AN MALYSES 0F FACTORS REECESSAEY
FOR EE‘FECTWE ENNGVATKGN UV"
REGIONM COMMUNITY EfiUCAHON

' BESSEREENA‘FEON CENTERS

TE‘IGSR {30r- Hm Degree cf pit. D.
MECEEGAN STRTE UNEVEESITY
Dougias M. Preemie?

1972

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
AN ANALYSIS OF FACTORS NECESSARY
FOR EFFECTIVE INNOVATION IN
REGIONAL COMMUNITY EDUCATION
DISSEMINATION CENTERS
presented by

Douglas M. Procunler

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for
Philosophy

Doctors degree in

 

 

 

Date $2/721

0-7639

 

" “u...
“~,-_.

 

 

‘

 

A. . Known

 

 

 

. :35, 1‘. 6x4"; k. rtvlltv...fl.tx R21? ‘93. «1 Lo._t\n

»

 

 

 

. 0'
«16 ’~ msmy
‘7‘“. -
3-1. I‘ I" ~
‘ ..‘V. .. .~
.f t, "IIJ . ” I
.I . ,
V
'r

 

   
  
   
   

92939;
’7 .A; r . ‘C: '3‘. H P. ‘ h‘ _ '| ‘ A (. I’!|llt:’." “M, r.“
“6' r the l‘. , - up'nr'nr' w ~..v m -‘ 1""‘1‘3‘3‘, into a Coll".
:‘T “Educmtov' u ., Institu'l‘. " Z" -' “ «3‘ ”(a m "' to

f ‘I _. I
3le.. Include a mo_: , Lu .P‘r Never um-e w 48!‘-‘""‘~ ' amt-unity 26mm“
.1" 'fionters.

A, 17““; r

‘ . The nod} ”35 by“. :teautpa:.¢ «u: t.-.’.'~’HOIL 11“.“

7710' ' -

~ ’4 "a o: elevor‘ Riemann: Contact pa tun «Men 13': hem I": E
x '- 1
V“... Impor ant in that; durum . Ta». team won aunt «“7 '
. -' L -‘N'
,3 -

351* ,7 remit or 2 .e respomh

.Oumg mu m.

mutt: ; (a : Iv~rctd~chctc0 1m

"""nn‘

E em? . x. cwrwmmhm ‘
a 2. Maximum-mm

3. We”!

" "1-, 7..- \ ,. Q. mwmu-namu

if 9 ‘_..‘ \‘15 ‘ -

 

 

ABSTRACT

AN ANALYSIS OF FACTORS NECESSARY
FOR EFFECTIVE INNOVATION IN
REGIONAL COMMUNITY EDUCATION
DISSEMINATION CENTERS
BY

Douglas M . Procunier

Overview

The general purpose of this study was to identify and rank
order the factors important when innovation is introduced into a College
of Education in an institution of higher education. The plan was to
include a model for the development of Regional Community Education
Centers.

The study was both descriptive and statistical. It describes
progress of eleven Regional Centers and rank orders the factors per-
ceived important in their development. The factors were rank ordered
as a result of the respondents reacting to a forced—choice instrument
developed during this study.

Leadership . College level (administration)

1
2. Departmental level (administration)
3. Professorial

4. Special project director and staff

 

 

Philosophical
Commitment

Need for
Change

Money

Policies
Institutional
Capabilities

Administrative
Structure

Tradition

Procedures

Research
Ancillary

Services

Physical
Facilities

Specific Conclusions

Analysis of the

following conclusions:

Douglas M. PrOCLInier

Special project director and staff
Department (administration and instruction)
Institutional (administration and instruction)

Department (administration and instruction)
Field (practitioners in the profession)
College (administration)

Students (graduate and undergraduate)

Operational (for special project)
Equipment (for special project)
Buildings (for special project)

College (supportive)
Department (supportive)

College (degrees)
Department (classes)

College (supportive)
Department (supportive)

Instruction (students)
Service (to the field)
Research (from the field)

College (supportive)

Department (supportive)
Research (from the field)

Department (supportive activities)
College (enabling capabilities)
Other departments (supporting attitude)

Institutional (room for expansion)

data collected for this study provides the

 

1.

