nineteen administrative procedures for the orien— tation of new faculty members were analyzed in five steps in order to identify the most helpful procedures. 1. The number of respondents who indicated that the procedure was USED in the colleges where they served was countered. This number was a frequency score of a used procedure. The number of instructors indicating that the procedure was NOT USED was counted for each of the nineteen procedures, thus yielding a NOT USED frequency score. ' An average degree Of helpfulness rating was ob— tained for each procedure and the procedures were ranked according to these ratings. The per cent of actual use was found for each USED procedure. Four comparisons of helpfulness ratings and per cent of times the procedure was actually used were then made. a. Most frequently used procedures were com— pared to most helpful procedures. b. Most frequently used procedures and least helpful procedures were compared. c. Least frequently used procedures and most helpful procedures were compared. d. Least frequently used and least helpful procedures were compared. As a result of step four, eight procedures having aver- age helpfulness ratings greater than 200 were identified. Five procedures were identified according to method 5C above. These orientation practices rated high in helpfulness ratings, but low according to per cent of actual use. 26 Results of the analysis of administrative procedures are presented in Chapter VII. A survey Of the write—in responses to the item, "Kindly list the four most important procedures that were or should have been included in the orientation of new teachers at your college," was made and the significant responses listed under three headings: 1. Most helpful experiences in the orientation program. 2. Least helpful experiences in the orientation pro- gram. 3. "Other" responses considered to be significant. Responses to the administrative procedures are discussed in Chapter VII. Summary Data for the study were obtained from questionnaires mailed to 5,628 first, second, and third year faculty members in 429 community colleges. Three thousand, two hundred and twenty questionnaires were returned, a return of 57 per cent. A total of 2,783 usable returns were coded and the information recorded on IBM cards. The relatively low number of usable returns, 49 per cent of the total, imposed severe limitations upon the results of the study, but the colleges where the respondents taught were representative of all community col- leges geographically and by enrollment. The methodology of the study involved: (1) the identifi— cation of nine major problems by a three-criteria definition of a major problem, and (2) the testing of the relative 27 significance of these critical problems through a two-stage analysis of the data in relation to two institutional factors and seVen personal and professional factors of the respond— ents. The persistence of certain problems Of new faculty members was determined by noting the differences in percent- ages of respondents who indicated that these problems per— sisted after three years in comparison to those indicating persistence of a problem after one year° Effectiveness of techniques which administrators use to reduce problems of new teachers was measured by the percent— age of faculty members indicating such use compared to a weighted score obtained from the responses measuring the effectiveness of these procedures. CHAPTER III CHARACTERISTICS OF COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW FACULTY MEMBERS Vflunzwerethe characteristics of the community colleges in the study? Each community college participating in the study was classified by geographic location, by type of control, and by size. This information was obtained from the 1961 Junior College Directory and is summarized in Tables 3.1 to 3.6 of this chapter. What are the professional and personal characteristics of the new faculty members participating in the study? The professional and personal characteristics of the new faculty members were obtained from a check—list in the introductory section of the faculty member questionnaire. The check-list was constructed from the questiOns related to the professional and personal characteristics of new instruc- tors and included information about the respondents on items such as sex, marital status, year first employed, age, degrees earned, years of prior teaching experience, most recent teaching experience, subjects taught, type of courses taught, 28 29 type of assignment, reasons for coming to the community college, and professional aspirations. These data are pre— sented in Tables 3.61 to 3.699 of the chapter. Characteristics of Community Colleges Four hundred twenty—nine community colleges located in forty-seven states, in the District Of Columbia, on the Island of Guam, and in Puerto Rico were included in the study. Three hundred and nine of these colleges were public sup- ported community colleges and 120 were privately supported. The public community colleges were located in forty—one states and territories, and the private community colleges were geographically distributed in thirty—two states and the District of Columbia. Details of the wide geographic distribution of community colleges participating in the study are shown in Table 3.1. Two hundred fifty—four of the 309 public community colleges are located in the fifteen states ranked according to the number of public community colleges. Forty-seven of the 120 private community colleges are located in these fifteen states. Private community colleges tend not to be concentrated geographically in certain states, except in the State of Massachusetts, where fifteen community colleges are located. Three hundred and one of the 429 public and private community colleges are concentrated geographically in these states as is shown in Table 3.2. 30 omH 00m mOHuOHmuuo» one museum on aH.momoHHOo mecaasou mo Hones: Hesok o e ,meHeowz m c HmmHmmHmmHz o H :HmcoomHz m w muomOmon H H eHeHmuH> Hem: o mH eeMHEUHz o o coumaHnmez mH e mHHomsnosmme: m H eHeHmuH> o OH eeeHsumz o e as»: m H oaHmz w mm waxes e H aEOEHceM m o oomwoaaoH s OH memcmx m o epoxea Epsom m HH mon e o daHHOHeO nusom o H eneHooH H o ommHmH moonm m 0H mHomHHHH o H OOHm Osmond H m osmoH v «H «Hue>H>mncom H o HHmBom H m comouo o H Bozo m e esoneHEo m m eHmnoeo m o OHno m mm eoHHon o e epoxea spuoz m o «HOSDHOO mo HOHHHmHQ m N ecHHouwo spuoz H o musseHoo s cm. snow 3oz e o HDOHpuoacoo o H OOHsz 3oz o w oooHOHoo H H ammuwh 3oz o Ho eHCHOMHHmo o H OHHnmmEmm 3oz m H mmmmmxu< o m mxmmunoz o H o:ONHH< o H mnmpooz H H mEmeHe. o s HunommHz e H weean< momOHHOU momOHHOU madam mowOHHoo mOMOHHOU mumpm SHHGDEEOU SHHCDEEOU spHosesoo SuHosEeoo Ope>HHm OHHnsm Opm>Hum OHHosm H.m mdmH bum umpmum >9 >oopm may :H moHuooHOHuumm mOMOHHOU zuH::EEOO mo coHHmOHMHmmmHo 31 TABLE 3.2 Classification of Public and Private Community Colleges of the Fifteen States Ranking Highest in Number of Participating Institutions Public Private Community Community State Colleges Colleges Total California 61 0 61 New York 26 7 33 Texas 25 8 33 Florida 23 3 26 Illinois 19 3 22 Michigan 15 0 15 Pennsylvania 14 4 18 Iowa 11 3 13 Kansas 10 7 17 Maryland 10 0 10 Washington 9 0 9 Georgia 8 5 13 Colorado 8 0 8 Minnesota 8 2 10 Missouri 7 6 13 Total 254 47 301 Other 55 73 128 Total 309 + 120 = 429 Comparisons Of the number of community colleges pare ticipating in the study to the number of community colleges listed in the 1961 Junior College Directory can be made by referring to Table 3.3. An average of 66 per cent of the colleges listed in the 1961 Junior College Directory are represented in the study. Separate rankings of public and private community colleges in these states are presented in Tables 3.4 and 3.5. Ninety-two per cent of the public community colleges 32 TABLE 3.3 Highest Ranking States in Participating Community Colleges by Certain States Compared to the Total Number of Community Colleges in Those States Total Number of Total Number of Community Col- Community Col- leges Partici- leges Listed in Per Cent of pating in the 1961 Junior Col- Community State Study lege Directory Colleges California 61 69 88.4 New York 33 47 70.2 Texas 33 47 70.2 Florida 26 28 92.9 Illinois 22 31 71.0 Michigan 15 16 93.8 Pennsylvania 18 33 54.5 Iowa 13 22 59.1 Washington 9 11 81.8 Kansas 17 20 85.0 Maryland 10 17 58.8 Georgia 13 18 72.2 Minnesota 10 12 83.3 Colorado 8 8 100.0 Missouri 13 19 68.4 Other 128 349 38.7 Total 429 650 66.0 in fifteen states ranking highest in the number of public colleges are represented in the study and 79 per cent of all the public community colleges are represented. Seventy-four per cent of the private community colleges in fifteen states ranking highest in the number of private community Colleges are represented in the study and 44 per cent of all the private community colleges are represented. The per cent of return by institutions from public community colleges was 33 TABLE 3.4 Fifteen Highest Ranking States in Participating Public Community Colleges Compared to the Total Number of Public Community Colleges in Those States Total Number of Total Number of Public Commun- Public Commun- ity Colleges in Per Cent of ity Colleges the 1961 Junior Public Com- Participating College munity State in the Study Directogy Colleges California 61 63 97 New York 26 26 100 Texas 25 35 71 Florida 23 23 100 Illinois 19 20 95 Michigan 15 16 94 Pennsylvania 14 15 93 Iowa ll 16 69 Kansas 10 14 71 Maryland 10 10 100 Washington 9 10 90 Georgia 8 8 100 Colorado 8 7 114 Minnesota 8 9 89 Missouri 7 7 100 Total 254 279 92 Other 55 113 49 Total 309 392 79 34 TABLE 3.5 Fifteen Highest Ranking States in Participating Private Community Colleges Compared to the Total Number of Private Community Colleges in Those States “T Total Number of Total Number of Per Cent Private Commun— Private Commun- of Pri- ity Colleges ity Colleges in vate Com- Participating the 1961 Junior munity State in the Study College Directory Colleges Massachusetts 15 18 83 Texas 8 12 67 North Carolina 8 17 47 New York 7 23 30 Kansas 6 6 100 Missouri 6 12 50 Georgia 5 10 50 Mississippi 5 10 50 Virginia 5 ll 45 Pennsylvania 4 18 22 Alabama 4 7 57 Connecticut 4 6 67 South Carolina 4 9 44 South Dakota 3 3 100 Tennessee 3 6 50 Total 87 118 74 Others 33 155 21 Total 120 273 44 almost twice as high as the return from private community colleges. Classifications of the 309 public and 120 private com— munity colleges by enrollment are presented in Table 3.6. One hundred eighty public community colleges and 111 private community colleges represented have enrollments less than 1,000., Of the public community colleges, twenty-seven have enrollments greater than 6,000. One hundred public community colleges in the 35 1,000 to 5,999 enrollment group were represented in the study while only one private community college appeared in the middle group by enrollment. Total cumulative enrollment figures, including adult, special, and summer enrollments in the 1961 Junior College Directory were taken as more representative of the Size of the institution than total enrollment. Therefore, there were more colleges in the 6,000 to 9,000 enrollment class in Table 3.6 than in Table IX of the Directory.1 The colleges in the study were classified by size according to this in— formation in the 1961 Directory. A comparison of Table 3.6 with Table IX of the Directory shows that the community colleges in the study are a representative group of the total 650 community colleges classified by enrollment. All enrollment categories were represented in approximately the same proportions as the totals listed in Table IX of the Directory. Summary and Conclusions Characteristics of Participating Community Colleges The 309 public community colleges and the 120 private community colleges participating in the study have the fol- lowing characteristics: 1Edmund J. Gleazer, 1961 Junior College Directqu, American Association of Junior COlleges, washington, D.C., 1961, p. 44. 36 TABLE 3.6 Classifications of Community Colleges Participating in the Study by Enrollment and Type of Control Y— 11.7.. . ._r‘ Enrollment Public Private Total 1 — 499 86 90 176 500 - 999 94 21 115 1000 - 2999 72 8 80 3000 - 5999 28 l 29 6000 - over 9000 27 0 27 NO response 2 0 2 Total 309 120 429 1. Participating community colleges are located in fifty states and territories of the United States. Two hundred fifty-four of the 309 public community colleges and forty—seven of the 120 private com- munity colleges were located in fifteen states. Sixty-six per cent of the community colleges in— cluded in the 1961 Junior College Directory are represented in the Study. Seventy-nine per cent of the public community colleges listed in the 1961 Junior College Directory_are representéd’in the study. Forty—four per cent Of the private community colleges listed in the 1961 Junior College Directory are represented in the study. All enrollment categories are represented by the community colleges in approximately the same proportions as the Totals indicated in the 1961 Junior College Directory. A conclusion from the above summary of institutional data is that the 429 community colleges submitting data for the study are an adequate sample of all community colleges 37 listed in the 1961 Junior College Directory, geographically, by public and private institutions, and by enrollment. A second conclusion is that the public community col- leges in the study are more representative than are the pri- vate community colleges of their respective groups, both numerically and in the per cent of the total of institutions represented. Distribution of Rgspondehts by States and Type of Communitngollege Of the 2,783 usable faculty member questionnaires, 2,305 were supplied by new instructors in public community colleges and 478 were supplied by new instructors in private community colleges. One thousand seven hundred and eight of the 2,305 public community college instructors, or 74 per cent, were teaching in community colleges in seven states: California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Texas, and Washington. Of the 478 new instructors in private com- munity colleges, sixty were teaching in colleges located in Missouri, and forty-nine in colleges located in Massachusetts. The remaining 371 were widely scattered among private colleges in thirty states. Usable questionnaires from respondents in fifteen states accounted for 2,028 of 2,286 total respon- dents from public community colleges, and 208 of 497 total respondents from private community colleges. The complete information is listed in Table 3.7 and Table 3.71. 38 wee mom.m mussopnssmp was mmsmsm r cm :a mowoaaoo >pwcseeoo Eoum mucoocodmou mo nonssm Hmaofi - o as, masses: m om smmsmmsmmmz 0 5H camcoomfiz 0H om snowman“: s o «scamss> «mm: o wqa ammsausz o has nonmamnmmz as «a msummaaummmmz on m «seamss> O on camassmz 0 0H as»: HH a mafia: «m mma waxes Ha q sxusscmu am 0 oommoccofi 0H we mmmcmz m o msoxma npsom 0 5m «30H m m masseuse spaom o m memsqu o o ocmamH moonm NH wHH mfiocfiHHH 0 HH oofim ouuosm 0 cm osmoH em mm mnem>asmccma e o usmsmm H ms commso o v swam m om «eonmaxo ma we asmsomo o w Ofino ma osm moduoam 0 ms «posse assoz m o sunssfioo mo .smuo mm «a mafiaosmo spuoz w o oumzmaoo em 0mm xsow 3oz w o “Sofipomcsoo o m oofixoz 3oz 0 mm oowuoaoo om w >omuoh 3oz o moo macuomwamo m H muflnmmesm 3oz 5H m msmcmxu< o w mxmmunoz 0 mm snowflu< o m «cause: m a mxmmfl< 00 um flusommfiz ea m madnma< mommaaoo mommHHoQ opmum momoaaoo momoaaoo madam >pwczeeoo NHfiQ5EEOU >ufimneeoo >uwcaseoo oum>mum Eouw emansm scum ous>fium scum owansm eoum mpcmocommom mummoGOQmom mummUGOQmom mucooqodmom omoaaoo spwcsssoo mo oQ>H can moumum >9 munoomommom mo coapmowmfimmmau h.m mumua:3&Eoo ommaaoo soficmm doonom Numpcooom Hoocom wumpcoEon ||Il I spasm was as wcsssasusscma muoneoz >uasosm omoaaoo >pficseeoo 362 no oucmfluonxm Hmcofimuomosm usofi>oum aoo.m mqmufiqseeoo :62 mo oucmwummxm HmcofimquOMQ wsofl>oum oo.m mqm U o m x 2 E44 E c: x o o m m m c 3 42°F! H H Cd 0' 3 m .o u G) H O Q) s $4m H L) s LL >~ 00-; Q: C: +-’ o ‘H 6 F4 >~ E c E m +3 S n o o sq; m (J H = as a; v. :2 € '8 8 so > u u. (6 H 3H 5H 0) Q) "'1 m m m z a :z a. D 1 Lack of time for scholarly study 1933 1876 746 1 l 2 Adapting instruction to individual differences 1427 1246 1262 3 5 3 Dealing with students who re— quire special attention to overcome deficiencies 1419 1261 1268 2 4 4 Understanding college policies to be followed in curriculum development and revision 1378 1071 1299 8 6 5 Acquiring adequate secretarial help 1314 1140 1337 5 2 6 Arousing and maintaining stu- dent interest 1309 1110 1393 6 13 7 Challenging superior students 1297 1145 1412 4 9 8 Grading or marking students' work . 1274 1090 1410 7 10 9 Obtaining needed instruc- tional materials (texts, library materials, visual aids, laboratory sup- plies) 1268 1025 1419 10 7 10 Understanding college policies regarding teaching load 1243 1000 1464 12 6 11 Increasing my effectiveness in student counseling techniques 1232 1058 1442 9 19 12 Developing satisfactory tests and examinations 1218 970 1473 13 20 13 Understanding faculty- administrative relationships 1197 904 1492 15 ll 14 Understanding procedures re- garding probationary status and dropping of students 1186 763 1485 26 16 62 TABLE 4.1 (continued) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 3‘ 8 x e E4» 5 g x a; 0m 0) C: :3 43...; H H <6 0‘ 3m .0 H o u o o m >~ oil 9. c a U s .. 