Douglas M. Procunier

Institutions of higher education should consider establishing
a Center for Community Education only when proper leader-
ship is available. The leadership of the college, depart-
ment and professorial ranks must be supportive of the
special project if it is to be successful. Lack of support
from any of the categories of leadership from within will
retard the progress of a special project and may result

in failure.

Colleges and universities that establish a Center for
Community School Development should have developed a
philosophical commitment supportive of the functions of
the Center. The commitment should be institutional;
however, it should be extremely strong in the individual
responsible for the special project, the Center Director.
The vice presidents and graduate students in this study
felt that the institutional commitment was most important
in predicting success. All other respondents identify

the Center Directors as the most important place to have

a strong philosophical commitment.

Colleges and universities that establish Centers for
Community Education Development should have in evidence
a need for such a Center. The data in this study suggests

that the need for a Center should be identified at the

Douglas M. Procunier

department level because of their close relationship

with the "field". The college should recognize this

need in order to provide support. The data indicates that
the least important source in identifying need is the
students. It is difficult to agree with this finding because
the literature places much more importance upon the role
of students in determining innovations in higher education.
This study involved graduate students who typically are
representative of the field; therefore, it may have been
appropriate to consider their response as a resource from
the field. If this assumption is valid, the study agrees
with the majority of the literature.

Money is important in the process of establishing a
Center for Community Education. A study of budgets of
the eleven Centers reveals that most of the expenditures
are in salaries (leadership), and the related expenses of
making leadership available to public schools. It is
important to note that the second most important factor
"philosophical commitment" doesn't cost anything, but
philosophical commitment probably could not be purchased
at any price.

Operating policies are necessary in order for a Center

for Community Education to function within the structure

Douglas M . Procunier

of a college or university. As previously mentioned, all
factors can be both positive and negative. Operating
policies have a tendency to be more negative when new
practices are introduced. It is imperative that a method
of adjusting operating policies accompany the plan for
introducing a Center for Community Education into an
institution of higher education.

Institutions of higher education that establish Centers
for Community Education dissemination should have the
capabilities of providing the services of such a Center.
These basic capabilities include: 1) accreditation,

2) undergraduate programs in education, 3) graduate
programs in education, 4) rapport with communities to
be served, 5) flexibility to meet current needs; 6) financial
resources.

The administrative structure of a college or university
should allow communication to flow to and from a Center
for Community Education Development.

The tradition of an institution sponsoring a Center for
Community Education should identify a strong instructional
and service history. Traditional research produced by

universities has little effect upon the success or failure

of introducing innovation in higher education. The respondents

 

?—————_—Hi

Douglas M . Procunier

in this study agree with this conclusion statistically;
however, informal conversations with them and their
colleagues reveals a much stronger desire to rely upon
research as a determining factor of change.

Physical facilities is not an important factor in the success
or failure of a Center for Community School Development.
The physical location of a Center within its designated
college is more important than the quality or volume of
space. Adequate office space strategically located within
the College of Education, will enable the regular staff to

be supportive of the functions. The clustering of the depart-
ment chairman, other professors, and Center personnel
allows a team approach to solving the problems of community

education.

Recommendations

study.

The results and implications of the study suggest areas of

It is recommended that further study he designed:

1.

To assess institutional commitment. The greatest
hazard in the process of establishing a new Center
for Community Education Development is not knowing
the institutional commitment.

To determine the time span necessary for the adoption

 

Douglas M. Procunier

of an innovation by an institution of higher education.

It is unknown how long outside financial support is needed
in order to insure an institution's successful adoption

of an innovative function. Although the time span will
vary from one institution to another, some guidelines

are needed both by colleges and existing and possible
outside funding agencies.

To determine leadership qualities necessary for the
success of a Center Director.

To determine the status a Center Director must have within
the institution in order to insure success.

To develop longitudinal measurements and guidelines

to assess the Center's consequences, both in the field
and in the university.

To determine changes in administrative and professorial
awareness and attitudes over the periods of community
education's initiation, implementation and adoption.

To determine the Center's effect upon other institutions

of higher education within the region it serves.

To determine the Center's effect upon the State Department
of Education in the region it serves.

To determine the feasibility of establishing a Center for

Community Education in private institutions.

Mi

Douglas M . Procunier

10. To compare educational programs of institutions with
Centers for Community EducatiOn Development with
institutions without Centers.

11. To determine where Centers should be located within
the institution administratively.

12. To determine role perceptions of the Center staff.

13. To assess the probability of the institutions' accepting
fully the financial responsibility of the Center after
outside funding ceases.

14. To determine the geographic limitations that a Center
can effectively serve.

15. To determine the population limitations that a Center
can effectively serve.

16. To determine the feasibility of community education
becoming the center of attention (the primary thrust) of
a School of Education in an institution of higher education.

17. To determine the feasibility of staff members other than
Center Directors spending more time providing services
to public schools as part of their regular duties.

18. To replicate the study witha larger sample.

19. To replicate the study with a population selected from

public school systems .

AN ANALYSIS OF FACTORS NECESSARY
FOR EFFECTIVE INNOVATION IN
REGIONAL COMMUNITY EDUCATION
DISSEMINATION CENTERS
BY

a
DOUGLAS M?‘ PROCUNIER

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
. in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
1972

949%
'l
(7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The guidance, assistance, and encouragement I received from
scores of individuals deserves much more expression of appreciation
than can be extended by the written word.
The preparation of this thesis has been a most meaningful
and enjoyable academic experience. This unusual admission is
possible primarily because of the quality of guidance I have received
from my major advisor, Dr. Howard Hickey. Dr. Hickey and the other
committee members have displayed humanistic guidance and encourage-
ment throughout the total process.
I I would like to thank the many respondents for their sincere
reactions, which made this study possible. A special thanks is extended
! to the Center Directors, who provided much assistance throughout the
study.
Grateful recognition is granted to the administration of the
' C. S. Mott Foundation for providing time and encouragement to com-
E plete the task.
4' The academic atmosphere at Michigan State University has been

most rewarding. Official and unofficial contacts within the University
have provided much assistance from outstanding professionals such as

ii

Dr. David Dean, Dr. Larry Lezotte, and Dr. Richard Brandt. The ever—
present encouragement from Dr. Clyde Campbell provided the additional
"kick" to keep going.

I wish to thank Karen Richards for her extra efforts and assistance
in completing this study.

Finally, to my wife, Priscilla, for her encouragement, patience,

and understanding, I extend my deepest gratitude.

iii

TABLE 0 P CONTENTS

Page

LISTOFTABLESIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Vi.

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1
Statement of the Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Need for the Study. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5
Significance of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
DefinitionofTerms................. 6
Limitations of the Study I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9
TheStudyDesign..................10
Organization of Subsequent Chapters. . . . . . 11

II. SELECTED REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. . . . . . . III
OvervieWIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII13
Change and Innovation............... 14
Factors.IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII15
Structure.IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 19
Strategies I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 21
Inhibitors I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 23
Self-Renewal I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 25
Summary.IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 29

III. PLANNING AND CONDUCTING THE STUDY . . . . 30

Background for Planning . 30
Planning........................38
Conducting the Study. . . . 40
Summary........................45

 

CHAPTER Page
IV. PROCEDURES FOR ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Presentation and Analysis of the Data . . . . . 47
SummarYIIIIIII'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII61

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 63

l
E ReviewoftheProblem............... 63
. Introduction......................63
ModelCenter.....................65
RankOrderedFactors................ 66
GeneralConclusions................ 67
Specific Conclusions................ 68
E Recommendations..................71

SELECTEDBIBLIOGRAPHYIIIIUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 75

APPENDIX

A. PERFORMANCE INDICES QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . 81
B. SELECTEDEXPERTS...................83
C. FACTOR RANKING QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . . 84
D. FACTOR IDENTIFICATION CORRESPONDENCE. . . 87

 

 

-______-\_<_ ._.—_——.——.

 

TABLE

LIST OF TABLES

Rank Ordering of the Twelve Major Factors
That Affect Change in Schools of Education
In Institutions of HigherEducation Based
UponMeanScores................