2: s E‘ E 5 s.5 m o H : mF-i H .fi OH x n U LLB o m ‘H a o a) e o > u ‘H (U H H 5H 0) Q) "'1 C! 94 LL 2Q Z {14 Q 15 -Understanding faculty com- mittee structure 1155 821 1517 20 21 16 Financial resources insuffi- cient to cope with the ex- penses of becoming estab— lished in the new community 1154 794 1535 21 8 17 Understanding the transfer program of the college 1142 758 1521 28 24 18 Understanding the responsi- bility of the junior college in providing opportunities for students to repair basic deficiencies (remedial in— struction) 1135 882 1557 17 12 19 Meeting differences in the educational needs of terminal and pre—professional students 1127 1012 1574 11 17 20 Acquiring adequate office space 1076 896 1586 16 3 21 Coping with the demands of extra curricular responsi- bilities 1067 937 1615 14 15 22 Familiarizing myself with re— quirements of related courses -ingvarious senior institutions 1053 859 1625 18 27 23 Knowing what is expected of me regarding the total amount of my responsibilities 1049 767 1643 25 26 24 Developing course outlines 1023 664 1647 33 22 25 Understanding the character— istics of Junior College students 1022 584 1653 42 34 26 Adapting to assignments for which I was inadequately prepared 1012 542 1658 47 28 63 TABLE 4.1 (continued) (1) (2) (3) (4%J (5) (6) (7) T o x o a 8+» 8 c x 6 0:0 o m c 3 n-d H u s 0‘ 3‘0 n u o u o o “ sqo u o >~ m >~ 0:; o. a +» o u; o H >~ E c E m H 3 n o o s.o m o H 3 ova H °H -H x n U can u w ‘H a o o a o > H ‘H m u u 33d 6 o ~fl m m m Z:Q z m D 27 Finding suitable living quarters 994 663 1704 64 18 28 Understanding the role of this college in the community 990 593 1715 40 30 29 Understanding college policies regarding promotion and salary increases 982 791 1720 22 23 30 Understanding grading standards 977 682 1722 30 29 31 Understanding the general edu- cation objectives and program of the college 963 672 1734 31 32 32 Selecting methods of instruc- tion appropriate for term- inal students 962 829 1714 19 33 33 Understanding the relationship of counseling and guidance to instructional effective- ness and student success 960 759 1726 27 25 34 Understanding the role of this college in the state—wide system of higher education 944 609 1754 39 31 35 Understanding the technical- terminal curriculum of the college 931 620 1731 36 37 36 Using papers and reports to measure student achievement 929 777 1780 24 39 37 Understanding the administra- tive structure of the college so that I know whom to con- sult regarding a particular problem 924 579 1774 43 35 38 Gearing instruction to the standards required in a particular curriculum 919 693 1767 29 38 39 Determining the value of stu— dents' contributions to class discussions 916 782 1777 23 40 64 ’TABLE 4.1 (continued) (l) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)(7) >. o o o x .2 a 813 s s a :3 4:...1 H H (U U 3:0 .6 H o s. o o H s.o H o :> m >. Oil 9 c «a 0 L14 v H > a s s m H s D m o s‘o m o x H a mp4 H -a -H a a ET .033 o m ‘H ~ ° 2: 52 z a: 2:: m E m z:m z n. D , 40 Inadequate background in sub- ject matter 896 644 1769 34 42 41 Learning the routine for ac- quiring new instructional or library materials 866 436 1809 58 44 42 Establishing satisfactory social relationships with . faculty families 857 667 1843 32 36 43 Using effective discussion and other group action techniques 814 635 1899 35 45 44 Becoming familiar with the breadth and demands of general education courses 729 613 1882 37 48 45 Understanding the role of this college on the national scene 783 541 1901 49 47 46 Understanding college policies regarding fringe benefits 762 588 1925 41 43 47 Understanding college policies regarding the probationary status of teachers 761 568 1938 44 41 48 Becoming acquainted with other faculty members 712 468 1990 54 50 49 Coordinating instruction in my classes with other classes in my department 710 538 1995 50 54 50 Understanding my responsibili— ' ties for keeping and making out official records and re- ports 709 377 1991 62 55 51 Understanding my responsibili- ties for counseling students 708 476 2007 52 52 52 Selecting instructional methods most effective with transfer students 706 612 1990 38 57 65 TABLE 4.1 (continued) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) >. 'U U sf: 5 x x 3 M .9: {5; a 3 Eta c H a) H o a) H “8, H U >~ m >. o o. c a U ‘H 0 H s e c e a u s ,0 Q) 0) H0.) m U H :3 OH H u-I H4 x n 0* IMO o m ‘H c o o a o > H ‘H m H H 5‘4 6 o -d D: D-a LL. 2‘1 2 Q: Q 54 Coordinating instruction in my classes with instruction in other college departments 658 546 2024 46 56 55 Utilizing the services of the testing specialist and counselor 639 553 2008 45 47' 56 Obtaining help in the improve- ment of my instruction 633 539 2060 48 53 57 Working with college adminstration 606 465 2131 55 58 58 Understanding the community services (adult education) program of the college 599 384 2089 61 60 59 Finding satisfactory recre— ation for self and family 594 486 2126 51 49 60 Becoming acquainted with stu- dents in my classes 561 386 2151 60 63 61 Inadequate command of teach- ing techniques 560 429 2126 59 64 62 Understanding my responsibili- ties for registering students 551 283 2137 68 62 63 Content of courses I teach is too elementary for my prepa— ration and interest 513 438 2191 57 61 64 Working with personnel from other departments 488 350 2247 63 66 65 Lack of incentive for profes—' sional upgrading 481 447 2218 56 59 66 Working with department colleagues 451 288 2283 67 65 67 Working with counseling personnel 420 328 2291 65 67 68 Directing laboratory or work shop 377 297 2302 66 68 69 Learning about health services in the community 347 158 2359 71 69 66 TABLE 4.1 (continued) (2) (3) (1) (4) (5) (6) (7) > U o o x c 84¢ a s: x m om a) m c: :3 .G-v-‘l v-i H (U 0‘ 3m .6 H m H o o *4 HQ) H U >~ m :x o Q Q. G +4 u 44 6 H4 > E a E m +a : D m a) H o m o H a ”V4 H 41 -H x D U ran 6 m sq m o o e o > H m. m H H 23H m a) -H m m LL 2 a :z a. D 70 Lack of credits required for certification 293 225 2404 69 70 71 Excessive pressure for profes- sional upgrading 234 211 2481 70 71 72 Being required to teach vocational-terminal courses only slightly related to my major 199 142 2501 72 72 Frequency rank, persistence rank, and difficulty rank can be compared in Columns 1, 6, and 7. For example, the problem which ranked second in frequency score "Adapting Instruction to Individual Differences" ranked third according to per- sistence score, and fifth according to difficulty score. The frequency score of this item was 1,427 which indicates that 1,427 respondents marked it as a problem. The persis— tence score of 1,246 means that 1,246 respondents marked the problem as persisting. Column 5, headed "Never a problem," indicates that 1,262 new community college instructors indi- cated that the item was "Never a problem." By comparing Column 3 with Column 5 of Table 4.1 the relative numbers who identified the item as a problem or as 67 ”Never a problem," can be checked. In only the first four problems is the frequency score greater than the number of reSpondents who marked the item ”Never a problem." Another way of noting this fact is to comment that in only the first four items did more than 50 per cent of the respondents identify the item as a problem to them. In the McCall study1 no problems were reported as indicating some difficulty by more than 50 per cent of the respondents. In the Green study2 only four problems were listed above 50 per cent in frequency of mention. The fact is noted here in order to point out that the per cent of instructors identifying items as problems is comparable to the per cent of respondents indicating items as problems in the McCall study and the Green study. Ten Problems Ranking Highest in Frequency Of the ten problems ranking highest in frequency, pre- sented in Table 4.1, one is problem of professional improve— ment, six are instructional problems, and three are in- stitutional problems involving the structure, policies, and procedures of the individual college. i The instructional problems in order of frequency were: XAdapting instruction to individual differences. *Dealing with students who require special attention to overcome deficiencies. Arousing and maintaining student interest. 1McCall, o . cit., p. 50. 2Green, op. cit., p. 221. 68 FChallenging superior students. ”Grading or marking students‘ work. IKObtaining needed instructional materials. The tendency of the new instructors to focus their at~ tention largely upon instructional and institutional problems rather than on the problems in the other cate- gories of the questionnaire, is immediately noticeable. The three problems involving college structure policies and procedures appearing among the first ten in frequency were: KUnderstanding college policies to be followed in curriculum development and revision. AAcquiring adequate secretarial help. )‘Understanding college policies regarding teaching load. The first problem in Table 4.1, "Lack of time for scholarly study," was listed as a problem of professional improvement. It was rated first also according to diffi- culty and persistence. A comparable problem, "Finding time to broaden my scope while gaining depth in my 3 specialty," was rated second in the Green study according to frequency. 31bid., p. 221. 69 TABLE 4.2 Ranking by Average Degree of Difficulty Scores of the Ranking of All Problems According to Difficulty Scores Seventy-Two Problems Considered by All New Faculty Members in Community Colleges (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) o x g S 5 x a U H g “ U; 8 s >. i: i: 5 8‘ a E a v C u o o m 0 ~« _. a: '3 a t 8 H H m ".1 L4 "'1 0) H D 0.. D D-a LL 1 Lack of time for scholarly study 161 1 1 2 Acquiring adequate secretarial help 103 5 5 3 Acquiring adequate office space 91 16 20 4 Dealing with students who require special attention to overcome deficiencies 89 2 3 5 Adapting instruction to individual differ- ences 88 3 2 6 Understanding college policies to be followed in curriculum development and revision 87 8 4 7 Understanding college policies regarding teaching load 86 12 10 8 Obtaining needed instructional materials, (texts, library materials, visual aids, laboratory supplies) 84 10 9 9 Financial resources insufficient to cope with the expenses of becoming estab— lished in the new community 82 21 16 10 Challenging superior students 80 4 7 11 Grading or marking students' work 80 7 8 12 Understanding faculty—administrative re— lationships 77 15 13 13 Understanding the responsibility of the junior college in providing opportuni— ties for students to repair basic de- ficiencies (remedial instruction) 75 17 18 14 Arousing and maintaining student interest 75 6 6 15 Coping with the demands of extra curricular responsibilities 73 14 21 70 TABLE 4.2 (continued) (1) (2) A ’10 v A 4) (5) Difficulty rank Difficulty score Per51stence rank Frequency rank Problem g... 0‘ Understanding procedures regarding proba- tionary status and dropping of students 72 26 14 17 Meeting differences in the educational needs of terminal and pre—professional students 71 ll 19 18 Increasing my effectiveness in student counseling techniques 70 9 11 19 Developing satisfactory tests and examinations 70 13 12 20 Understanding faculty committee structure 70 20 15 21 Finding suitable living quarters 69 64 27 22 Developing course outlines 68 33 24 23 Understanding college policies regarding promotion and salary increases 68 22 29 24 Understanding the transfer program of the college 67 28 17‘ 25 Understanding the relationship of counsel— ing and guidance to instructional ef— rectiveness and student success 63 27 33 26 Knowing what is expected of me regarding the total amount of my responsibilities 63 25 23 27 Familiarizing myself with requirements of related courses in various senior institutions 63 18 22 28 Adapting to assignments for which I was inadequately prepared 62 47 26 29 Understanding grading standards 60 30 30 30 Understanding the role of this college in the community 59 40 28 31 Understanding the role of this college in the state—wide system of higher education 58 39 34 32 Understanding the general education objec- tives and program of the college 57 31 31 33 Selecting methods of instruction appropri- ate for terminal students 57 19 32 71 TABLE 4.2 (continued) <1) (2) <3) <4) (5) x 3 E § 8 2 *2 H m w > >~ 8 H “ H G > H H o o s e s H c .2 2 .3 :2 8 “4 D ‘H m U ‘H o ‘H H o 'fi H ed 6 H D m - Q m m 34 Understanding the charactériétics of Junior College students 56 42 25 35 Understanding the administrative structure of the college so that I know whom to consult regarding a particular problem 55 43 37 36 Establishing satisfactory social relation— ships with faculty families 55 32 42 37 Understanding the technical—terminal curricula of the college 55 36 35 38 Gearing instruction to the standards required in a particular curriculum 53 29 38 39 Using paper? and reports to measure stu- dent achievement 52 24 36 40 Determining the value of students' contri— butions to class discussions 51 23 39 41 Understanding college policies regarding the probationary status of teachers 50 44 47 42 Inadequate background in subject matter 49 34 40 43 Understanding college policies regarding , fringe benefits 47 41 46 44 Learning the routine for acquiring new ’ instructional or library materials 46 58 41 45 Using effective discussion and other group action techniques 46 35 43 46 Establishing satisfactory social relation— ships in the community 46 53 53 47 Understanding the role of this college on the national scene 45 49 53 48 Becoming familiar with the breadth and de- mands of general education courses 45 37 44 49 Finding satisfactory recreation for self and family 42 51 59 50 Becoming acquainted with other faculty members 42 54 48 51 Utilizing the services of the testing specialist and counselor 41 45 55 72 TABLE 4.2 (continued) (l) (2) (3)(4) (5) a .M '3 o 5 .5. “’ 3. “ 5 H >‘ 8 H :~ +» s >~ H H G) U s E s «H c o o o m o -~ .. z: '5: s m '8 U4 H G) ".1 L. 'H 0) H O m C: m (L 52 Understanding my responsibilities for , counseling students 41 52 51 53 Obtaining help in the improvement of my instruction 40 48 56 54 Coordinating instruction in my classes with other classes in my department 40 50 49 55 Understanding my responsibilities for keep- ing and making out official records and reports 39 62 50 56 Coordinating instruction in my classes with instruction in other college depart— ments 38 46 54 57 Selecting instuctional methods most ef- fective with transfer students 38 38 52 58 Working with colle e administration 37 55 57 59 Lack of incentive for professional upgrading 34 56 65 60 Understanding the community service (adult education) program of the college 33 61 58 61 Content of courses I teach is too elemen- tary for my preparation and interest 32 57 63 62 Understanding my responsibilities for regis- tering students 32 68 62 63 Becoming acquainted with students in my classes 29 60 60 64 Inadequate command of teaching techniques 28 59 61 65 Working with department colleagues 28 67 66 66 Working with personnel from other depart— ments 26 63 64 67 Working with counseling personnel 25 64 67 68 Directing laboratory or work shop 22 66 68 69 Learning about health services in the com- munity 19 71 69 70 Lack of credits required for certification 19 69 70 71 Excessive pressure for professional up- grading 15 70 71 72 Being required to teach vocational-terminal courses only slightly related to my major 13 72 72 73 The Range of Difficulty Scores The problems are listed according to difficulty scores from the highest score to the lowest score in Table 4.2. If all of the respondents had marked a certain problem as "Great" in difficulty, the maximum difficulty score would have been 300. Similarly if all reSpondents had marked a certain item as "Never a problem," the difficulty score would have been zero. The range of difficulty scores lay between 13 and 161. Scale of Difficulty Scores A "Great" problem: 300 A "Medium" problem: 200 A "Slight" problem: 100 "Never" a problem: 0 Thus, the highest problem, Lack of time for scholarly study” received a score between "medium" and "slight" on the scale. The average degree of difficulty scores for comparable problems in the McCall study ranged between 16 and 104 on the same scale. Difficulty scores by rank of each problem are stated in Column 1 of Table 4.2. Problems are identified in Column 2; difficulty scores are given in Column 3; persistence scores by rank order are identified in Column 4; and the rank of each problem by frequency of report is indicated in Column 5. 74 Problems Ranking Highest in Difficulty Scores Eight of the ten problems ranked according to fre- quency were among the first ten problems ranking highest in difficulty scores. The two problems which were ranked differently were: (1) Acquiring adequate office Space, third in difficulty, but twentieth in frequency; and (2) Financial resources insufficient to cope with the expenses of becoming established in'a new commugity, which was ranked sixteenth in frequency, but ninth in difficulty. Of the ten problems, one was a personal problem, one a problem of professional improvement, four were instruc- tional problems, and four were institutional problems. Acquiringadequatefisecretarial help, which ranked fifth in frequency is second in difficulty with a score of ninety-one following the problem Acquiring adequate office 32123 which ranked second according to difficulty. These two problems were ranked first and twentieth by average degree of difficulty in the McCall study.4 Eight of the first ten problems in difficulty were also ranked among the first ten problems according to frequency. 4McCall, op. cit., pp. 50-51. 75 TABLE 4.3 Ranking of the Seventy-Two Problems According to the Total Number of ReSpondents Indicating that the Problem Persisted (1) (2) (3) $5) (5)(6) a) 44 :2: s cm U 813 ‘5 x . a a: 9; 1 m QHEE a: .3 a coma) H t: “3 o oom4 s H 0 $4 n tH H a one o i» o \Hth >' F +_, E Ou-ICL P U H m o H c: a s ".1 H H660) Q) Q) U m D aMJn o s wi H O Qua-P U’ ‘H o H Eguq :3 a :1 m m ZMiO m EH 0 1 Lack of time for scholarly study 1876 97 1 1 2 Dealing with students who require special attention to overcome deficiencies 1261 89 3 4 3 Adapting instruction to individual differences 1246 87 2 5 4 Challenging superior students 1145 88 7 9 5 Acquiring adequate secretarial help 1140 87 5 2 6 Arousing and maintaining student interest 1110 85 6 13' 7 Grading or marking students' work 1090 86 8 10 8 Understanding college policies to be followed in curriculum development and revision 1071 78 4 l4 9 Increasing my effectiveness in stu— dent counseling techniques 1058 86 11 19 10 Obtaining needed.instructiona1 mater- ials (texts, library materials, visual aids, laboratory supplies) 1025 81 9 7 11 Meeting differences in the educational needs of terminal and pre— professional students 1012 90 19 17 12 Understanding college policies regard— ing teaching load 1000 80 10 6 13 Developing satisfactory tests and examinations 970 80 12 20 14 Coping with the demands of extra curricular responsibilities 937 88 21 15 76 TABLE 4.3 (continued) TTT== (2) (5 (,4) (WT o w m o c # c m a m U ®+J g 'OU) é 5'3 8‘ x m @145 m x a H IDQJQJ H c: Cd 6 QF4 m u m u n ‘H u o 600 O >~ C3 ‘HCH >~ 4" q) O'Hon *4 U “'4 .p E 44 C c: :3 U) Q) HMO) Q) 0) U "'1 H 0U: U :3 ""'" m n D-H+' 0* ‘H u 0 8'0 H m ‘H m H a :4. o u -d m. m Z-HC) m m D 15 Understanding faculty-administrative relationships 904 76 13 11 16 Acquiring adequate office space 896 83 20 17 Understanding the responsibility of the junior college in providing opportunities for students to repair basic deficiencies (remedial in- struction) 882 78 18 12 18 Familiarizing myself with requirements of related courses in various senior institutions 859 82 22 27 19 Selecting methods of instruction appro— priate for terminal students 829 87 32 33 20 Understanding faculty committee structure 821 71 15 21 21 Financial resources insufficient to cope with the expenses of becoming established in the new community 794 59 16 8 22 Understanding college policies re- garding promotion and salary increases 791 81 29 23 23 Determining the value of students' contributions to class discussions 782 85 19 4O 24 Using papers and reports to measure student achievement 777 84 36 39 25 Knowing what is expected of me re- garding the total amount of my responsibilities 767 73 23 26 26 Understanding procedures regarding probationary status and dropping of students 763 64 l4 16 27 Understanding the relationship of counseling and guidance to instruc- tional effectiveness and student success 759 79 33 25 77 TABLE 4.3 (continued) (1) (2) (3) (A) (5)(6) o -p . mu) : 49:: 0 no) U 317: S x 5'3 3' x g Q$4E m .2 a $4 MUG) H C: <6 2183 (H ‘3 “ cafe 0 1 r m ow4o. #1 a g 3 5 ‘4: o 5 o o -H H mt2£3 L) 3 -fl D .Dwiw U ‘H 3 0 E2 2; a t: g a ;§"#B m EL Q 28 Understanding the transfer program of the college 758 66 17 24 29 Gearing instruction to the standards required in a particular curriculum 693 75 38 38 30 Understanding grading standards 682 70 3O 29 31 Understanding the general education objectives and program of the college 672 70 31 32 32 Establishing satisfactory social re— lationships with faculty families 667 78 42 36 33 Developing course outlines 664 65 24 22 34 Inadequate background in subject matter 664 72 4O 42 35 Using effective discussion and other group action techniques 635 78 43 45 36 Understanding the technical-terminal curricula of the college 620 67 35 37 37 Becoming familiar with the breadth and demands of general education courses 613 84 44 48 38 Selecting instructional methods most V effective with transfer students 612 87 52 57 39 Understanding the role of this college - in the state—wide system of higher education 609 65 34 31 40 Understanding the role of this college in the community “ 593 60 28 3O 41 Understanding college policies re- garding fringe benefits 488 77 46 43 42 Understanding the characteristics of Junior College students 586 57 25 34 43 Understanding the administrative structure of the college so that I know whom to consult regarding a particular problem 579 63 37 35 78 TABLE 4.3 (continued) at. k m a mt) : +a: 6 :0) p 0+9 : pro o x 313 8' x g oLaa m x a u maao u a a tea a 2 ~ 8 D00 0 > G m1n$4 >~ w o o~+D.-p c: H u E +a G a S m m ucua) a) m o ".1 H 00.3 0 5 “'4 m n Q~H+a 0* ‘H H 0 EU H Q) ‘H o H 3:344 a) u -a m a. zuac> m u. D 44 Understanding college policies regard- ing the probationary status of tea- chers 568 75 47 41 45 Utilizing the services of the testing specialist and counselor 553 87 55 51 46 Coordinating instruction in my classes with instruction in other college de- partments 546 83 54 56 47 Adapting to assignments for which I was inadequately prepared 542 54 26 28 48 Obtaining help in the improvement of my instruction 549 85 56 53 49 Understanding the role of this college on the national scene 541 69 45 47 50 Coordinating instruction in my Classes with other classes in my department 538 76 49 54 51 Finding satisfactory recreation for self and family 486 82 59 49 52 Understanding my responsibilities for counseling students 476 67 50 55 53 Establishing satisfactory social re- lationships in the community 468 68 53 46 54 Becoming acquainted with other faculty members 468 66 48 50 55 Working with college administration 465 76 57 58 56 Lack of incentive for professional up— grading 447 93 65 59 57 Content of courses I teach is too elementary for my preparation and interest 438 85 63 61 58 Learning the routine for acquiring new instructional or library materials 436 50 41 44 79 TABLE 4.3 (continued) . (2) (5) (6) A ’10 v A A v U) o a mt) : +»: m an) '0 3‘5 8 M :«4 a G Ozn m x a Qfiae a) x a H maio u c a «(La (6 H m H .D 44 H U boo o >~ G Wic‘d >~ a m Quint-p U r4 .9 E +4 c a a m o acua2 o o u 'H H mcxn U a -H m D £hd+a U‘ 94 H 0 Ex: u M H4 6 u 3:244 o u -d m m :zwio 04 a. Q 59 Inadequate command of teaching techniques 429 77 61 64 60 Becoming acquainted With students in my classes 386 69 6O 63 61 Understanding the community serVice (adult education) program of the college 384 64 58 6O 62 Understanding my responsibilities for keeping and making out official records and reports 377 53 50 55 63 Working with personnel from other departments 350 72 64 66 64 Finding suitable living quarters 333 23 27 18 65 Working with counseling personnel 328 78 67 67 66 Directing laboratory or work shop 297 79 68 68 67 Working with department colleagues 288 64 66 65 68 Understanding my responsibilities for registering students 283 51 62 62 69 Lack of credits required for certifi- cation 225 77 7O 7O 7O Excessive pressure for professional upgrading 211 90 71 71 71 Learning about health services in the community 158 46 69 69 72 Being required to teach vocational- terminal courses only slightly re- lated to my major 142 71 72 72 The seventywtwo problems are ranked according to per- sistence scores in Table 4.3. The persistence score is the 80 number of respondents who indicated that the problem per- sisted. The persistence rank is indicated in Column 1 of Table 4.3; the problem is identified in Column 2; the per— sistence score is listed in Column 3; the per cent of respondents who indicated the problem as persisting is shown in Column 4; the frequency rank is indicated in Column 5; and the difficulty rank is given in Column 6. Problems Rankinngighest in Persistence Scores Lack of time for scholarly study was ranked number one according to persistence; 1,876 or 97 per cent of the re- spondents reported (1) that it was a problem, and (2) that it persisted. This problem was also ranked first by frequency of mention and level of difficulty. The level of persistence of each of the first ten problems indicated in Table 4.3 is high. From 85 to 97 per cent of the respondents indicated each of the ten as being a problem. Nine of the ten problems which were ranked highest in frequency were also reported among the first ten problems ranked according to persistence. Of the ten problems ranked according to difficulty scores, seven are included among the first ten problems ranked by persistence scores. 81 Non—Persistent Problems Three frequently reported problems, ranking high by level of difficulty, were reported to be non-persistent. These were: (1) the problem FindingAsuitable living quarters, (2) the problem, Adapting to assignments for which I was inadequatelyAprepared, and the problem, Establishing satis— factory social relationships with faculty families. The sharp drop in persistence rank would suggest that respondents found a solution to the problem in a relatively short time. Of the sixty-nine other problems, the rank by per- sistence was either higher than the rank by frequency and difficulty, or approximately the same. For the groups of first, second, and third year teachers, most problems tend to persist at a relatively high rate. Therefore, attempts to define a major problem should account for the three factors of frequency, difficulty, and persistence in its definition. Summary A preliminary investigation of seventy-two of begin- ning community college instructors was made. Rankings were established for these problems by frequency scores, diffi— culty scores, and persistence scores. This was done in order to answer three questions. 1. Which problems were most frequently mentioned as causing some difficulty to the beginning instructors in community colleges? 82 2. Which problems caused the greatest degree of difficulty? 3. Which of these problems tended to persist? Although the ten highest ranking problems by frequency, by difficulty, and by persistence were to a degree similar, there were also some important differences in the identifi- cation of problems. The conclusion was that a definition of a major problem should take into account all three factors of frequency, difficulty, and persistence. The essential finding was the tendency of the instruc— tors to center their attention largely upon instructional and institutional problems rather than on personal problems, problems associated with the fundamental purposes of the community college, or problems of professional improvement. CHAPTER V IDENTIFICATION OF MAJOR PROBLEMS PERCEIVED BY NEW FACULTY MEMBERS IN COMMUNITY COLLEGE In this chapter, attention is focused upon three basic questions. These are: 1. What kinds of problems do new faculty members in community colleges perceive as more critical than other problems? 2. Which problems are perceived as being more critical than other problems by new faculty members in community colleges? 3. Do first year faculty members in community colleges perceive their problems as more per- sistent than do teachers who have served three years in these institutions? Identification of Major Problems in the Study In order to identify the major problems encountered by the first year faculty member respondents in community col— leges, it was necessary first of all to formulate the defi— nition of a major problem. This was done on the basis of the preliminary classification of problems in Chapter IV. A major problem was defined as one which satisfied all of the following requirements: 1. The problem must rank more than one standard deviation above the mean in frequency ratings. 83 84 2. The problem must rank more than one standard deviation above the mean in average degree of difficulty scores. 3. The problem must rank more than one standard deviation above the mean in persistence ratings. The frequency score is the number of respondents who indicated that the problem existed. The mean of the fre- quency scores listed in Table 4.1 is 888.9 and the standard deviation of the distribution of frequencies is 305.9. X’+ S = 1194.8. The first thirteen problems in Table 4.1 are above one standard deviation from the mean in fre- quency. These problems are listed in Table 5.7. In Table 4.2 of Chapter IV the seventy—two problems were ranked according to an average degree of difficulty score, and in Table 4.3 all problems were ranked according to persistence. The persistence score is the number of respondents who indicated that the problem persisted for them. The average degree of difficulty score for each problem was obtained by using the following formula: Average difficulty score = 100 (3G + 2M + S) T number of "Great" responses number of "Moderate" responses number of "slight" responses Flt/230 ll total number of responses The ranking of the first ten problems by average diffi— culty score is presented in Table 5.2. These problems rank 85 TABLE 5.1 Problems Ranking More Than One Standard Deviation Above the Mean‘in Frequency Problem Frequency 1. Lack of time for scholarly study 1933 2. Adapting instruction to individual differ— ences 1427 3. Dealing with students who require special attention to overcome deficiencies 1419 4. Understanding college policies to be fols lowed in curriculum development and re- vision 1378 5. Acquiring adequate secretarial help 1314 6. Arousing and maintaining student interest 1309 7. Challenging superior students 1297 8. Grading or marking students' work 1274 9. Obtaining needed instructional materials 1268 10. Understanding college policies regarding teaching load 1243 11. Increasing my effectiveness in student counseling techniques 1232 12. Developing satisfactory tests and exami- nations ' 1218 13. Understanding faculty administrative re— lationships 1197 more than one standard deviation of 23.8 above the mean of 55.4 in difficulty scores. 86 TABLE 5.2 Problems Ranking More Than One Standard Deviation Above the Mean in Average Diff' Sco >~ a o o H +:m u p H u boo no 'H at) a ‘H W4") W! ‘H U 'o -a L.>. u p o+a <>>~ Uri cio E o L)S a»: o m: «c: cum H (60) W1 fi 9 u:. .xuq 3:0 0 ¢:o :44 :36 u >~ c; CH >- «P Q) who U H P E o c s U) 0) HH <1) 0 -H sq m a. s -H m n n U u4 ~ 0 as; a t: a E 29» u. a 1 Lack of time for scholarly study 1876 l l 2 Dealing with students who require special attention to overcome deficiencies 1261 3 4 3 Adapting instruction to individual differences 1242 2 5 4 Challenging superior students 1145 7 9 5 Acquiring adequate secretarial help 1140 5‘ 2 6 Arousing and maintaining student interest 1110 6 l3 7 Grading or marking students' work 1090 8 10 8 Understanding college policies to be followed in curriculum development and revision 1071 4 l4 9 Increasing my effectiveness in student counseling techniques 1058 ll 19 10 Obtaining needed instructional materials 1025 9 7 11 Meeting differences in the educational needs of terminal and pre-professional students 1012 19 17 12 Understanding college policies regarding teaching load 1000 10 6 is presented in Table 10.93 of the Appendices. The first nine of these problems which by definition are the major problems in that they rank high in frequency, difficulty, and persistence, appear in Table 5.4. These 89 TABLE 5.4 Problems Ranking Above the First Standard Deviation From the Mean in Frequency, Difficulty, and Persistence Distributions Fre- Diffi- Per— Problem quency culty sistence 1. Lack of time for scholarly study High High High 2. Adapting instruction to individual differences High High High 3. Dealing with students who re- quire special attention to _ overcome deficiencies High High High 4. Acquiring adequate secretarial help High High High 5. Understanding college policies regarding teaching load High High High 6. Challenging superior students High High High 7. Obtaining needed instructional ' materials High High High 8. Grading or marking students' work High High High 9. Understanding college policies to be followed in curriculum development and revision High High High are the problems perceived as more critical than other prob- lems by the new faculty members in community colleges. Five of the nine major problems are instructional problems, three are administrative problems in connection with the structure, policies, and procedures of the individ- ual college, and one is a problem of professional improvement. 90 No personal problems and no institutional problems associ- ated with the fundamental purposes of the community college appear among the major problems. In fact, none of the major problems can of themselves be classified as unique from the point of view of the community college as a dis— tinctly different kind of educational institution. The next two problems appearing in Table 10.93 of the Appendices, Arousing and maintaining student interest and Increasing my effectiveness in student counseling techniques, both ranked "High" in frequency and persistence and "Medium" in difficulty. Only six other problems appear with a single "High" in any of the three categories. Seventeen of the seventy two problems in the study rated as "High" in fre— quency, persistence, and difficulty one or more times. Eleven of the seventy two problems rated "High" two or more times, and only nine of the seventy two problems rated "High" in all three categories. These are the major problems which appear in Table 5.4. Discussion offthe Nine Major Problems Lack of time for scholarly study ranked number one in frequency, difficulty, and persistence by a rather wide margin. Sixty-nine per cent of the respondents identified it as being a problem to them. TwentyPSeven per cent indi— cated that it was "Never a problem," and 97 per cent of those who identified the problem said it persisted. 91 Adapting instruction to individual differences - ranked second in frequency, fifth in difficulty, and third in persistence. One thousand, four hundred and twenty seven respondents identified it as being a problem to them, 1,262 respondents said it was never a problem to them, and ninety— Eons respondents omitted the question. Of the 1,427 re- spondents who marked it as being a problem, 1,246 indicated that the problem persisted. Dealing with students who require special attention to overcome deficiencies ranked third in frequency, fourth in difficulty, and second in persistence among all the problems. Fifty— one per cent of the respondents said it was a problem to them, while 46 per cent indicated that it was never a problem to them. Nevertheless, the problem persisted for 89 per cent of those who indicated that it was a problem. The two previous problems are closely related and the similarity of responses emphasizes the close relationship. It is to be noted that both problems are key instructional problems. Acquiring adequate secretarial help ranked fifth in frequency of mention, second in difficulty, and sixteenth in persistence. However, less than half the respondents, 47 per cent, identified it as being a problem. This problem was the leading one in degree of difficulty and tied for first in frequency in the McCall study.1 1Harlan R. McCall, op. cit., p. 50. 