Rank Ordered Mean Scores for the Four Sub-
Factors of "Leadership" . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rank Ordered Mean Scores for the Three Sub-
Factors of "Philosophical Commitment" . .

Categorical Breakdown of Responses to the
Dependent Variable of "Institutional
Philosophical Commitment" . . . . . . . . . .

Rank Ordered Mean Scores for the Four Sub-
Factors of " Need for Change" . . . . . . . .

Categorical Breakdown of Responses to the
Dependent Variable "Field" Identification
Of the "Need for Change" . . . . . . . . . . .

Categorical Breakdown of Respondents to the
Dependent Variable "The College" . . . . .

Rank Ordered Mean Scores for the Three Sub-
Factorsof"Money"...............

Rank Ordered Mean Scores for the Two Sub-
Factors of "Policies" . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rank Ordered Mean Scores for the Two Sub-
Factors Of "130110188" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

vi

Page

48

49

50

50

52

53

54

55

55

56

 

TABLE

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

Rank Ordered Mean Scores for the Two Sub—
Factors of "Administrative Structure". . . .

Rank Ordered Mean Scores for the Three Sub-

Factors of "Tradition" . . . . . .

Rank Ordered Mean Scores for the Two Sub—

Factors of "Procedures" . . . . .

Categorical Breakdown of Responses to the

Dependent Variable of "College
Procedures".............

.000...

Categorical Breakdown of Responses to the
Dependent Variable of " Departmental

Procedures"....................

Rank Ordered Mean Scores for the Three Sub-

Factors of "Ancillary Services"

vii

Page

57

57

58

59

60

61

 

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Increasingly, colleges and universities are encouraged to re—
assess their values and goals with a view toward selection of new
priorities. In affluent times, it presents no problem for institutions
to arbitrarily entertain alternatives in value/goal determination.

Current financial stress dictates, however, that colleges and

yuniversities can no longer add new functions to existing ones with-

out specific evaluation of possible effects upon the institutional
mission as well as upon its economic resources. The obvious question
therefore arises: Upon what basis should an institution make value/
goal decisions which will inevitably alter existing procedures and
practices ?

Kindred to this most important question is another of almost
equally vital substance: What factors enable colleges and universities
to accomplish prescribed changes within their institutional framework
in order to achieve rearranged priorities ?

These two questions are functionally related. The concept
of "pilot" project has become accepted at most levels of education.

1

A

 

Its acceptability derives from the opportunity it affords to venture some-
thing new without irrevocable philosophical or financial commitment.
The "pilot" process frequently becomes possible through external
financial assistance, a contingent assumption being that it will be
discarded if found to be impractical or a complete failure. Likewise,

it generally is assumed that the "pilot" idea or function will become
permanent if proved successful. The latter determination very often
significantly alters existing practices, and therefore partially answers
the first question.

What the "pilot" process does ngt do is identify an orderly
and efficient procedure for acceptance of a new concept determined
to be desirable. Thus, in order to assess the probability of success,
it is imperative to identify the various factors which‘will permit facile
acceptance and then adoption of the new concept.

It seems imperative, in these times of financial stringency,
that a precise effort be made to identify these factors.

Governmental agencies, foundations, and individual gifts more
and more are becoming the source of external financing for colleges and
universities, and this introduces a new dimension into higher education.
Willing as these agencies may be to give financial support to "pilot"
processes or new ventures, they are vitally interested in assurance
that new concepts, once proved, will be continued after withdrawal of

initial grantor funds .

_r____________‘i_

The Training and Dissemination Division of the C. S. Mott
Foundation is one organization that is presently contributing to several
institutions in promulgation of the community education concept. The
prime functions of Training Centers funded for this purpose include
service to public school systems and training opportunities for com—
munity educators at all levels. It has been the Foundation's experience
. that the service component is a major change for some of the institutions
and only supplemental to others. The training opportunities available
at the Centers vary widely. The variance of training effectiveness
that exists in past and present grantees is of prime interest and will
be a major consideration in this study.