92 Understandingfcollege policies regarding teaching load, while ranking above the first standard deviation from the mean in frequency, difficulty, and persistence, ranked tenth in frequency, sixth in difficulty, and twelfth in persistence. Forty-five per cent of the new community college teachers identified it as being a problem, while 53 per cent indicated that it was never a problem to them. Nevertheless, the fact that 80 per cent of the new community college teachers indicated the problem as persisting, suggests the importance of the problem to those individuals. I Challenging superior students ranked seventh in fre- quency, ninth in difficulty, and fourth in persistence. It was identified as a problem by 1,297 new community college teachers, of whom 1,145 said the problem persisted, while 1,412 respondents indicated that this was never a problem to them. Obtaining needed instructional materials was a problem for 1,268 new community college teachers, rating high in fre- quency, difficulty, and persistence. It is one of the three administrative problems among the major problems. Grading or markingstudents' work ranked eighth in frequency, tenth in difficulty, and seventh in persistence. The new community college instructors seem to regard their reSponsibilities in evaluation of their students‘ work quite seriously. Here again, however, 1,410 of the 2,783 new in— structors indicated that this was never a problem to them. 93 Understanding collegg policies to be followed in curriculum development and revision was a major problem to 1,378 of the 2,783 new community college instructors. This problem ranked fourth in frequency, eighth in persistence, and sixth in difficulty. New community college instructors are evidently cognizant of this problem. Seventy-eight per cent of those who recognized the problem indicated that it persisted for them. Identification of Minor Problems in the Study A minor, or least important problem identified by new faculty members in community colleges was defined as one which satisfied the requirements of being one standard de— viation below the mean according to frequency, difficulty, and persistence. The problems which are below one standard deviation from the mean of the frequency scores appear in Tafile 5.5. Table 5.6 gives the problems which rank below one standard deviation from the mean of the difficulty scores, and Table 5.7 presents the ranking of problems one standard deviation below the mean in persistence scores. The least important problems, those ranking below one standard deviation from the mean in frequency, difficulty, and persistence, labeled "Low" in Table 10.93 of the Appendices, are summarized in Table 5.8. Of the least important problems two are personal prob— lems, two are instructional problems, and two are problems 94 TABLE 5.5 Problems Ranking Lower than One Standard Deviation Below the Mean in Frequency Scores Frequency Frequency Rank Score 60 Becoming acquainted with the students in my classes 561 61 Inadequate command of teaching tech— niques 560 62 Understanding my responsibilities for registering students 551 63 Content of courses I teach is too elementary for my preparation and interest 513 64 Working with personnel from other departments 488 65 Lack of incentive for professional upgrading 481 66 Working with department colleague 451 67 Working with counseling personnel 420 68 Directing laboratory or work shop 377 69 Learning about health services in the community 347 70 Lack of credit required for certifi—' cation 293 71 Excessive pressure for professional upgrading 199 95 TABLE 5.6 Problems Ranking Lower Than One Standard Deviation Below the Mean in Difficulty Scores L Difficulty Difficulty Rank Problem Rank 63 Becoming acquainted with students in my class 29 64 Inadequate command of teaching , techniques 28 65 Working with department colleagues 28 66 Working with personnel from other departments 26 67 Working with counseling personnel 25 68 Directing laboratory or shop work 22 69 Learning about health services in the community 19 70 Lack of credits required for certi- fication 19 71 Excessive pressure for professional upgrading 15 72 Being required to teach vocational- terminal courses only slightly re- lated to my major 13 96 TABLE 5.7 Problems Ranking Lower Than One Standard Deviation Below the Mean in Persistence Scores Persistence Persistence Rank Problem Score 62 Understanding my responsibilities for keeping and making out official records and reports 377 63 Working with personnel from other departments 350 64 Finding suitable living quarters 333 65 Working with counseling personnel 328 66 Directing laboratory or work shop 297 67 Working with department colleague 288 _‘p68 Understanding my responsibilities for registering students 283 69 Learning the routine for acquiring new instructional or library materials 225 70 Excessive pressure for professional upgrading 211 71 Learning about health services in the community 158 72 Being required to teach vocational— terminal courses only slightly re— lated to my major 142 97 TABLE 5.8 Problems Ranking Below One Standard Deviation From the Mean in Frequency, Difficulty, and Persistence Distribution Fre— Diffi- Per— Problem quency culty sistence Working with department colleagues Low Low Low Directing laboratory or work shop Low Low Low Learning about health services in the community Low Low Low Lack of credits required for certification Low Low Low Excessive pressure for profes- sional upgrading Low Low Low Being required to teach vocational terminal courses only slightly re- lated to my major Low Low Low associated with professional improvement. No administrative problems and no institutional problems appear among the least important problems. Of the seventy-two problems appearing in Table 10.93 of the Appendices, nine are rated as major problems. Fiftyr seven are rated as medium in frequency, difficulty, and per- sistence, and six are rated as minor problems. The fifty— seven problems rated as medium were identified by some of the respondents as "migh" or "10w" in each of the three cate- gories of frequency, difficulty, and persistence, but these were not major problems according to the definition. 98 As a result of the identification of the nine major problems by the methods outlined in this chapter, the question, "What kinds of problems do new faculty members in community colleges perceive as more critical than other problems," can be answered in the following manner: New instructors in community colleges identify five instruc— tional problems, three administrative problems related to the structure, policies, and procedures of the individual college, and one problem of professional improvement as the nine major problems. Which problems are perceived as more critical than other problems by new faculty members in community colleges? The major problems were: 1. Lack of time for scholarly study. 2. Adapting instruction to individual differences. 3. Dealing with students who require special at- tention to overcome deficiencies. 4. Acquiring adequate secretarial help. 5. Understanding college policies regarding teach- ing load. 6. Challenging superior students. 7. Obtaining needed instructional materials. 8. Grading or marking students' work. 9 . Understanding college policies to be followed in curriculum development and revision. 99 Persistence of Problems Between First Year Respondents and Third Year Respondents In order to answer the question, "Do first year faculty members in community colleges perceive their problems as more persistent than do teachers who have served three years in these institutions," the problems were listed according to the per cent of first and third year faculty members who had difficulty with the problems and indicated that they still persisted. The detailed information regarding the persistence of problems appears in Table 5.90. The number and per cent of respondents in the total group who indicated that the problem persisted is given in the last column. TABLE 5.90 Per Cent of First and Third Year Respondents Who Indicated Persistence of Problems Compared to the Per Cent of All Respondents Who Indicated That These Problems Persisted First Year Third Year All Respondents ReSpondents Respondents Problem No. % No. % No. % Finding suitable liv- ing quarters 173 37 50 23 633 64 Financial resources insufficient to cope with the ex— penses of becoming established in the new community 361 73 176 63 694 69 Establishing satis- factory relation- ships in the com— munity 231 73 99 63 468 68 100 TABLE 5.90 (continued) W First Year Third Year All Respondents Respondents Respondents Problem No. % No. % No. % Learning about health services in the com- munity 92 51 32 47 158 46 Finding satisfactory recreation for self and family 236 82 96 78 486 82 Becoming acquainted with other faculty members 215 68 97 56 468 66 Establishing satis— factory social re— lationships with faculty families 311 80 148 74 667 78 Working with depart- ment colleague 123 69 77 58 288 64 Working with person- nel from other de— partments 128 69 89 72 350 72 Working with college administration 170 81 141 77 465 77 Working with counsel- ing personnel 108 76 106 82 328 78 Total of Personal Problems 2148 1111 5105 70 Understanding the role of this college in the community 266 63 139 55 593 60 Understanding the role of this college in the state wide system of higher . education 265 67 153 60 609 65 Understanding the role of this college on the national scene 230 71 129 62 541 69 Understanding the transfer program of the college 347 69 174 61 758 66 101 TABLE 5.90 (continued) i l -# First Year Third Year All Respondents Respondents Respondents Problem No. % No. % No. % Understanding the technical—terminal curricula of the college 282 72 146 60 620 67 Understanding the community services (adult education) program of the college 175 70 94 58 384 64 Understanding the general education objectives and pro— gram of the college 295 73 165 63 672 70 Understanding the responsibility of the junior college in providing oppor— tunities for stu- dents to repair basic deficiencies (remedial instruc- tion) 374 80 226 76 882 78 Understanding the re- lationship of counseling and guidance to instruc- tional effectiveness and student success 294 77 206 81 759 79 Total of Institu— tional Problems 2528 72 1432 64' 5818 69 Understanding faculty—administra- tive relationships 366 76 250 74 904 76 Understanding faculty committee structure 381 75 194 67 821 71 102 TABLE 5.90 (continued) First Year Third Year All Respondents Respondents Respondents Problem No. % No. % No. % Understanding college policies to be fol- lowed in curriculum development and re- vision 508 83 259 73 1071 78 Understanding college policies regarding the probationary status of teachers 267 76 140 70 568 75 Understanding college policies regarding promotion and salary increases 346 82 185 78 791 81 Understanding college policies regarding fringe benefits 261 77 144 80 588 77 Understanding college policies regarding teaching load 396 80 277 80 1000 80 Understanding my responsibilities for registering students 150 56 51 46 283 51 Understanding my responsibilities for counseling students 231 70 93 62 476 67 Understanding my responsibilities for keeping and making out official records and reports 211 57 67 51 , 377 53 Understanding pro— cedures regarding probationary status and dropping of students 319 61 185 65 763 64 Understanding grading standards 319 70 163 70 682 70 Knowing what is ex- pected of me regard— ing the total amount of my responsibili— ties 357 74 171 71 767 73 TABLE 5.90 (continued) First Year Third Year All Respondents Respondents Respondents Problem No. % No. % No. % Understanding the ad- ministrative struc- ture of the college so that I know whom to consult regarding a particular problem 261 64 130 59 579 63 Learning the routine for acquiring new instructional or library materials 227 55 86 43 “436 50 Acquiring adequate office space 389 88 252 77 896 83 Acquiring adequate secretarial help 457 86 331 86 1140 87 Total of problems in— volving structure, policies and pro- cedures 5446 73 2968 70 12142 72 Obtaining needed instructional materials (texts, library materials, visual aids, laboratory sup- plies 449 81 262 81 1025 81 Developing course outlines 342 70 143 62 664 65 Adapting to assign— ments for which I was inadequately prepared 280 63 103 42 542 54 Using effective dis- cussion and other group action techni- ques 321 82 133 76 635 78 Becoming acquainted with students in my classes 177 65 94 78 386 69 104 TABLE 5.90 (continued) First Year Third Year All Respondents Respondents Respondents Problem No. % No. % No. % Understanding the characteristics of Junior College students 296 62 123 54 586 57 Arousing and main— taining student .interest 503 86 270 86 1110 85 Adapting instruction to individual differences 565 89 306 85 1246 87 Challenging superior students 514 91 285 87 1145 88 Gearing instruction to the standards required in a particular curri- culum 339 80 152 70 693 75 Developing satis— factory tests and examinations 444 81 239 78 970 80 Using papers and reports to measure student achieve— ment 333 84 213 86 777 84 Determining the value of students' contributions to class discussions 337 86 184 84 782 85 Coordinating instruc- tion in my classes with other classes in my department 253 79 125 73 538 76 Coordinating instruc- tion in my classes with instruction in other college cepartments 231 86 144 80 546 83 Increasing my effec— tiveness in student coulseling techni— ques 454 88 267 85 1058 86 105 TABLE 5.90 (continued) _—‘ I 1 _r First Year Third Year All Respondents Respondents Respondents Problem No. % No. % No. % Utilizing the services of the testing specialist and counselor 209 90 170 87 553 87 Dealing with students who require special attention to over- come deficiencies 525 89 342 91 1261 89 Becoming familiar with the breadth and demands of general education courses 286 80 139 72 613 77 Being required to « teach vocational- terminal courses only slightly re- lated to my major 84 88 30 54 142 71 Familiarizing myself with requirements of related courses in various senior institutions 431 91 215 81 859 82 Coping with the de— mands of extra curricular responsi- bilities 364 89 270 87 937 88 Grading or marking students' work 476 86 286 88 1090 86 Meeting differences in the educational needs of terminal and pre-professional students 427 90 258 88 1012 90 Selecting methods of instruction appro— priate for terminal students 346 88 231 86 ‘829 86 Selecting instruc- tional methods most effective with transfer students 260 90 166 85 612 87 106 TABLE 5.90 (continued) W First Year Third Year All Respondents Respondents Respondents Problem No. % No. % No. % Directing laboratory or work shop 111 79 83 78 297 79 Obtaining help in the improvement of my instruction 223 86 140 88 539 85 Total of Instruc- tional Problems 9580 81 5373 80 21447 81 Inadequate background in subject matter 294 78 139 64 644 72 Content of courses I teach is too ele- mentary for my preparation and interest 203 88 120 82 438 85 Lack of credits re- quired for certifi— cation 103 85 48 65 225 77 Inadequate command of teaching techni- ques 204 80 102 75 429 77 Excessive pressure for professional upgrading 73 87 68 94 211 90 Lack of incentive for professional upgrading 155 92 148 93 447 93 Lack of time for scholarly study 783 97 524 98 1876 97 Total of professional improvement problems 1815 89 1149 85 4270 87 A preliminary investigation of persistence on the basis of the entire group of new instructors in Chapter IV showed 107 a relatively high persistence for many problems. In general, a decrease in the per cent of problems which persist between the first year group of respondents and the third year group of respondents is shown in Table 5.90. The greatest decrease is in the problem Finding suit- able living quarters which was identified as persisting by 37 per cent of the first year group but only 23 per cent of the third year group of new faculty members. Learning the routine for acquiring new instructional or library materials decreased from 55 per cent to 43 per cent. Adapting to assignment for which I was inadequately prepared persisted for 43 per cent of the 1959-60 group of new teachers, but. decreased to 42 per cent of the 1961—62 group. Certain problems tended to persist for a greater percentage of the third year new teachers than for the first year teachers. Two of these were Working with counseling personnel, which increased from 76 per cent to 82 per cent, and Understanding the felationship of counseling and guidance to student success, which showed a 4 per cent increase in persistence from 77 per cent to 81 per cent. Other problems showing an increased persistence between first and third year new teacher groups were: Understanding college policies regarding fringe benefits. Becoming acquainted with students in my classes. Dealing with students who require special attention to overcome deficiencies. 108 Obtaining help in the improvement of my instruction. Excessive pressure for professional upgrading. Lack of time for scholarly study. A curious fact was that both Excessive pressure for pro— fessional upgrading and Lack of incentive for professional upgradipg increased in persistence in per cent of respondents between the first year group and the third year group, but twice as many teachers indicated the latter as a persistent problem. Since the total number of teachers in the 1959-60 group, the third year group, was 732 as compared to 1,188 in the 1961-62 group, the first year group, we would expect to find greater numbers of teachers indicating the persistence of problems in the first year group and this is the case. The important statistic in Table 5.96, however, is the per cent of teachers indicating persistence between the first and third year groups. We would expect these percentages to decrease and this is true in most cases with exceptions as pointed out in the previous paragraph. The totals in each section of the problem are indi- cated in Table 5.90. For easier comparison these totals are reproduced in Table 5.91 which follows. The per cent of third year respondents indicating per- sistence of the five types of problems in Table 5.91 was less in each case than the per cent of first year respondents. In the section on problems of structure policies and 109 TABLE 5.91 Persistence of Different Types of Problems Between First Year Respondents, Third Year Respondents, and All Respondents First Year Third Year All Respondents Respondents Respondents Problems No. % No. % No. % Personal problems 2148 68 1111 62 5105 70 Institutional prob- lems 2528 72 1432 64 5818 69 Problems of struc- ture, policies, and procedures of the college 5446 73 2968 70 12142 72 Professional improve- ment problems 1815 89 1149 85 4270 87 procedures and in the case of instructional problems the differences were small, 3 per cent less in the totals of each type of problem. Individual differences on certain problems have previously been noted, but in the matter of the persistence of the five total groups of problems, we must conclude that for each type of problem the per cent of third year respondents indicating the persistence of problems is less than the per cent of first year respon- dents who indicated the persistence of these problems. The question, "Do first year faculty members in community colleges perceive their problems as more persistent than do teachers who served three years in these institutions," must be answered affirmatively. Problems in general become less persistent as the new instructor gains experience. 110 In two of the five categories of problems, there were small differences in persistence of problems between first year and third year respondents. This was true for instruc- tional problems and for problems involving, structure, policies, and procedures of the college, and would seem to indicate that the third year teachers did not feel that they had come any closer to the solution of these problems than did the first year teachers. Since eight of the nine major problems identified were administrative problems or instructional problems there are important implications for improved practices in these areas. In the matter of the high persistence of many of the problems previously noted in connection with Table 4.3 of Chapter IV, the last column on the right in Table 5.95 shows the per cent of the total group of new community college instructors who indicated the persistence of each problem. Twenty-seven problems in this listing tended to persist in the cases of 80 per cent or more of the total group of new instructors. This is approximately onerthird of the total number of problems. Since it is true that a problem could not persist unless it originally was a problem, the number of respondents for whom the problem actually persisted as well as the per cent should be noted in the column to the left of the percentage column in Table 5.95. 111 Summary A major problem was defined as one which ranked more than one standard deviation above the means of the distri- butions of frequency scores, of difficulty scores, and of persistence scores. According to this definition nine major problems of the study were identified and discussed. None of the major problems identified was unique from the point of view of the community college as a distinctly different kind of educational institution. A minor problem was defined as one which ranked more than one standard deviation below the means of the distri- butions of frequency scores, of difficulty scores, and of persistence scores. Six minor problems were identified according to this definition. In answer to the question, "What kinds of problems do new faculty members in community colleges perceive as more critical than other problems," it was observed that five of the nine major problems were instructional problems, three were administrative problems in connection with the struc+ ture, policies, and procedures of the individual college, and one was a problem of professional improvement. The question, "Which problems are perceived as more critical than other problems by new faculty members in 112 community colleges," can be answered by listing the nine major problems which were identified, namely: 1. Lack of time for scholarly study. 2. Adapting instruction to individual differences. 3. Dealing with students who require special at— tention to overcome deficiencies. 4. Acquiring adequate secretarial help. 5. Understanding college policies regarding teach— ing load. 6. Challenging superior students. 7. Obtaining needed instructional materials. 8. Grading or marking students‘ work. 9. Understanding college policies to be followed in curriculum development and revision. The third question considered in Chapter V, "Do first year faculty members in community colleges perceive their problems as more persistent than do teachers who have served three years in these institutions," was answered affirmatively. Problems in general become less persistent as the new community college teacher gains experience. In the categories of instructional problems and problems involving structure, policies, and procedures of the individual college, however, the small differences in the per cent of instructors who marked these problems as per- sisting seemed to indicate that the third year teachers did not feel that they had come any closer to the solution of these problems than did the first year teachers. CHAPTER VI DIFFERENCES IN THE IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEMS BY NEW FACULTY MEMBERS IN COMMUNITY COLLEGES In Chapter VI analyses are presented which lead to an answer to the basic question, "Are there significant differ- ences in the identification of problems by type of community college, size of the community college, type of courses taught, and by sex, marital status, age, type of degrees earned, first year employed, and teaching experience of the respondents?" Two types of analyses are presented. The first was based upon a delineation of difficulty scores by nine control factors. Differences between each pair of responses were noted at the .01 level or at the .05 level. The analysis of the nine major problems according to the nine control items are given in Tables 10.3 to 10.92 of the Appendices. The results are summarized in Table 6.1. The second type of analysis involved an identification of all problems which were ranked more than one standard 113 114 om.G .m.G .mofi .wofl MO. HO. .m.G ow.C HO. .mHW 9 oo mAa e no mVa 9 oo mAm oom ooo oom .m> .muw pmuHm. no. .m.: Ho. .m.: mo. Hop. .m.: .m.: Ho. m.uouooa no 9 so zvm - D so EAm D so EAm D so va D so Evm m.uopmm2 .m> m.u0Honomm so. .m.: .m.: .m.: mo. so. .m.o .m.o so. :oso: 0A» OAs 0A» ovs .m> :mososz .m.c mo. .m.: .m.: .m.s .m.: Ho. .m.: Ho. ooHuumz 2Am zAm zvm .m> osmon HO. HO. .m.Q .m.: .m.C .m.G .m.G .m.G .m.G MHmEmm mvz mvz .m> mez so. .m.o so. so. no. .m.o so. so. .m.o omossoo son HAm AAm QAm HAm HAm HAm ussseoo owuoq .m> Hstm so. so. mo. mo. #0. so. no. mo. .o.o omossoo umvm umvm smvm nova umvm umAm umvm umvm suHasesoo opm> -Ham .o> ossoso boo 5mm MHm mmm Hmo H00 mmm mmm mum mquomm Houucoo ost may Op wsHUuouo< mEoHnoum MOMmE ost on» mo mvmoH ooqmonHsmHm mo manmom was mo sumsesw H.o mHmos no. oon.po.oooosmmomso moooe mo. Ho>oH Ho. on» no usMUHMHGMHm momma Ho. oosmonHGMHm on mamas. .m.: GOHmH>ou one poosQOHo>oo 83H:6Huu=o :H ooSOHHom on Ca moHoHHom omoHHoo mcHoqmumnoUGD bvo Ego: .musoUSHm mstume no msHomuw smm mHmHuopms HscOHuosupmsH ooooos moHchuno mHm mpsoosum HOHHoasm wnHmsoHHmno mmm omOH manomop msHoummou moHoHHom omoHHoo mcHosmpmumoco Hmo QHon HoHuououoom opmsvoom msHuHsvo< H00 moHosoHonoo osoouo>o ow GOHusmuuo HsHoomm muHsuou on: mpnoosum 39H: wsHHmoQ mmm moocouomeo HmsoH>HosH Op GOHuosupmcH msHpooo< mmm >o5um >HumHonum How oEHp mo xomH mum .m.: .m.: .m.: .m.s .m.: .m.: .m.: Ho. Ho. :uonuO: .m> ovo 0A0 >Hco momusoo HoHHoumm omoHHoo Ho. .m.: .m.: mo. .m.s .m.s .m.c Ho. Ho. .me manome zvm zvm zvm ZAm omoasoo oz .m> .me msHaomoH omoHHoo meow NVU 5mm MHm mmm Hmo H00 mmm mmm mum ‘ n v? AUmaCHHGOUV H.o mqm<fi 116 deviation above the mean by frequency, difficulty, or per- sistence as "high" when classified according to the nine control factors. In order not to miss any problems which might be rated as "high," the first twenty-five problems ap- pearing in Table 10.6 of the Appendices, where all problems were classified according to the "high," "medium," or "low” ratings by all respondents, were included. The results are given in Tables 6.3 to 6.92 and differences in the identifi— cation of certain problems are discussed following each table. The purpose of the method was to include certain problems which were not defined as major problems, but which never— theless were identified as "high" in any of the three cate- gories when considered according to the nine control items. ANALYSIS I Differences in Average Degree of Difficulty Scores of the Nine Major Problems According to the Nine Control Factors A summary of the results of the eighty-one tests of significance between the means of the difficulty scores when analyzed according to the nine control factors is presented in Table 6.1. Differences in the Identification of Major Problems by New Instructors in Public Community Colleges and New Instructors in Private Community Colleges The first row of Table 6.1 gives the results of significance tests of the differences in difficulty scores of 117 major problems identified by new public community college teachers and new private community college teachers are pre— sented in the first row of Table 6.1. The following major problems were less difficult for new teachers in public community colleges than they were for new teachers in private community colleges, although rated "high" in all three categories by both kinds of instructors. Adapting instruction to individual differences. (Pr>P at .05) Dealing with students who require Special attention to overcome deficiencies. (Pr>P at .01) Understanding college policies regarding teaching load. (Pr>P at .01) Challenging superior students. (Pr>P at .05) Obtaining needed instructional materials. (Pr>P at .05) Grading or marking students' work. (Pr>P at .01) Understanding college policies to be followed in curriculum revision. (Pr>P at .01) Only one problem, Acquiripg adequate secretarial help, was rated more difficult for new public community college teachers than for new private community college teachers. (P>Pr at .01) There was no significant difference in the identifi— cation of the problem, Lack of time for scholarly study, between new teachers in public community colleges and new teachers in private community colleges. Eight of the nine major problems showed significant differences in identifi- cation by beginning teachers in public community colleges. Three of these were at the .05 level of significance and five at the .01 level of significance. 118 Differences in the Identification of Major Problems By Type of Community College Results of significance tests between the means of difficulty scores for new instructors in small community colleges and new instructors in large community colleges showed that instructors in small community colleges regarded the following problems as more difficult than teachers in large community colleges: Adapting instruction to individual differences. (S>L at .01) Dealing with students who require special attention to overcome deficiencies. (S>L at .01) Understanding college policies regarding teaching load. (S>L at .05) Challenging superior students. (S>L at .01) Obtaining needed instructional materials. (S>L at .01) Understanding college policies to be followed in curriculum development and revision. (S>L at .01) The fact that each of these problems was also identified as being more difficult in the case of teachers in private community colleges than in the case of instructors in public community colleges checks with the fact that small community colleges tend to be private colleges and large community colleges tend to be public community colleges. The important fact, however, is that new instructors in small community colleges identified six of eight major problems in the same manner as new faculty members in private community colleges. Two of the problems, Grading or marking students' work and Acquiringpadequate secretarial help, were not significant 119 from the small vs. large point of view, but were significant from the public vs. private point of view, teachers in private community colleges regarded these problems as more difficult than teachers in public community colleges. The remaining problem, Lack of time for scholarly Egggy, showed no significant differences in identification by either public vs. private community college or by small vs. large community college. Differences in the Identification of Major Problems by Sex Only two of the major problems showed significant differences in difficulty ratings according to the sex of the respondents. The problems, Grading or marking students‘ work and Understanding college policies to be followed in curriculum development and revision, showed greater difficulty ratings in the case of women than of the men. Both differences were significant at the .01 level. The remaining seven problems showed no significantly different identification by sex. Differences in the Identification of Major Problems by Marital Status of the Respondents Two of the nine major problems were identified as be- ing more difficult for new single community college instruc— tors than for new married community college instructors. 120 They were: Dealing with students who require special attention to overcome deficiencies. (S>M at .01) Grading or marking students' work. (S>M at .05) Single community college teachers regarded the problem, Lack of time for scholarly study, as less difficult than married community college teachers. (S>M at .01) In the remaining six problems there were no significant differences in identification between single and married instructors. Differences in the Identification of Major Problems by Ag; of the Respondents "Young" new community college instructors, 20-29 years of age, identified three major problems as causing greater difficulty for them than for "old" new community college instructors, over thirty years of age. These were: Acquiring adequate secretarial help. (Y>O at .01) Understanding college policies regarding teaching load (Y>O at .05) Understanding college policies to be followed in curriculum development and revision. (Y>O at .01) "Young” community college instructors had less diffi- culty with the problem, Lack of time for scholarly study, than did "old” community college instructors. YM or D at .01) and Understanding college policies regard- ing teaching load, were greater for those new community col- lege teachers holding a Bachelor's degree only, than for those new instructors holding a Master's or a Doctor's de— gree. (B>M or D at .05) There were no significant differences in the identifi— cation of the remaining four major problems. 122 Differences in the Identification of Majpr Problems by First Year Community College Teachers and by Second and Third Year Community College Teachers First year community college teachers perceived three of the nine major problems as being more difficult than second and third year community college teachers. They were: Lack of time for scholarly study. (F>S or T at .01) Acquiring adequate secretarial help. (F>S or T at .01) Understanding college policies regarding teaching load. (F>S or T at .05) The remaining six major problems showed no significant differences in difficulty scores between first year community college teachers, both groups consistently rating them as high in difficulty. Differences in the Identification of Major Problems by Previous Experiencefiof the Instructors In only one of the problems, Lack of time for scholarly E3221: did new instructors with some college teaching ex- perience have greater difficulty with a major problem than instructors with no college teaching experience (S>N at .01). In the remaining problems showing significant differences in difficulty ratings, those teachers having some college teach» 'ing experience had less difficulty with these problems than 123 teachers with no community college teaching experience. These problems were: Adapting instruction to individual differences. (SO at .01) and Adapting instruction to individual differ— ences (C>O at .01), instructors teaching college parallel courses only had more difficulty than those instructors who taught vocational technical courses or both types of courses. Discussion of the Major Problems in Terms of Significant Differences F6und in Connection with the Nine Institutional or Personal Factors Each of the nine major problems showed differences in 124 identification according to three or more of the institutional or personal factors. These problems will now be discussed from the point of view of those factors which revealed significant differences in difficulty ratings. Lack of Time for Scholarly Study This problem was more difficult for married community college instructors than for those who are single, for "old" community college teachers than for young instructors, for those holding Master's or Doctor's degrees than for those who hold only a Bachelor's degree, for first year instructors than for second and third year instructors, for those having some college teaching experience than for instructors who had no college teaching experience, and for instructors teaching parallel courses only than for those instructors who teach vocational technical courses or both types of courses. There were no differences in the identification of this problem by type or size of junior college or by sex. Adapting Instruction to Individual Differences New teachers in private community colleges rated this problem significantly higher in difficulty than new teachers in public community colleges. Similarly, instructors in small community colleges gave a higher difficulty rating to this problem than did instructors in large community colleges. Those new instructors having some previous college teaching experience also tended to rate this problem higher in difficulty than teachers with no college teaching experience. 