In the beginning, the Mott Foundation funded colleges and
universities for developing the community education concept. These
early grants were often made on the basis of faith in an institution to
do the best it could. Obviously, this period was a valuable learning
experience both for the grantees and the Foundation. Understandably,
a few of the early grants were considered to have resulted in failure.

Most of the original College and University Centers are operating
and considered very successful. Without exception, these institutions
have changed as a result of the granting relationship. It is with the
changes within the institutions that this study will concern itself. It
is conceded that many of these changes resulted from chance and much

trial and error, but it is hoped that this study will assist grantees and

i K

 

”fl-_i_._. . _

v-a_ .7._.._

 

grantors alike in the process of initiating change and innovation.

Statement of Problem

Several discernible factors involved in the change process are
necessary to enable Schools of Education to adopt innovative practices.
The rank order of these apparent and concerted factors are not available.

The fact that optimum conditions for implementing innovation are
not readily identifiable suggests that planned change and innovation
are a matter of chance rather than a planned process. The tremendous
human energy and financial resources aimed at planned innovation in
higher education lacks an established criterion for measurement of
potential success.

This study will investigate factors necessary for Community .
Education Centers to accomplish prescribed change within their
university. Specifically then, the study will:

1. Describe specific goals and objectives related to the
operation of College and University Community Education
Dissemination Centers.

2. Analyze progress the Centers have made toward achieving
their stated goals.

3. Identify the factors contributing to the achievement of the
goals and objectives.

4. Identify the factors contributing to the failure to achieve

 

,_...,

_.._.-—-"——— .——-—-——

goals and objectives.
5. Develop a theoretical model for a College or University

Center for the Dissemination of Community Education.

Need for the Study;

Presently, the C. S. Mott Foundation is assisting eleven
such Centers in the United States. It is anticipated that an additional
five will receive assistance in the near future. Other foundations
and individual philanthropists are interested in possible funding
of Regional Centers. In order to properly assess the probability of
success, it is imperative to identify the factors that will allow

acceptance and adoption of the community education concept.

Significance of the Study

There can be no doubt about the importance of categorizing
conditions that have an effect upon adoption of planned change and
innovation in higher education. Vast human and financial resources
are being channeled into higher education in an effort to initiate new
practices. New practices must contribute toward the efficient
utilization of all identifiable resources to insure higher education
effectiveness. The study can make a significant contribution to the
process of identifying conditions that allow the acceptance and adoption
of innovation in higher education regardless of its nature or source of

origin. This study should establish broad guidelines that will apply

to a variety of funded projects that call for initiation of planned change
in higher education.

More specifically, the study can make a significant contribution
to the efficient operation of a Center for the Dissemination and Training
for Community Education. It should also establish basic criteria to guide
the C. S. Mott Foundation and others in their future investments in

higher education.

Definition of Terms

Adopt —- To take and apply or put into practice as one's own (what
is not so naturally).1
Center Director -- A professional staff member of a College or University
Center that has the responsibility to carry out its mission.2
Change Agent -- A person skillful in bringing about desired change in
an organization.
Change Process -- A series of actions or operations conducive to an
end.3

Community Education -- Community education is a process that involves

people in the marshalling of human and physical resources to

 

1Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam Co.,
Publishers, Springfield, Mass., 1960, p. 12.

2College and University Community Education Center Manual,
G. S. Mott Foundation, 1968.

3Dictionary of Education, Carter V. Good, Editor, University
of Cincinnati, McGraw-Hill Book Co. , Inc. . New York, N.Y. , 1959, p. 84.

create an environment conducive to improvement in the quality
of life of all citizens. The public school is the most logical
institution through which society may work to achieve this
ambitious goal.

Traditionally, the public school is the common denominator
in our society; it is the institution most nearly representative
of all classes, creeds, and colors. The physical plants of the
schools represent a huge community investment and are well
suited for community use. The use of these facilities eliminates
the need for costly duplication of facilities. Their geographic
location makes them readily accessible to every man, woman
and child as centers for recreation, education and democratic
action.

Imperative to the successful operation of a community school
is leadership in the form of a community school director and a
community council, truly representative of the neighborhood.
Such leadership, utilizing the physical facilities of the public
schools and the financial support of the citizenry, provides a
practical means of meeting the needs of people. In the process
of planning for community education, it is necessary to take into
account a need for leadership training, both for professionals and
para-professionals. In order to insure maximum utilization of

professional and para-professional personnel, an initial and

'_-

continuing inservice training plan must be adopted. A conscious
effort to affect both the regular curriculum and community education
curriculum is paramount in reaching scholastic achievement both
for school-age children and out-of—-school adults. Special pro-
grams must be established in order to satisfy the desires as well
as the needs of a community. Such programs can be in the fields
of reading achievement, health education, special education for
the handicapped, and activities whose purpose is to reduce
delinquency and crime. These are only segments of what is
possible under the tent of community education.4
Diffusion -- To spread.5
Factor -- Something that actively contributes to the production of a
result. 6
Hard Money -- Financial support that is received from normal sources
that can be considered a continuous source.
Innovation -- Act of introducing something new or novel as in customs,

rites, etc.; also, a change effected by innovating; a novelty

 

4National Community School Education Association News,
September, 1970, p. 3.

5Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam Co. ,
Publishers, Springfield, Mass., 1960, p. 231.

6Dictiona_ry of Education, Carter V. Good, Editor, University of
Cincinnati, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. , New York, New York,
1959, p. 221.

 

.. ‘si

added or substituted.7
Invention -- The power of inventing, or conceiving, devision, originating,
etc.; inventive skill or ingenuity.8
Soft Money -— Financial support received by an organization from an
outside source (usually temporary)
University-College Center —- A college or university that has identified
the community education concept as one of its major functions.
One that has committed itself to provide consultant service for
public school systems for the purpose of developing community

schools . 9

Limitations of the Study

This study constituted an attempt to rank order factors that
allow desirable change to take place in a School of Education. The
basic instrument will be developed with the use of "experts" from the
field. The use of experts are identified as a limitation because there
is reasonable doubt that anyone is an expert in affecting change in

institutions of higher education.

 

7Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. G. & C. Merriam Co. .
Publishers, Springfield, Mass., 1960, p. 433.

 

81bid. , p. 443.

9College and University Community Education Center Manual,
G. S. Mott Foundation, 1968.

 

 

10

The study will be conducted in eleven universities and colleges
presently funded partially by the C. S. Mott Foundation. The author's
relationship to the C. S. Mott Foundation may or may not have had a
bearing upon the results.

The study assumes that factors perceived to be important at
the eleven colleges and universities will be important in additional
American college and university settings. The extent to which the
findings of this study can be generalized to apply to other colleges
and universities is unknown. Similarly, the extent to which public
schools are affected by the finding in this study is unknown. Lack
of evidence to substantiate these basic assumptions is a limitation

of this study.

The Study Design

I. The writer proposes to:

A. Analyze and describe the present goals and objectives
that are common to all existing College and University
Centers.

B. Describe the perceived conditions that led to the present
goals and objectives of the existing Centers.

C. Interview all existing Center college presidents, vice
presidents, deans, department heads, center directors,
and a sample of professors of education to learn what they
perceive to be important change factors at their institutions.

D. Interview random samples of graduate students in Education
Administration at each of the College and University Centers
to learn what they perceive to be factors that affect their
training process at the college or university.

II.

III.

11

The writer will compare the opinions of the individuals inter-
viewed and rank order the factors perceived to be important
in the change process in departments of education at colleges
and universities.

The final step will be to construct an operational test model
demonstrating the best conditions as perceived by the individuals
in the study. The operational test model will state what factors
should be present in an optimum Center for the Training and Dis-
semination of Community Education. The model will serve as an
example applicable to other planned change in higher education.

Organization of Subseguent Chapters

Chapter

II

III

Selected Review of Literature and Research

A.

B.

C.

Change process
Invention and innovation

Impact of soft money on higher education (interviews,
reports, etc.)

Gathering of Data

A.

B

C.

D.

E.

Describe Center goals and objectives
Analyze progress of Centers

Develop an instrument for identifying factors contributing
to the failure and success to achieve goals and objectives

Identify factors

Summary

Analyze Data

A.