125 Dealing with students who reqpireggpecial attention to overcome deficiencies. Teachers in private community colleges rated this problem also as higher in difficulty than teachers in public community colleges. Similarly, teachers in small community colleges rated the problem higher in difficulty than teachers in large community colleges. Single instruc— tors rated this problem as more difficult than married in- structors. There were no signficant differences in the identification of this problem according to the remaining factors. Acquiring adequate secretarial help; -Pub1ic community college respondents rated this problem as higher in the de- gree_of difficulty than did private community college re- spondents."Young'instructors gave a significantly higher rating to this problem than did "old" instructors, as did first year instructors over second and third year instruc- tors. Holders of Master's and Doctor's degrees also con- sidered this problem more difficult than did those holding only a Bachelor's degree. Understanding college policies regarding teaching lggg. Five of the nine institutional and personal factors showed differences in difficulty ratings in connection with this problem. Instructors in private community colleges rated the problem significantly higher than teachers in public 126 community colleges. New instructors in small community colleges considered the problem more difficult than new instructors in large community colleges. The "young" in— structors had greater difficulty with this problem than did the "old" instructors. Holders of Master’s and Doctor's degrees considered the problem less difficult than those instructors who held a Bachelor's degree only. The problem was also less diffi— cult for second and third year community college instructors than for first year instructors. No significant differences appeared for this problem by sex, marital status, teaching experience, or type of courses taught by the respondents. Challenging superior students. Beginning instructors in private community colleges regarded this problem as more serious than new instructors in public community colleges. New teachers in small community colleges rated the problem as higher in difficulty than new teachers in large community colleges, and instructors with no college teaching experi- ence rated the problem higher in difficulty than those instructors who had some college teaching experience. There were no significant differences in relation to the remaining institutional and personal factors. Obtaining needed instructional materials. This problem was rated as "high" by all groups of respondents, as were the 127 other major problems. Significant differences were evident, however, in only three of the nine control factors. Private community college teachers rated the problem as more diffi— cult than did the public community college teachers and new instructors in small community colleges considered it to be more difficult than new instructors in large community colleges. Those instructors who held only an undergraduate degree rated the problem higher in difficulty than did those instructors who held a graduate degree. Grading or marking students‘ work. Significant-differ— ences in the identification of this problem appeared in the public vs. private, male vs. female, and single vs. married categories. Private community college teachers had more difficulty with the problem than did public community college teachers. WOmen instructors regarded the problem as more difficult than did the men, and single teachers rated theproblem higher in difficulty than did the married teachers. No significant differences were apparent in the remains ing categories. Understanding college policies to be found in curriculum development and revision. -Significant differences were found in connection with six of the nine control factors as applied to this problem. 128 Again new teachers in private community colleges indi- cated more difficulty with this problem than did new tea- chers in public community colleges. Instructors in small colleges rated the problem as more difficult than teachers in large colleges. Women regarded the problem as more difficult than did the men. ”Young” community college in— structors had more difficulty with the problem than did ”old" instructors. Instructors holding graduate degrees indicated greater difficulty with the problem than did those instructors who held an undergraduate degree only, and teachers with no college experience had greater difficulty with the problem than did teachers with some college teaching experience. No significant differences were apparent by sex, year employed, or by type of courses taught. Summary of Analysis I There are significant differences in thirty—seven of eighty—one cases tested. The major problems were all rated as "high" in difficulty; that is, they ranked higher than one standard deviation above the mean of the difficulty scores. The expected results of relatively few differences when all problems are taken from the high end of the scale 129 was not the actual result. The fact that there are so many combinations of factors and major problems showing signifi- cant differences indicates that these are not chance vari- ations, but that the variations are due to differences in perception of the problems of the respondents and in the nature of the problems. Is there any consistency in the patterns of signifi- cant differences? There is a great deal of consistency in the identification of differences between public vs. private and large vs. small community college respondents as previously noted. "Young" vs. "old" and Bachelor‘s vs. Master‘s or Doctor's breakdowns identified the same problems in three out of four cases, the direction of difference was the same,. and the level of significance identical. The first year vs. second and third year divisions identified precisely the same problems as did the "young" vs. "old" in three out of four cases. The direction of the differences was reversed, however, in one of the three cases. Some college teaching experience vs. no college teach— ing experience tended to identify the same problems as "college parallel courses only" vs. "other" courses in two out of four cases. Institutional and educational variables seemed to have a greater effect on the consistency of problem identification than did personal factors, such as marital status and sex. 130 The one outstanding pattern is the consistency of problem identification between public vs. private and small vs. large categories. Private community college teachers tend to identify seven of eight major problems as more diffi- cult than public community college teachers. In five of the same eight problems teachers in small community colleges rated these problems as more difficult than teachers in large community colleges. Why do these patterns of variation of responses appear? It may be that new instructors in private community colleges are more perceptive of major problems than beginning teachers in public community colleges, or that administrative practices in public com- munity colleges tend to alleviate the major problems to a greater extent in public community colleges than the ad- ministrative practices in private community colleges. Further research would be required to determine the Specific underlying reasons. Analysis II, Differences in the Identification of all Problems Rated as ”High" in FrequencyLDifficultyi or Persistence When Considered in Relation to the Nine Control Factors The purpose of this analysis is to identify differ— ences in the ratings of all problems rated ”high” in the categories frequency, difficulty, and persistence in re— lation to the dichotomies under each of the control factors. Tables 6.2 to 6.93 give the ratings of all problems ranking high in one or more of the criteria 131 m z m m z m monoHnnoow mnHHomnnoo «noonum nH mmmnm>Huoommo >8 mnHmeononH HH m 2 m z z I umoumunH “neonum manHeanes one mnHmnon< 0H m m m m m : nOHmH>mn one «noEnoHo>oo annoHunno nH ooBOHHom on o» moHoHHoa oonHoo mnHoneumnoonD o m m m m m : Enos .munoonum monnes no mnHoenw m m I m m m m AmoHHndnm >n0penoneH .moHe Hean> .mHeHnmueE >nenDHH .mpxouv mHeHnopeE HenOHponnumnH ooooon wanHeueO s m z m m m z munoonpm MOHnonnm wnHmnoHHeno o 2 z z m m : oeos moHEoeon mnHonemon moHoHHon omoHHoo mnHoneumnoonD m z E 2 m m I QHon HeHneponomm ouenoooe manHnUo< e m z m m m m mmHonoHonoo osoono>o op noHpnoupe HeHomnm oanUon onz munoonpm nqu wnHHeoo m m I m m m m moononommHo HenoH>HonH ow nOHponnpmnH mnHudeo< m m m m m m I sonum >HneHonom now mEHp mo xoeq H .mnom .mmHQ .Umnm .mnom .mmHQ .Uonm EoHnoum xnem memoHHoO momoHHoo >pHnnEeoo oue>Hnm >pHnnssoo oHHonm nH mnOpunnumnH,3mz nH mn0ponnumna 3oz momoHHou >HHnnEsoo ove>Hnm nH mnouonnumnu 302 >2 one momoHHoo >annssoo oHHonm nH mnOponnumnH 302 >9 monoumHmnom no .sanUwaHo .>ononoonm moHnommueU on» mo HH< no one >n< nH :EMHE: oouem mEoHnonm HH< mo noHueonHmmeHo N.© mHmonn nH omoHHoo HOHnnm on» mo >HHHHnHmnonmon on“ mnHonepmnoonD om 2 2 2 2 2 2 omonsoo on» mo Seymonn nowmnenp one mnHonepmnoonD 0H 2 z z 2 2 2 mnnsonnum moupHssoo >pHnoem wnHonepmnoonD wH 2 E z 2 2 2 munoonum mo mnHonono one mnpeum >Hen0Hueo loud mnHonemon monsoooono mnHonepmnoonD NH 2 2 2 2 2 2 moHnoeoHpeH non o>HpenpmHanoeu>pHnoem wnHoneumnoonD OH 2 2 2 2 2 2 synosseoo so: on“ on ooEmHH noeumo mnwsoooo mo momnoQXo one EHHB onoo Op uanUHmmnmnH moonnommn HeHonenHm mH z I z 2 z 2 ooenm oonmo awesomoe manHnou< «H 2 z 2 m z 2 munoonum Henonmowonnuonn one HenHEHou mo women HenOHueonoo on» nH moononomeo mnHuooz MH 2 2 2 2 E : mnOHuen uHsexo one mumou >uo~oemmHuem mnHQOHo>oQ NH .mnom .mmHQ .Uonm .mnmm .mmmo .Uonm EmHDoum xnem moMoHHQU. >annEEou ope>Hum nH mnOuonnumnH 3oz mumoHHoo spHnnesoo oHHonm nH mnouonnpmnH 3oz Hooanunoov m.o mqmoQ NH I 2 z I I I monoHnnoou mnHHomnnoo s anoonum nH mmono>Hwommmo >8 mnHmeonunH HH I z I I I I «monounH unoonum manHeunHes one mnHmnon< OH I I I I I I nOHmH>on one unoEQOHo>oo annoHnnno nH ooonHow on ow moHoHHon omoHHoo mnHoneumnoonD o 2 I I E z z Enos .munoonum monnes no wnHoenw w I I I I I I AmoHHnnnm >n0uenooeH .moHe Hean> .mHeHnoweE >nenoHH .mwxouv .mHeHnopes HenOHponnumnH ooooon manHepno s I I I I I I mpnoonum noHnonnm mnHmnoHHeno o 2 2 2 2 2 2 oeoH meenoeop mnHonemon mMHoHHon omoHHoo wnHoneumnoonD m I .I I I I I nHon HeHneuonoom muenqooe wanHnUo< e I I I I I I moHoanonoo oeoono>o o“ noHpnopue HeHoonm oanUmn on: mpnoonpm anB mnHHemQ m I I I I I I moonm -nownno Heoos>noon oo oonooooooon monnoeo< m I I I I I I sonum >HneHonom now onHu mo xoeH H .mnom .MMHQ .Uonm .mnom .wwHQ .Uonm EoHnonm xneI mommHHoo mommHHoo qunnnsoo omneq >pHnnesoo HHeEm nH mnowonnvmnH 3oz nH mnouonnpwnH 3oz H momoHHoU >pHnneeoU omneH nH mnouonnumnH 3oz 2n one moonHou >annesoo HHesm nH mnouonnwmnH 3oz >9 monoumHmnom one .spHnonwHQ .2unonooum moHnowoueo on» mo HH< no mno >n< nH :IMHI: ooueI mEoHnonm HH< mo noHueonHmmeHU m.o NHIIH 139 2 2 2 2 2 2 moHpnnenHmoonmon neHnoHnnno enuXo mo moneSoo may 29H: manoo Hm I E 2 z I I AnoHuonnumnH HeHoosonv moHuanonoo uHmeo nHenon on munoonpm now moHpHnnunonno mnHoH>onn nH omoHHoo.noHnnm one mo stHHDHmnonmon onp wnHonepmnoonD om 2 2 2 2 2 2 omoHHoo on» mo senmono nommnenp one mnHonepmnoonD 0H 2 E I z 2 2 manponnpm oopuHeeoo spHnoem wnHonepmnmonD wH Z 2 z z z I mpnoonpm mo wannono one msuepm znenOHu neoonn mnHonemon monsoooonn mnHoneumnoonD NH 2 2 2 2 2 2 maHEoooeneH non o>HHenpmHanoesprnoem mnHonewmnoonD 0H 2 2 2 2 2 2 spnosssoo zoo oEo on oonmnn noepmo manooon mo momnonxo one anB onou ow unoHonmnmnH moonnomon HeHonenHI mH Z I 2 2 I 2 ocean oonmo ouenvooe wanHnUo< 2H I z z I z 2 munmonpm Henonmomonnnonn one HenHEnop mo women HenOHpeonoo on» nH moononoMMHo mnHuooE mH .mnom .MMHQ .Umnm .mnom .MMMQ .Uonm EoHnonm xnem momoHHoo >annssoo omneq nH mnOponupmnH 3oz moonHou >annEEoo HHeem nH mucuonnumnH Bmz Aoonannoov m.© MHIoa NH I 2 I I E I moannnoon mnHHomnnoo unoonnm nH mmono>Hnomwwo >5 mnHmeononH HH I 2 I I 2 I ummnoan unoonum manHeunHeE one mnHmnon< OH I I I I I I nOHmH>on one unosnoHo>oo EanoHnnno nH ooonHom en 0» moHoHHon omoHHou wnHoneumnoonD o I I I I z I 2n03 .mnnoonnm monnee no mnHoenU w I I I I I I AmoHHnnnm >nouenoneH .moHe Hean> .mHeHnoHeE >nennHH .mvxouv mHeHnonen HenoHnonnnmnH ooomon manHenDo s I I I I I I mwnoonum noHnonnm mnHwnoHHeno o 2 2 2 2 2 2 $3 onoeon mnHonemon moHoHHon omeHHoo wnHonewmnoonD m I I I I I I nHmn HeHneponoom onenvooe manHnUo< e I I I I I I moHonoHonoo osoono>o.on noHpnopne HeHoonm oanUon on: mnnmonnm nHHB mnHHeoQ m I I I I I I moono ‘ -oonnno Heson>noon on connooonoon monnoeoe e I I I I I I 2onnm >HneHonum now oeHn mo xoeH H .mnmm .MMHQ .Uonm .mnom .MMHQ .Uonm EoHoonI xneI mnOuonnnmnH mnOn oIMHHoo saHnns nonnnmnH omoHHoo usoo oHeEoI Boz >annEEoo oHeE 3oz mnOuonnumnH omoHHoo 2pHnnEEoo oHeEoI 3oz so one mnouunnpmnH mmoHHoo >annsEoo mHez 3oz 2n ounonHmnmm one .2anonmHQ .2ononomnm moHnomoneo onn mo HH< no ono >n< nH :anI: ooneI mEoHnonm HH< mo nOHneonHmmeHo v.0 MHIonn nH omoHHoo nOHnnn onn mo >HHHHnHmnonmon on» wnHonenmnoonD om 2 2 2 2 2 2 oonHoo onn mo senmonn nommnenn onn wnHonenmnoonD 0H 2 2 2 2 E 2 onnponnnm omnnHesoo 2anoem mnHoneumnoonI wH I I I 2 2 2 mnnoonum mo mannono one manepm xnenOHp senonm wnHonemon monsoouond wnHoneumnoonD sH 2 2 2 2 2 2 ooHEmooHneH non o>HnenannHeoeuannoem wnHonepmnoonD 0H 2 2 2 2 2 2 anoeesoo so: oEn on ooanH uneumo mnHEouoo mo mwmnMQXm man nnHB mnoo on «noHonmnmnH moonnomon HeHonenHI mH 2 I 2 E I z moenm oonwo onenoooe mannUo< 2H 2 2 2 2 2 2 mnooosno HenOHmmomonnsonn one Heannon mo mooon HenoHneonoo on» nH moononomeo waneoz MH .mnom .MMHQ .Umnm .mnom .MMHQ .Uonm EoHnonI xnem mnOHonnnmnH omoHHoo >HHnnn unoo oHenoI 3oz mn0n nonnnmnH omoHHoo 2annesoo oHeE 3oz Hoonannoov v.0 HHmHnoowmo >8 wnHmeonunH umonoHnH nnoonum wanHennHes one mnHmnon< . nOHmH> non one pnosnoHo>oo nanoHnnno nH omBOH nHom on o» moHoHHoa owMHHoo mnHonepmnoonD Enos nonnoonum monneE no mnHoenw AmoHHdnnm 2n0nenoneH .moHe Hean> .mHeHnmpeE >nenoHH .muxouv mHeHnoneE HenoHnonnpmnH omooon manHenoo mnnoonnm noHnonnm wnHmnoHHeno oeoH manueop wnHonewon moHoHHon omoHHoo mnHonenmnoonD nHon HeHneuonoom onenvmoe manHnUo< moHoanonoo onoonm>o On nOHnnopue HeHoonm oanUon on: mnnoonnm nan mnHHeoQ moono unomeo HenoH>HonH 0n nOHnonnpmnH manneo< sonnm >HneHonom now man mo xoeH HH OH ('0 Q‘V) \Ol\ HN .mnoa .nnHo .oonm mnouonnnmnH mmoHHoo >an uneeou 3oz ooHnneE .mnom .MMHQ .Uonm mnouonnumnH 4 mmoHHoo >an 135800 3oz onnHm EoHoonm 2oe2 mn0nonnumnH omoHHoo >annEEoo 3oz ooHnneE In one mnOHonnnmnH mmoHHoo >annnsoo 3oz onnHm 2o monoanwnom one .2anoHMMHQ .Iononoonm moHnomoneo on» mo HH< no one >n< nH :anI: oouem msoHnonm HH< mo nOHneonHmmeHo m.© MHInen0Huen Iona wnHonemon monsoooond wnHonenmnoonI sH 2 2 2 2 2 2 322833 awn o>HpenumHnHeoen>pHnoem wnHoneumnoonI 0H 2 I I z 2 z >HHnnsEoo Son one nH ooanHnenmo manoooo mo mmmnmnxo on» nnHB onou ow nnoHonmnmnH moonnomon HeHunenHI mH 2 I z 2 I z ooenm oonmo onenoooe manHnoo< eH I z z z E z mnnoonnm HenOHmmomonouonn one Heannop mo women HenoHneonoo on» nH meononoHMHo manooz MH 2 2 I I E I mnoHu ueanexo one mnmmn snouoemmHnem manoHo>oQ NH .mnom MMMHQ .Uonm .mnom .MMHQ .Uonm soHDonm xnem mno>onnnmnH omoHHoo >an Inesoo 3oz ooHnneZ mnononnnmnH omoHHoo ann unneoo 3oz onnHm AUoSGHHGOUV m.