B.

C.

Rank order positive factors

Rank order negative factors

Summary

12 p,

ggne‘

.)
11.

 

‘1
l
1’
a;
r
. . 'i
, t w it
.I'!
‘1
.i
r . r .. us. .3 « e-
.‘E . .' ‘ u, \
athezem 1' , a . . 1r .
*7... . .- . ..
i C... . . . x,
r i‘” ‘ - ‘- --;i- u. “we“. "strum
105;, '..v 3.: ~
'.

. page; 3. Lawn; , 3 . |,lp,.‘- K: 1‘”); "VIII, 118’;
Aft} Review. Janeen“: (‘31. nary, W69..- rp. 1'; viii.

 

$ ,
. ' ‘1‘ . .
‘ -. “3 I55
r_ .5 -_‘

‘7 '5. .3 '

 

 

 

CHAPTER II

SELECTED REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Overview

Available general literature relative to innovation in the change
process is comprehensive whereas literature dealing with innovation
and change in institutions of higher education is very limited. Because
of this limitation, the assumption is made that higher education is a
part of the total American educational system, not necessarily removed
from the social or political conditions which affect all education.
Therefore, some generalizations can be drawn between the literature
on higher education and that on public schools.

Eric Hoffer1 reminds us that no one really likes change. He
describes his uneasiness when pea crop picking in the Imperial Valley
of California concluded and he was forced to move to picking string
beans. The seemingly insignificant change from peas to string beans

2

contained for him, the elements of fear. Paul Lawrence suggests that

the real problem in introducing change to a system is not the technical

 

1Eric Hoffer, Ordeal of Change, Harper-Rowe, New York,
New York, 1963, pp. 70-75.

2Paul R. Lawrence, " How to Deal with Resistance to Change, "

Harvard Review, January-February, 1969, pp. 4-10.

13

A-.-..__—_--_

14

change itself, but the human changes that often accompany technical
innovations. He suggests that one of the most frustrating problems
business executives face is employee resistance to change. This
resistance often is expressed in several different forms, but always
is troublesome. His thesis is that people do not actually resist
technical change, as such, and in fact, most of the resistance which
does occur is unnecessary. He further suggests that the best method
of overcoming resistance to change can be accomplished when people
are involved in making change so that their participation becomes

a device as well as a conflict management technique. Lawrence
points out that the key to the problem is understanding the true nature
of resistance. Actually, what employees resist is not technical
change, but social change —— that change in their human relation-
ships which generally accompanies technical change. Resistance

is usually created by certain blind spots in attitudes on the part of
staff specialists, resulting from their preoccupation with the technical

aspects of new ideas, at the expense of employee and human considerations.

Change and Innovation

Areas of change and innovation diffusion are of prime interest
in dealing with the concept of developing a system of institutional

self-renewal. The concept of renewal implies change, and the process

of renewal makes maximum use of change in innovation diffusion methods.

Several strategies have been developed to introduce specific changes

 

 

 

into educational systems.

Havelock3 has identified three basic approaches. His first
approach deals with social interaction where change comes about
through personal contact. The second and third deal with research
and development which suggest that change comes about through
"unfreezing, moving, freezing" -— which he calls the problem-solver
approach. He has put all of these techniques or approaches together
and suggests that they are collectively a process of innovation. This
process of innovation includes six basic steps which can be identified
as relationship, diagnosis, acquisition, choosing, acceptance, and
self—renewal.

The process of organization renewal is seen as much more
than a concentrated effort to introduce a specific change in the sub-
system. Organizational and self-renewal is a comprehensive approach

that makes maximum use of techniques of planned change in innovation.

Factors

Several authors have concerned themselves with the positive
factors and conditions that allow innovation and change to take part

within an institution. Ronald Lippett4 identifies seven basic conditions

 

3Ronald G. Havelock, "Planning for Innovation Through Dis-
semination and Utilization of Knowledge, " A Final Report to the U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education,
Bureau of Research, Iuly, 1969.

4Ronald Lippett, Ieanne Watson, Bruce Westley, The namics
of Planned Change, New York, Harcourt Brace and World, Inc. , 1958.