© mHmHnoowwo >8 mnHmeononH HH I z I I I I umononnH «noonnm manHeHnHes one mnHmnon< OH I I I I I I nOHmH> non one «nosnoHo>oo annoHnnno nH oesoH r.Hom on On mmHoHHon omoHHoo mnHonepmnoonI o I I I I 2 I xnoz .mnnoonnm wonnes no mnHoenw w I I I I I I AmoHHnnnm 2n0nenooeH .moHe Hean> .mHeHnoues >nenoHH .mnxopv mHeHnouee HenoHponnnmnH ooooon manHepno s I I I I z I mnnmonnm noHnonnm mnHmnoHHeno o 2 2 2 2 2 2 oeoH moHEoeon mnHonemmn mmHoHHon oonHoo mnHoneHmnoonD m I I I I I I nHon HeHnenonoom onenqooe wanHnoo< v I I I I I I moHonoHonoo msoono>o oH noHHnonne HeHoonm oanUon 023 mnnoonnm nan mnHHeoQ m I I I I I I moono unomeo HenoH>HonH o» noHnonnumnH mnHuneo< N I I I I I I 2onnm >HneHonom now 08H» mo xoeH H .mnoo, .HMHD .Uonm .mnmm .MHHQ .Uonm EoHnonm 2ne2 mnoHonnumnH omoHHoo an Inn—EEOC :UHO: Bmz mnononnnmnH oonHoo sznnn 1500 :mnno>: 3oz mnononnnmnH omoHHoo >annneoo :oHO: 3oz one mn0nonnnmnH omoHHoo >annesoo :mnno»: 3oz 2n monopmHmnom one .annUHmeQ .sononomnm moHnomoneo 02» mo HH< no ono >n< nH :anI: oopem mEmHDonm HH< mo nOHueonHmmeHo 0.0 mHIanoem mnHondumnoonD wH z z I 2 2 2 mnnoonpm mo mnHQQOno one mnnenm >nen0Hneo Iona mnHonemmn monsoooOnn mnHonenmnoonD sH 2 2 2 2 2 2 onHEmooHneH nmn o>HuenannHeoeusanoew mnHoneHmnoonD 0H 2 I z z I 2 2HHnnesoo son on“ nH ooanHnenmo wanooon mo momnonxo on» ans onoo o» nnoHonmnmnH moonnomon HeHonenHI mH 2 I 2 z I z ooenm oonwo onendooe wanHnUo< «H I z z z z 2 mnnoonpm Henonmowonnnonn one HenHenoH mo mooon HenOHueonoo onn nH moononomeo manooz MH 2 2 2 2 2 2 mooHnenHeexo one mummy >n0uoemenem manoHo>oQ NH .mnon, MMMHDr .Uonm .mnmm .IIHQ .qmnm EoHnonm xneI mnouonnnmnH omoHHoo an I GHHEEOO 2 UHO: 302 ll ‘ mnovonnumnH mmoHHoo >anne usoo :mnno»: 3oz HoonnHHnoov 0.0 mHIHnoomHo >8 mnHmeononH HH amonounH unoonnm manHennHes one mnHmnon< OH nonH> non one anosQOHo>oo eanoHnnno nH oo30H -Hom on 09 moHoHHon ommHHoo mnHoneHmnoonD Enos .mpnoonnm monnes no wnHoenw AmoHHnnnm 2n0penoneH .moHe Hean> .mHeHnoHeE >nen0HH .muxoav mHeHnonee HenOHHonnpmnH oooomn manHeuoo munoonnm nOHnonnm mnHmanHeno onH manoemu mnHonemon moHoHHon mmoHHoo wnHoneHmnoonD nHon HeHneuonoom onenoooe mnHHwBUo< moHonoHonoo onoono>o ow nOHunonue HeHoonm manUon on: mnnoonnm nan mnHHeoQ moono .Lhmmeo HenoH>HonH on nOHnonnnmnH manneoI N I I I I I I 2onum >HneHonom now oeHu mo xoeH H II I: II II I2 II II II II II II II 000‘ I II II I II II I II II I II II I II II I I2 II M V”) \OF .MMMI AMMHQ «Ionm .mnom .MHHQ «wmnm nonmmo m.no»ooa no IHnO EoHoonm xnem m.nouwmz e mnonoI oonwoo m.noHonoem mnouonnHmnH 3oz e mnHoHoI . . ; mnononnpmnH Boz r|l||l|ll.llll 1“! u oonmoa m.nopooa no m.nmnmez e wnHoHoI mnOnonnnmnH 3oz 20 one >Hno oonmoo m.noHonoem e wnHoHOI mnonunnvmnH omoHHoo >annseoO 302 29 monoanmnom one .2HHnonmHQ .2ononvonm moHnomoHeo on» mo HH< no ono 2n< nH :anI: oouem msoHnonm HH< mo nOHpeUHMHmmeHU s.o 22229 154 I z 2 I I I monHHpno omnnoo manoHo>oQ NN 2 2 2 2 2 2 ooHnHHHoHoooomon neHnoHnnnu enaxo mo monenoo on» nuHB manoo HN I I z z I z AnOHHonnumnH HeHomnonV moHunoHonoo oneo nHenen on mnnoonpm now moHpHnnnnonno mnHoH>0nn nH omoHHoo nOHnnh onn mo >HHHHnHmnonmon on» mnHoneHmnoonD ON 2 2 2 2 2 2 oeoHHoo onn mo senmonn nommnenn onn mnHonenmnoonD 0H 2 I I 2 2 I mnnnonnum mmupHssoo >anoem mnHonenmnoonD 2H 2 2 I z 2 I mnnoonwm mo mandono one mnpenm >nen0Hu nenonm wnHonemon monsoooond wnHonenmnoonD 5H 2 2 2 2 2 2 ooHEmooHoeH non o>Huenananoen>pHnoem mnHonenmnoonD 0H 2 I z z 2 2 2HHnnesoo Son on» nH ooanHnenmo mnHEoomo mo momnodxo onn nqu onoo 0n «noHonmnmnH moonnomon HeHonenHI mH I z 2 2 2 2 ooenm oonmo openvooe manHnUu< «H I z I z 2 2 mnnoonnm HenOHmmowonnnonn one Heannop mo mooon HenoHpeunom on“ nH moononoHMHo manooE MH 2 2 2 2 2 2 mnoHnen aneXo one mnmon snowoemenem manoHo>oQ NH .mnom .HMHQ .Uonm .mnom .MMHQ .Uonm EoHoonI 2ne2 oonmoQ m.nonooo no m.nopme2 e mnHoHoI mnouonnnmnH 3oz >Hno omnmma m.noHonueI e moHoHo2 mnononnumnH 3oz Aoonannoov v.0 mHmHnoowmo In mnHmeononH HH I I I I 2 I HmonoHnH «noonnm wanHennHes one mnHmnon< oH I I I I I I nOHmH>on one unoEQon>mo annoHnnno nH ooonHom on ow moHoHHon omoHHoo mnHonenmnoonD o I I I I I I 2n03 .mnnoonpm monneE no mnHoenw w I I I I I I AmoHHnnnm >no~eno£eH .moHe Hean> .mHeHnonee 2nenoHH .mnxonv mHeHnoneE HenoHnonnnmnH ooomon manHenno s I I I I I I mpnoonnm noHnonnm mnHmanHeno 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 33 mongoeon wnHonemon moHoHHOQ omoHHoo wnHonenmnoonD m I I I I I I nHon HeHnenmnomm mnenvmoe manHnUo< e I I I I I I mmHonoHonmo oeoono>o 0n noHHnoHne HeHoonm oanUon on: munmonnm nuHs mnHHeoQ m I I I I I I moononmmmHo HenoH>HonH o» noHpunnnmnH mnHuneo< N I I I I I I 2onum >HneHonom now oeH» mo xoeH H .mnmm .MMHQ .Uonm .mnmm .MMHQ .Uonm EoHoonm 22e2 mn0ponnpmnH mnOnonnnmnml‘ new» oanH new» «mnHI 3oz one onoomm 3oz momoHHoo >annEEoo nH mno~onnnmnH new» oanH one onooom 3oz one mnoHonnumnH new» nmnHI 3MB 20 monoanmnom one .sanonwHQ .2ononqonm moHnomopeo on“ no HH< no ono >n< nH :anI: ooHeI msoHnonm HH< mo noHneonHmmeHo w.0 MHIIH 158 z z I _ 2 E 2 mpnmonnm mo mannono one mnweum snenoHn :eoonn wnHonemmn mmnnomoOnn wnHoneHmnmonD 5H 2 z I z I I manmnoHueH :mn m>HHenannHeoeu2anoem mnHonenmnmonD 0H 2 I 2 z I 2 >«Hnnsnoo an mnp nH omanHneHmm mnHEoomo mo mmmnmoxm mnu nnHz mnoo o» uanonmnmnH mmonnommn HeHonenHI mH moenm monwo muenomoe wanHnUUI 2H mpnmonnm HenonmmmonQnmnn one HenHSnm» mo mommn HenOHneonom mnn nH mmonmnmmmHo wanmmz MH I 2 I I z 2 mnOHuen IHEexm one mummy >noHoemeuem mnHIon>mQ NH I2 22 22 22 22 SI .mnmm .MMHQ .Umnm .mnmm .MMHQ .UmnI EmHoonm MneI mnowonnpmnH mnOnonnnmnH nemw oanH nem» nmnHI 3mZ one onoomm sz “H AomnnHHnouV w.0 mHIIH 159 "high" in all three criteria when classified by first year vs. second and third year instructors. Of the major problems showing some difference in identification, Understanding college policies regarding teaching load was rated higher in persistence by first year instructors than by second and third year instructors. Challenging supgrior students was rated higher in difficulty by second and third year instructors than by first year instructors. This difference did not appear in the comparison of the means of the difficulty scores. Arousing and maintaining student interest was rated higher in difficulty by second and third year instructors than by first year instructors. Developing satisfactory tests and examinations was rated higher in frequency and persistence by the second and third year instructors than by the first year instructors. Meeting differences in the educational needs of terminal and pre—professional students was rated higher in persistence by the second and third year teachers than by the first year instructors. The problem, Acquiring adequate office space, was rated "high" in frequency by the first year instructors and "medium" by second and third year instructors. Both groups rated the problem "medium" in difficulty and persistence. Understanding faculty:administrative relationships was rated higher in frequency and difficulty by the first year 160 instructors than by the second and third year instructors. Second and third year instructors rated the problem, Understanding procedures regarding the probationary status and droppingof studente higher than the first year teachers. Of the eight problems showing some differences in identification by first year instructors and second and third year instructors in community colleges, there were three cases of greater frequency, difficulty, or persistence of problems for the first year teachers and five cases for the second and third year group which is eVidence that some problems not only persist, but they may actually increase in persistence forisecond and third year teachers. Classification of All Problems Rated "High" in Any One or All o§_the Categories Frequency, Difficulty,and Persistence by New Community College Instructors with Some College ' College Teachinngxperience and by New Community College Instructors with No College Teadhing Experience Some or no college teaching experience, either on the community college or the fourlyear college level showed significant differences of the mean difficulty ratings in four of the nine major problems. All of these problems were either rated high according to all three criteria or showed the same difference in identification. The problems where instructors having some college teaching experience rated the problem higher than the 161 I I I I I I mmnoHnnomn mnHHmmnnoo unmonHm nH mmmnm>Hnomwmm >8 mnHmemnunH HH I I I I I z nmmnmnnH unmonnm manHeanHee one mnHmnon< OH I I I I I I nOHmH> umn one «nmsnon>mo nanoHnnno nH om30H uHom m0 0» mmHoHHon mmmHHOU mnHoneumnmonD o I I I I I I xnoz .mnnmonnm monnes no mnHoeno w I I I I I I AmmHHnnnm 2n0nenooeH .moHe Hean> .mHeHnmnes >nen0HH .mempv mHeHnmnen HenoHnonnumnH omommn manHenoo s I I I 2 2 z mnnmonnm nOHnmnnm mnHmanHeno 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 . oeoH meHnoeon mnHonemmn mmHoHHon mmmHHoo mnHonenmnmonI m I I I I I I nHmn HeHnenmnomm mnenqmoe manHnUo< e I I I I I I mmHoanonmo msoonm>o on noHnnmnne HeHommm manUmn on: munmonum nnHz mnHHemD m I I I I I I mmonmanmHo Heson>noon on oonoosnnoon wonnoeoe m I I I I I I sonnm >HneHonom now mEHn mo xoeH H .onon .nnHo .oonm nonon .nan .oonm soHoonm seem moannmmxm manoemH woannmmxmlmanoemH omoHHoo oz Ennz omoHHoo oeom Eon: mnOnonnumnH mmeHoo mnOnonnnmnH mmmHHoo qunnesoo 3mz >annnnoo sz H H 2‘ .moannmnxm manoemH mmmHHoo oz nnHz mnOnonnHmnH mmmmHHoo >HHnnseoo Bmz >0 one moannmnxm wanoemH mmmHHoo meow nqu mnOnonnumnH mmmHHoo >annsnoo 3oz >9 monmanmnmm one .annoHMMHQ .2onmnomnm mmHnowmneo mnu mo HH< no mno >n< nH :nMHI: omuem msmHoonm HH< mo noHueUHmemeHo 0.0 MHIonm nH mmmHHoo nOHnnn mnp mo >HHHH0Hmnonmmn mnp mnHoneHmnmonD ON 2 2 2 2 2 2 oeoHHoo mnp mo Eenmonm anmnenu mnp mnHonepmnmonI 0H 2 2 2 2 z 2 mnnnonnum mmnuHssoo >HHnoem mnHoneHmnmonD 2H 2 I I I I I mpnmonnm mo mannono one mnHeum >nen0Hp senonn wnHonemmn mmnnomoonn wnHonepmnmonI sH 2 2 2 2 2 2 moHEoooHneH nmn m>HpenannHeoeu>HHnoem mnHoneHmnmonI 0H 2 2 2 2 2 2 anosEEoo son on» oH omanHnenmm wanoomo Ho mmmnmnxm mnu nuHS mnoo on HanonmnmnH mmonnommn HeHonenHI mH I I 2 I I I moenm monmo mnenomoe manHnUo< «H I 2 . I I z I menmonnm HenOHmmmmonnnmnm one HenHEnmu mo mommn , HenoHpeonom mnp nH mmonmanMHo manmmE MH 2 2 2 2 2 2 mnoHnen uHseXm one mummn >nouoemmHuem mnHmon>mQ NH .mnmm .HIHQ .Umnm .mnmm AMMHQ .wmnm anoonm xneI moananKmlwanoemH moannmmxm manoemH omoHHoo oz onHz omoHHoo oeom nuns mnononnumnH mmmHHoo mnOponnamnH ommHHoo >HHnnssoo Bmz >annEEoo 3m: I {IV I I I \II [I I HomeoHnmoov o.o mnmHnommmm >8 mnHmemnonH HH I 2 I I E I ummnmunH unmonpm manHeanee one mnHmnon< OH I I I I I I nOHmH> umn one unmnnon>mo annoHnnno nH omsoH :Hom mo 0» mmHUHHon mmmHHoo mnHonenmnmonD o I I I z I I Enos .mnnmonnm monneE no wnHoeno w I I I I I I AmmHHnnnm snowenooeH .moHe Hean> .mHeHanee >nennHH .memnv mHeHaneE HenOHuonnHmnH omommn manHepeo s I z I I I I mnnmonnm noHnmnnm mnHmanHeno 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 83 2358» mnHonemmn mmHoHHon mmmHHoo mnHonenmnmonD m I I I I I I nHmn HeHnenmnomm mpenvmoe manano< e I I I I I I mmHoanonmo msoonm>o on nOHnnmnne HeHomnm manomn 0:3 munmonnm nan mnHHemQ m I I I I I I mmonmanMHo HenoH>HonH ow nOHponnHmnH wnHuneo< N I I I I I I 2onum >HneHonum now man mo xoeH H .mnmm .MMHQ .Umnm .mnmm .IHHQ .Umnm EmHnonm xnem mmmnnoo 2Hno :nmnvO: wanuemH mmmnnoo HmHHenem mnouonnumnH mmmHHoo mmmHHoo manoemH Iannenoo sz mnononnnmnH mmeHoo >HHnnEsoo 3oz mmmnnoo :nmnno: manoemH mnouonnnmnH mmmHHoo >annesoo 3mz mmonH In one >Hno mmmnnoo HmHHenem mmmHHoo manoemB mnOnonnnmnH mmmHHoo annnEsoo 3mz >9 monmanmnmm one .>»HnonmHo .sonmnvmnm mmHnommaeo mnu mo HH< no mno >n< nH :anI: omueI mEmHnonm HH< mo nOHneonHmmeHU Ho.0 MHIIH 166 2 2 I 2 2 I mnnyonnym mmyyHeeoo >yHnoem mnHoneymnmonI 2H 2 I S E E E mynmonym mo mnHmmono one mnyeym InenOHy neoonn mnHonemmn mmnnomoonn mnHoneymnmonD sH 2 2 2 2 2 2 moHsmooHnsH nmn m>HyenymHanoeI>yHnoem mnHoneymnmonI 0H 2 I I Z I I >yHnnEEoo 3m: may nH . omanHneymm mnHEoomn mo mmmnmmxm mny nyHS mnoo oy yanonmnmnH mmonnommn HeHonenHI mH I I 2 I I 2 moenm monwo myenomoe manHnoo< eH I I -2 I 2 2 mynmonym Henonmmmonnnmnn one Heannmy mo mommn HenOHyeonom mny nH mmonmnmmmHo mnHymmz mH I I I I I z mnOHyen IHEexm one mymmy >noyoemeyem wanon>mQ NH .mnmm .MMHQ .Umnm .mnmm .MMHQ .Umnm EmHDonm 2ne2 mmmnnoo zoosno: monoosos mnoyonnymnH mmmHHoo >yHnnssoo Bmz HHeo mmmnnoo HmHHenem mmeHoo manoemH mnoyonnymnH mmmHHoo IyHnnseoo sz noonannoov Ho.o mHmmn one ynmsnon>mo nanoHnnno nH om3oHHom m0 0y mmHoHHon mmeHoo wnHoneymnmonD o x x x x xno3 .mynmonym monnes no wnHoenw w x AmmHHnnnm >noyenooeH .moHe Hean> .mHeHnmyeE InennHH .mmeyv mHeHnmyeE HenOHyonnymnH omommn manHeyno s x x x x mynmonym noHnmnnm mnHwanHenU 0 x x x x x x x onH manoemy wnHonewmn mmHoHHon mmmHHoo mnHoneymnmonI m x nHmn HeHneymnumm myenomoe manHnUo< e mmHoanonmo meounm>o 0y noHynmyye HeHomnm manvmn 023 mynmonym nyH3 mnHHemo m mmonmnmmmHo HenoH>HonH 0y nOHyonnymnH mnHyneo< N 2onym aneHonom now mnHy Ho xoeH H nu «no Ono o u - OO 0 o 1.... 1% .A W. a“. Mums mums LmHnonnH MW .40 Tim .2 «a o u I, T5. was .Ju uf. To In On. n S a IT. I 1.2. 3T. 3 v.1 03 u T. a I n t. t. 13 33 T: OT 3 a A a. us 39 3 ex 1A 10 u 9 9A I nA 33 d B 01 A . S 1.A T. 0 He 2 J .. A s . ,A S 1+.d nd X J .4... :8 S . d . ,A 1 so. .07: a s . a 21 no a 81 33 BA A W m e o d nob as In as s a e s. 1 I: n ST. ID . . Q J 71 3 I? do “I as I 1 a .s an an .e u c. w" “P I. one .43 I 3A a e u a 31 SA u .38 O S D. a I: o o 1? S A u a 1 s N he 1 a . o a u s o 9 mHm>Hen< may no ynem onoomm mny nH mannonm mo noHyeonHynmoH mny nH mmunmnmwwHo No.0 mHIIH 169 mmmHHoo mny mo Eenmonn nmmmneny mny wnHoneymnmonD OH .x x x x .x mnnyonnym mmysteoo syHnoew mnHoneymnmonD 2H 12 ,x x x x x 12 mynmonym mo mannono one mnyeym snenoHy « + a s uenonn mnHonewmn mmnnomoonn mnHoneymnmonD 5H x x x «X x x x yx xx mQHnmnoHyeH _ . umn m>HyenymHanoeusyHnoem mnHoneymnmonD 0H x x x .2 x x x 2yHnnseoo 3mn mny nH a e omanHneymm mnHEoomn mo mmmnmnxm mny nyH3 mnoo oy yanonmnmnH mmonnommn HeHonenHI mH x x moenm monwo myenvmoe manHnUo< eH x «x sx «x «x x x mynmonym HenOHmmmmonnumnn one Heannmy mo mommn HenoHyeonom mny nH mmonmnmmeo mnHymmz MH ex sx «x x «x x «X X mnoHyen uHsexm one mymmy >n0yoemmHyem wanon>mo NH 2 x x x mmnoHnnumy mnHHmm unnou ynmonym nH mmmnm>Hyomwmm >8 wnHmemnonH HH u o o u S W OS 3d 1 EmHoonm 0.8 .AsO WM. 1W... 1% A t. e om on ”3% .o m 1 o o no.1 In mq in T. .33 .IS GU. n .3 a 7&1 .l t. “T. O “.1. 03 u T. 3T. nt. 30. 09 IE I. or. S a A 8 no nA 150 TX 17A 1+0 H 5 3A T. T. ad ad Pa or A . s 1A .45 a has a 1 s .A s . ,As (A: 1M an. n1 ens Us . as .1 D. a 01 39 BA A N w 9 ed New on xu 18 s u e e I I1 do nI .03 . . O J 71 8 I? an IT as I 1 .u a 3A is so 1 S W P I. 39 SA .3. IA 9 e u a 91 I. S u as 3 S D. a S u u. o 1 1 3 U a 9 a P 1 u s .2 No.0 MHIyHnonwHo .2onmnvmnw mo eHnmyHnu mny mo mnoe no mno 0y mnHonoooe nm3oH me3 mononm mnOEOyonoHo mny mo ymnHm mny >0 EmHnonn mny mo nOHyeonHynmoH mny neny mmyeoHonH ax n< .nnonw onoomm mny 2n me3 yH neny mmnmymHm Inmn no .IyHnonwHo .Ionmnvmnm mo eHnmyHno may mo mnos no mno 0y wnHonoooe nmann me3 mononm mnosoyonUHo mny mo ymnHm mny 2D EmHDonn mny mo noHyeonHynmoH mny yeny mmyeoHonH 2 n2 .nOHyeonHynmoH nH monmnmeHo on mmyeoHonH mnenom xneHo e ”noHyeonHynmoH nH monmnmmmHo e mmyeoHonH moenm mny nH ox ne no 22 ne .2 n< x . ax X «x mmHyHHHnHmnonmmn . neHnoHnnno enyxm mo moneEmo mny nyH3 manoo HN x x 22 AnoHyonnymnH HeHomsmnv mmHoanonmo oneo nHenmn 0y mynmonym now mmHyHnnynonno mnHoH>onn nH mmeHou nOHnnm mny mo >yHHHDmnonmmn mny wnHoneymnmonI ON usosxnoo Jouio“ sessaosssmeeem me or. 12 . Em on . o m 31 a o u T. To mo. Ho. AH In T. «no 0:. no“. n go o ITL wt. 11H T. 0 Hi. 03 u T. 3T. Dr: T. o T;d p. 3.1 an o A .3 He. 32% an .1x .A 1+0 u s o.A r. n,A a 9d 08 01 A o 5 1+“ 1 coo .22 J z .0 8 p .A 1.2 Td .oJ 1 .4: s . .d . .A I e T. TI 8 . o 21 O o I 33 U.A A W w 2 0d No.0 9 xu Tia S .. e E .4 II n I do I. . Q 1. I 8 I? do T. as: D. r. .2 o o «sA o u o J W D. I. one .23 T .EA TA 2 u no .o1 SIA u «as o S D. o t2 U. P l' S A D J 3 1. s o J o O I. u S D o AomnnHynoov No.0 MHIHen< no H mHmsHeHInmnyHm nH :monmnmmeo on: mmneoHonH mnenom xneHo < .HH mHm>Hen< one H mHmIHeQHen<_HH.monmnmeHo e mmyeoHonH mnenom mny nH 2 n2 .H mHm>Hen222n mmnoom >yHnoHMMHo mny mo mnemn mny nH monmnmmmHo yneunHanm e mmyeoHonH mnenom mny nH o < 177 x o w o o o o nonH>mn one ynmEnon>mo EanoHnnno nH om3oHHow mo 0y mmHoHHoo mmmHHoU mnHoneymnmonD .o x x o 2 x o xno3 .mynmonym wonneE no mnHoenw .w w o o AmmHHnnnm >nOyenooeH . .moHe Hean> .mHeHnmyen >nenoHH .mmeyv mHeHnmyeE HenoHyonnymnH omommn wanHeyDO .s x w x X o o mynmonym nOHnmnnm mnHmanHeno .0 x 2 o s x x s 2 oeoH wsHeoeon mnHonewmn mmHoHHon mmmHHoo mnHoneymnmonD .m o o o I nHmn HeHneymnomm myenvmoe manHnoo< .e o o o mmHoanonmo mnoonm>o Oy noHynmy uye HeHumnm manUmn on3 mynmonym nyH3 mnHHemo .m o o o o mmonmnmwwHo HenoH>HonH 0y noHyonnymnH wnHyneo< .N o o o o o o 2onym >HneHonom now meHy mo xoeH .H An NS 84. NB u S W OS Od d 8 80 00 at. as A t. e on on 1 e . o m o... so 0 u I It mo. 0 u r.q5 on 1H n 8 .s II I q X ¥.o U1 3: u T. oI n? I 09 In. D. II 3 a A 8 no a 13 .1x x" .o u .o .oA t. m Ha ad 03 s: A . s 1A Id 31 1 as s o d o e to L I O a 1 0 31 Ha HA A W m 2 od 02 xu 1..- 08 u e e 1 I... n... do 1. O. O J T. on IT. II as D. o I 1 a a 3A .so .1 .+ o. t. gov oT..EA .A o u .u os+ SH 38 3 J D. 3 u u. e s o 1 s o HH mHmsHen< one H mHmsHen< nmm3ymm mEmHQOnm n0mez mo noHyeonHynmoH mny nH mmonmnmmmHo mo.0 mHIIH 178 means of the difficulty scores was significant at the .01 level. Understanding college policies to be followed in curriculum development and revision; was identified differently by degree held and there was a significant difference in the means of the difficulty scores at the .05 level. Those problems marked zero according to the control factors showed significant differences in the means of the difficulty scores and were discussed in steps one to six of the analysis. CHAPTER VII ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES USED IN THE ORIENTATION OF NEW INSTRUCTORS Questions related to orientation practices which were outlined in Chapter I are the following: 1. Which orientation procedures were identified as being most helpful by the new instructors? 2. How effective are the administrative prac— tices used by community college administrators in helping new faculty members resolve their problems? « 3. What other administrative practices not extensively used by community college ad- ministrators in helping new faculty mem- bers, might be effective in resolving their problems? 4. What direct suggestions for the improvement orientation practices in community colleges are made by the new faculty members them- selves? Respondents‘ Reactions to the Nineteen Administrative Procedures Nineteen administrative procedures were listed in Section II of the questionnaire. Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not the procedure was used and to indi— cate in either case the degree of helpfulness as "none,” 179 180 "slight," ”moderate," or ”great." The new community college faculty members were also asked to list the four most im- portant procedures that were or should have been used in the orientation of new teachers in the community college where they serve. An average degree of helpfulness rating was calculated for each procedure by using the following formula: H = 100 (S + 2M + 3G) where: N = Helpfulness rating = Number of "slight" responses Number of "moderate" responses Number of "great" responses 2 D Z (I) :1: II Total number of responses including "none," "slight," "moderate," and "great" responses A combined average degree of helpfulness rating for each procedure was obtained by adding the helpfulness ratings for the "used" and the "not used" procedures. Ranking of Used Administrative Procedures by Average Degree of Helpfulness The "used" procedures are listed according to average degree of helpfulness ratings in Table 7.1. The rank of each procedure according to the helpfulness rating, the per cent of times it was indicated as being ”used," and the rank according to the per cent of times it was used are also indicated in Table 7.1. These ratings ranged from a 181 TABLE 7.1 Ranking of Used Administrative Procedures by Average Degree of Helpfulness Rank by Helpful- Helpful— Per Rank ness Administrative Procedures ness Cent by Rating Used by Colleges Rating Used USe 1 Further materials such as schedule, course outlines, texts, and faculty hand- book furnished upon ap- pointment 241 74 8 2 Administrators make them— selves readily available for individual conferences with new faculty members 237 87 2 3 Orientation conference with department head arranged upon appointment 233 62 ll 4 Lighter teaching load set up for new faculty members 217 23 19 5 New faculty member expected to report to the college several days before opening 209 72 9 6 New teacher introduced to the faculty soon after . arrival 209 92 l 7 Personal letter of welcome sent after acceptance of appointment 204 78 6 8 Descriptive material (cata- log, pamphlets) supplied before appointment 203 78 7 9 Regular departmental meet— ings scheduled 199 58 12 10 Staff reception for new fac- ulty arranged early in the school year 192 63 10 11 Visit to campus expected be- fore appointment 191 83 4 12 Aid in finding housing made available 185 49 15 13 Regular faculty meetings scheduled 181 84 3 182 TABLE 7.1 (continued) Rank by Helpful- Helpful— Per Rank ness Administrative Procedures ness Cent by Rating Used by Colleges Rating Used Use 14 New appointments are form- ally announced to faculty and community 179 79 5 15 Faculty sponsor provided for each new faculty member 176 26 18 16 Orientation conferences for entire group of new tea- chers with the chief ad- ministrators arranged periodically during first year 160 54 13 17 Administrator visits classes and helps evalu- ate instruction 158 41_ l6 18 Faculty study groups ’ organized 157 29 17 19 Immediate assignment to a faculty committee 141 541. 14 high of 241 to a low of 141 in helpfulness ratings calculated according to the formula. Although, in general, procedures ~ranking high in helpfulness also ranked high in per cent of use, there was a number of exceptions between the ranking of helpfulness rating and the ranking by per cent of use. Orientation conference with department arranged upon appoint— ment, which ranked third in helpfulness, ranked eleventh in per cent of use. Lighter teaching load set up for new faculty members ranked fourth in helpfulness but nineteenth in per cent of times used. Procedures ranking high in per 183 cent of use, but considerably lower in helpfulness ratings were: Visit to campps before appointment, Regular faculty meetings scheduled, and New apppintments formally announced to faculty and community. The procedure ranking highest in helpfulness rating, Further materials, such as schedule, course outlineSLitexts, and faculty handbook furnished upon appointment, ranked eighth in per cent used. One way of answering the question, ”Which orientation procedures were identified as being most helpful by the new instructors," was to list the procedures which ranked be— tween "moderate" and "great" in helpfulness ratings of USED procedures. The scale of helpfulness ratings based on the formula H = 100 (S + 2M + 3G) is as follows: N Great helpfulness = 300 Moderate helpfulness = 200 Slight helpfulness = 100 None = 0 An average helpfulness score of 200 to 300, therefore, indicates a degree of helpfulness between “moderate" and "great." Eight procedures had helpfulness scores greater than 200. These are defined as the most helpful procedures. The most helpful orientation procedures according to average degree of helpfulness ratings of USED orientation procedures according to this definition are: 184 1. Further materials such as schedule, course out— lines, texts, and faculty handbook furnished upon appointment. 2. Administrators make themselves readily available for individual conferences with new faculty members. 3. Orientation conference with department head ar- ranged upon appointment. 4. Lighter teaching load set up for new faculty members. 5. New faculty member expected to report to the college several days before Opening. 6. New teacher introduced to the faculty soon after arrival. 7. Personal letter of welcome sent after acceptance of appointment. 8. Descriptive material (catalog, pamphlets) sup— plied before appointment. Rankinggof "Not Used" Administrative Procedures by Average Degree of Helpfulness Compared to the Ranking of ”Used” Administrative Procedures by Average Degree of Helpfulness Helpfulness ratings of ”Not Used" procedures were, in general, lower than the helpfulness ratings of ”used” pro— cedures. The procedures ranking first among the ”used” procedures, Further materials such as schedules, course outlines, textsL and faculty handbook furnished upon ape pointment, was also ranked first among the "Not Used" pro— cedures, and was the only orientation procedure with an average degree of helpfulness rating greater than 200. 185 TABLE 7.2 Ranking of "Not Used" Administrative Procedures by Average Degree of Helpfulness Compared to the Ranking of "Used" Procedures by Average Degree of Helpfulness "Not Used" Rank v Administrative Procedures Used by Colleges "Not Used" Helpfulness Rating "Used" Helpfulness Rank 10 11 12 13 Further materials such as schedule, course outlines; texts, and faculty hand— book furnished, upon ap— pointment Descriptive material (cat- alog, pamphlets) sup— plied before appointment Lighter teaching load set up for new faculty members Administrators make them— selyes readily available for individual conferences with new faculty members Orientation conference with department head arranged upon appointment New teacher introduced to the faculty soon after arrival Regular departmental meet— ings scheduled Faculty sponsor provided for each new faculty member Visit to campus expected before appointment Regular faculty meetings scheduled Faculty study groups organized Staff reception for new faculty arranged early in the school year New appointments are form- ally announced to faculty and community 232 180 177 168 168 166 146 134 132 123 112 108 108 15 ll 13 18 10 14 186 TABLE 7.2 (continued) ===1 "Not "Not Used" "Used" Used" Administrative Procedures Helpfulness Helpfulness Rank Used by Colleges Rating Rank 14 . Aid in finding housing made available 104 12 15 Personal letter of welcome sent after acceptance of appointment 103 7 16 Orientation conferences for entire group of new tea- chers with the chief ad— ministrators arranged periodically during the first year 102 16 17 Administrator visits classes and helps evaluation in- struction 93 17 18 New faculty member expected to report to the college several days before open- ing 77 5 19 Immediate assignment to a faculty committee 61 19 In general, the ranking of "Used" and "Not Used” pro- cedures is very similar. Some exceptions are: (1) Descrip— tive materials supplied before appointment, ranking eighth among the ”Used” procedures, but second among the "Not Used” procedures; (2) Faculty sponsorpprovided for each new faculty member, which ranks fifteenth among the "Used" procedures, but eighth among the "Not Used" procedures; and (3) Personal letter of welcome ranking seventh among the "Used” pro- cedures, but fifteenth among the "Not Used” procedures. In order to judge the helpfulness of both ”Used" and ”Not Used" procedures, a combined average degree of 187 helpfulness rating was obtained by adding the average help— fulness rating of a "Used" procedure to the average helpful— ness rating of a "Not Used" procedure for each procedure. The procedures were then ranked according to this combined average degree of helpfulness rating. The results appear in Table 7.3. Ranking of Administrative Procedures by Combined Average Degree of Helpfulness Rating Compared to Their Use In Table 7.3 the rank of combined degree of helpfulness rating in Column 1, the title of the procedures in Column 2, the combined degree of helpfulness rating in Column 3, the per cent of times the procedure was actually used in Column 4, its rank in Column 5, and the per cent of respondents who indicated that they favored the use of the procedure in Column 6 are presented. The per cent of respondents favor— ing the use of the procedure was obtained by adding the number of ”slight," "moderate," and ”great” responses for both the ”used" and the "not used" procedures and dividing by the total number of respondents who marked that procedure. The question, ”How effective are the administrative practices used by community college administrators in help— ing new faculty members resolve their problems?” can be answered by comparing the per cent of reSpondents favoring the use of these procedures in Column 6 of Table 7.3 with 188 TABLE 7.3 Ranking of Administrative Procedures by Combined Average Degree of Helpfulness Rating Compared to Their Use (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)(6) m 8 c 3 fl '3 U s o 8 o CZ o E U E m a o o an m a otm q o 3 >0) vv-i 'O 94 -H'4 «u m m 5 3'3 cu m Ham 0 ac) m :> CD > a >' 'U +» Hub '° '29 E M ".1 a a? 2% s E m <33 (J (L a mu. 1 Further materials such as schedule, course outlines, texts, and faculty handbook furnished, upon appoint- ment 473 74 8 97 2 Administrators make themselves readily available for individual conferences with new faculty members 405 87 2 96 3 Orientation conference with department head arranged upon appointment 401 62 11 89 4 Lighter teaching load set up for new faculty members 394 23 19 80 5 Descriptive material (catalog, pam— phlets) supplied before appointment 383 78 6 96 6 New teacher introduced to the faculty soon after arrival 375 92 1 95 7 Regular departmental meetings scheduled 345 58 12 82 8 Visit to campus expected before ap- pointment 323 83 4 93 9 Faculty sponsor provided for each new faculty member 310 26 18 73 10 Personal letter of welcome sent after acceptance of appointment 307 78 6 87 11 Regular faculty meetings scheduled 304 84 3 90 12 Staff reception for new faculty arn ranged early in the school year 300 63 10 84 w Y 189 TABLE 7.3 (continued) t i L“ V L 1 —: U) (D on H U) c s a ".4 'O C v m 0 m u U m o c u o o m m a Q) 0) OD U) n m m, n m ~a > o -H o m .0 u-q H +4 a) Q) E 44 H to U) mm 0 (U 0 Ci D CD 0 ML) p o a who > m > m G on .D «4 .D C Q) QJ'r'i G °H 0 ()H x ml” o .x o a 5 a E H G H> m , o o m mm m ma no. an» as unauumacmam mamas no. Hm>ua so. can an usaUAMaamnm mamas so. euamofimMewflm on mamas .n.as Neoa oom.H Hew.a mumuaoo :uonuO: Ho. moo.m ooma .NOH.H ,MMM.H mamasoo Haaaeuma awoaaoo i swam moa.mu moo.H mocmacmawu mmmauou oz .LHO. mNN.o ibmoe omm.a Hoc.H ouammquXo omoaaoo osom Lwnoa mom.a osm.s asaoecammmc page when“ and vacuum so. mmo.m «on mmH.s eas.a , mpamecoammc cams emcee swam Hom.H meo.H ooumoo m.uopuoa no m.uopme2 so. mmm.m- mmmi emH.H «oe.a -mmcmmn mpcoamauam moss mmH.H oao.a maemeqoammc_:eao: Ho. mom.mn -ovo ,hHN.H .MO©.H. maaemfimfimou :Mdno>; , _ - -mmoa 00H.H Hec.H muaomaommou humane: ed- mmmmume- so» mmH.H 0mm.a munudcoqwmn «Assam . one H5H.H omo.H mpaomcommou maesum .mwm, .imfiflfit NeDH >0N.H coo.H ,Mwaowaoamuu on: emna moa.a Hoo.H mummaaou amend .m.a .Mmmmwi mMHH 03H.H\, eN9.H mowwHHou HHmEm Nma ooa.a vac.a muwoaaoo uum>flum s.m.c Hewmo. mos ooa.a oao.a memaaaou uMHcsm mouse :9: mo mumeo mocewue> new: maOuuem Hmaomuom neweawfim usae> mo auneaz . . one Heaowpaumuman 'l I: II III moapm maueaonum now oEwH mo xueq now maauoaommom on» ma muwpnauuuoeueeo Haaonuom one muoauem Hacomuaumuman an amended uuamuwwwamflm mo numuh mo madamum m.oa mum: emo woo. cow. 4 i - ii mpaouaomwwu-ouflmmm$ .m.a ,Mmm. ham Mme. nae. . , muaooaommou oamfimm owe mes. New. 1-4 44 4‘1 i ‘44 wumwemmmmmaimwmamm .m.e ems.u mean one. ieom.i . 11111 .4144.-.mweoecmmmmm,mwmz wmma ems. wow. mummusou emcee Ho. oen.n mane coo. ope. . momoawoo Hamsm wee eoo.s mwo. mmmmuaou mum>aca no. oom.m- Hsmm moo. mmw. mmmoaaou assess mouse rat mo momeo nonmaue> use: muouumm Heaomumm nwwmawfim unam> mo nonssz one Hmcomvaumumaa mouauuummmo Heaom>moam on GOepUSuumaH mamumsm< wow mpaooaoanam on» no muaumwu69omueso Hmaomuom one mucuoem Heaoweaufiumau ow ouueaom ouaeummwcmfim mo mpmoh mo muaamom ¢.oa mam¢9 PM EPISJ. «blew n!..l.ll| I s. . .35: e .ar. oeoH woo. new. momcnoo :uoapo: .m.c imsemm. oooH Hob.H mom» momusou Housscao omosuoo «new moo. .oow. monoucooxo awoaaou oz . .m.n smo.- limos, Hmo.s amm. mumwwamoxm ommflsou meow OOOH woo. woo. mucoocommou umoN mean» one oaouom .m.c eon. oos ooo.a sow. mpcoeqoomoc news «when eoam boo. oow. mocwMo m.uovooo so m.uopme2 .m.a oeH.H- mmm mwo. mew. omommn m_coaoauom sons Hoo. oem. manoeaommoc :eso: .m.: osH.H omo woo. oHo. mnaoecoamoc :mcsoe: 8 smos ooo. new. mucoeconmwc enacts: % so. meoo.o we» oeo.H HHo. mocoecoamon osmmmm Hes mso.u «mo. mucoecomwoc oedema .m.m nsu.e- omoe» Hoo.u mew. mononuoomon one: omma moo. How. momwaaoo vwmeq Hon mmo.eu. omen omo.H coo.H mommasou HHaEm . mos «Ho.a moo. momoaaoo massage Ho. mom.mi egmm owo. vow. momoaaoo uwansm manna :9: mo mommu ouammum> one: mHOuumm Hmaomuom :wmwawfim unam> mo Honesz one Hec0munuwvmaH P ll ll momocomummoo pecuuo>o ow aoapaopu< Hefiuomm unmoved on: menopaum new: wwwamoo now mucooaoamom any mo moaumfiuopumueno Heaomuom one muouomm Homoepnuflumam o» muueaum oochMMMGmww mo mumuH mo madnmum n.0H mum<8 259 33 e: . H mmo. a mmmusou :35? .m.: amass. ohms sos.s wmo.H mmmuoou masseuse «mossoo mmam ses.u coo.H moooacooxo uwuaaoqioz. .m.: use. was msm.a oeo.a ouaoauooxo mmoaaou meow mood msH.H owo. mpaooqoamuu anus ocean mwmimmmmmw. . Ho. ewe.m Hoe com.a meH.H mpsmecoamoc has» emcee emam Hom.H omo.H powwow m.uouuoo Ho m.uumwwfl. Ho. mme.e- sum ooa.H omw. omcmoe m.coaoausm ewes mea.s ouo.a maaoecoammc zone: Ho. mem.m «mo mum.a woo.a manoeaoommc :mcso»: boo ooa.a mmo.H mucoocommou moaned: .m.a Nov. Nmmt VHN.H hoo.a mwaoocoomou mamaflm omb me.H moo. mpaoocommww oaseom a .m.a wbwa wHoH mmH.H hmo.a mwcoocoomou was: same was. mmo.s muwoaaou amuse .m.: emm. OHHH OHM. meo.H mowvmaou Macaw ea omH.H oom. mommaHou onm>eco Ho. Nbb.m Nae moa.a mco.H momoaaou uaansm mouse :9: mo mummo oucewum> one: muouomm Hmaomuom ummficwmw oaae> mo nonsnz one HmaomusumumcH Hmaomuom one mucuumm HMGOMpaumwmaH ow moumaom moneUMMMamfim mo mam: Hemaeuouoom ovenUoo< mamufiamu< pom mpaaoaoamom on» ma.nuwpmwumrbeueeo 0.0H mum<8 momoe.mo.muasmom 260 omoa oao.n ooo. momuaou :cmeuo: .m.c oem.- oeoH oooqu «mo. Hmwwmcaa omoueob Noam who.a 5mm. muaoauuaxv vmaamou oz .m.a Hon. Hon. SHHnHi. Dom. teammauooxo ommHHou.o£lM vwoa ooo.a mmw. mpcooconmou ammo when» one ocooom no. oso.m. eos soo.H emo. monoocoammcI ammo amuse moam woo.H mmm. madman m nouuoo no m aumwoz no. cum. [mom soous one. mmmmwo m momwaumm moss soo.s pow. mucoocoawoc :oso: mo. lass.» emo NHH.H timoo. manomeoamoaxmemmwz econ ooo.H one. mucoocoomoc ounces: {Moth won.4 inns. Hoouu eHw. mpeooeodmoa mamswm. see omo.a sow. mscoocoawoc madame nwm.p oomus oeoH Hoo.H oow. mnemocoommc was: News moo.a How. inauuaaoqiumuaq no. woohm oeHH ooH.H moo. mommwwou Haasm was nHH.H mow. memosaou oua>uco Ho. ooo.s- ommm mso.a «mm. momoasou unease mouse 2»: no momeo ouamwum> one: muouoem Hmaomuom -mmaomum oaam> mo conesz one amaoaoapapmau oeog weanoeuh meaouemom moauaaom ommHHoo madoampmuooao wow muaoocoamom one mo moaumauouomumno Heaomuom mam muouoem HeaoausumumeH o» poumaom ouamUMMfiamfim mo mumuH mo muaamom b.0H mdm>.H own «mo. mom. moamoo m.cosoaumm ewes who. moo. mucomcommmc :oao: new: omm. nno nso. oos. mucoocnemoc :mcoo»: mood ooo. moo. .mncoocoomoc avenues .llhm.: mom. .wmw amo. ems. muaooaoomou oncmm ewe poo. one. mnemocoomoc ossemm .Llhhu: DbN.HI ,MMoH one. one. i - mucomcoomou was: omma omo. oms. wwwoauou emcee wont ,mmm.e smas woo. somw momwwwmoiwemsm owe «no. moo. momoHHou mum>auo mo. mmm.m- ommm eeo. oos. momousou uaunso momma 2»: mo momeo oucefiue> new: mu0uumm Heaomuom lawmcmw oaae> mo noesnz one HeaOMuauMumaH menopaum uofiuomnm mafiwaoaamno new mucoUGOQmum one mo mumpmfluopomumno Heaomuom one muouomm Hmaomunufipmaa ou oopmaem unusuamfiamMm mo mumoH mo muaamom m.oa mqm<fi 262 omom omo. m Sm. momnnou some»? .m.n nmw. moon smo.n HMm. nonnnnnn omonnoo swam Hmo.n «mm. ounonnoQMo.wmmnHoo oz .m.c .moo. coo mmo.H 0mm. moaomHoQXo amoaaoo meow oooa mmo.n ooo. mnnoonoanon can» onmnn onn ononom .m.n moo.e ooh noon one. monoononnon noon nonnn eoHN Nao.a vow. omommn m.uowooo no m.uopmm2 Ho. known mmm soo.n ooo. oonmoo n.noHonunm ween mmo.m mam. menoonoomon :omo: .m.n moo. goo snows ooo. nunoononmon :mnnos: oooa soo.n mam. monoonommon oonnnnz .m.n .omm.H, mos moons mom. monoononnon onmnnm moo omo.H oaw. mucooaommou oHoEom .m.a ooo. moofl mmo.a Hem. mnemocoamou was: omma ooo. woo. mowwaaou umwmq no. ooo.m omen omo.n ooo. momonnoo dunno non moo.n mmo. momonnoo onn>nno mo. onm.m oomm ooo.n mum. momonnou unannn momma 2»: mo momoo oocmflum> new: mquoom Hocomuom -nmmnmmm onnn> do nonnnz onn Honomnnnnnnnm H "I mamfiuoumz Hmcowuuauuwem ooooozimamcmopno mom mpcooaoomom on» mo monummuouuflumnu Hoaomuom one mucuoom HonoMHSumpmcH o» oeuoaom mocmowmocmwm mo mwmofi mo muaamom 0.0H mqmmnn Ho. wm5.m- comm oco. Hos. momomaou ummcsm ounce r»: we momoo ooaofluo> coo: mHOuoom Hoaomuom immacMfim oaao> mo nonalz one HocomuapmumaH xuoz .mpauoapm mcmxuo24momwwoouo now mwaoocoomom on» mo muwumwuopuouono Hmaomuom one muouoom Hmaowunufiumam ow moumaom mucoummwammm we munch mo mpasmom Ho.oa mqm<fi 264 oeoH woo. mow. momasou savouo: .m.c ocfimo. momH moo. mmw. Hoaaouoo omoaaoo weam omo. cow. monomquWM omoaaoo oz Ho. Hmonmu coo Nwo. awe. oocoouooxo omoaaoo meow wmoa ooo. How. muaomaommou Homo mummy one vacuum .m.a .bmm. ooo ooo. ooo. mucoocoomou ammo umumm emam ooo. cow. omommn mnu0uooo no mnuopmoz mow, hma.mu mmm omo. moo. omommn mnuonnomm Hose moo. mew. mnemonommon :oHo: mo. ”moo.m ooo mmo.e moo. noncononmon :mnno>: mmoa ooo. How. mecoocomWou omommn: .m.n tomsqm mop meomel mom. mnnwmeoamon ommnmm who cam. omo. mecoonoomou oHoEom .Ho. eum.o emmm moo. ooo. mucooaoomou can: omma moo. Hmw. moonHoo among Ho. imom.o iemAH .mbb. H5H.H momoaaou HHoEm mam ooo. mcn.n commence onn>mnn Ho. mom.mu hood ooo. wmw. momoaaou owanzm ounce zu: mo momou oocowuo> coo: mucuuom Hocomuom lemmammm oamo> mo nonsaz one HoaomaSHMumcm :OMmm>om one uaoamoHo>oD Enasuouuso am oozoaaom on . ou mowowaom mmoaaoo mcwocopmuooao How muaoocoomom on» mo mowumwuouooumno Hmcomuom mam mu0uomm HmQOMpapwumcH o» oeueaom mucouwmmcwmm mo mamoH mo muaamom No.0H mAm