16

that must exist before the introduction of a change model can be effective.

I. The development of a need for change.

2. The establishment of a change relationship.

3. The clarification of the systems problem.

4. The examination of alternatives; therefore, the establish-

ment of goals and the intentions for immediate action.

5. The transformation of these intentions into actual change

efforts.

6. The stabilization of change.

7. The achievement of a terminal relationship.

The publication, "Innovation in Education, New Directions for
the American School, " published by the New York Committee for Economic
Development in July, 1968, suggests four imperatives relative to intro-
ducing change and innovation into public education. They first emphasize
that the organization must be established so that it will accept change.
This implies agreement with Havelock when he suggests that innovation
is possible when an organization is structured for self-renewal. This
committee suggests that appropriate application of cost/benefit analysis
accompany any planned change. They also suggest that change should
be stimulated on the basis of research that gives the true identification
of the need for change. They go further to suggest that there should be
the establishment of a national commission on research, innovation,

and evaluation which would serve all of American education.

 

 

17

Farnsworth5 suggests that educational change will follow the

following sequence:

1. Reorganize and articulate need.

2. Propose a solution.

3. Create interest in the suggested solution.

4. Demonstrate usefulness.

5. Invite group and public interest.

6. Obtain official approval.

7. Remove possible legal restrictions.

Most of the research findings found in the literature identify
similar factors which are associated with the acceptance and adoption
of innovations in educational systems. Perhaps the most agreement in
the literature is identified with the people involved in the change process.
Leadership seems to come to the surface as the most important single
factor. The process used by a leader can vary, but there is a consensus
that educational innovations are almost never installed just on their
merits. The innovative person or group of persons often outweighs
the impact of the innovation.

It is appropriate at this time to differentiate between the term

administrator and leader. For the most part, the literature identifies

 

5Philito T. Farnsworth, Adaptation Processes in Public School
Systems, New York: Columbia University Press, 1940.

#

 

rcv- .

18

an administrator as a person who is primarily interested in maintaining
a system in its most efficient manner. A leader, in contrast to an
administrator, is a person not found in all organizations. Basically,
a leader is a person who is constantly seeking new and better directions
and process for an organization.

Daniel Griffiths6 draws three conclusions about administration.
He feels administration is a kind of behavior which can be found in all
organizations. This administration can be good and it can be bad. He
feels that administration is a process of directing and controlling. This
process can be pursued without the quality of leadership. He points out
that the specific function of administration is the development and regu-
lation of the decision-making process in the most efficient manner
possible. The term regulation in this definition seems to imply that
the process of administration could somewhat impede the progress of
introducing innovations. Chester Bernard7 agrees with this point of
view. He cites the function of an executive is to maintain the operation
of an organization, not the work of the organization per se. He feels
that the effectiveness of cooperative systems depends almost entirely

upon the invention or adoption of innovations with regard to specialization.

 

6Daniel Griffiths, Administrative Theopy, New York, Appleton,
Century, Crofts, Inc., 1959.

7Chester 1. Bernard, The Functions of the Executive, Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1962.

19

Louis McGuire justifies this condition somewhat when he states,

"The observation is that the practicing school administrator
can find very little practical help in the literature for planning
and managing and dealing with tfle problems of change. The
literature for the most part portrays change of the novel event
interposed between periods of organizational stability. The
practicing school administrator, on the other hand, does not
have the luxury of viewing change as a novel event. He is
daily involved in crisis decision making which entails making
the best of a set of less than satisfactory decisions. He must
solve the immediate non-postponable problems if he is to survive."

Structure

George Small, 9 Raymond Muessing,10 Daniel Katz and Robert
Kahn,11 and Kurt Lewin12 describe the traditional role of the school
as being a stabilizer in our society and a preserver of the American
value system. They imply that the administrative structures of American
education remain geared to maintaining the system, therefore resisting

change and avoiding conflict. They imply that the American public

 

8Louis M. McGuire, Observations and Analysis of Literature
on Change, Research for Better Schools, Inc. , 1700' Market Street,
Suite 1700, Philadelphia, Penn.

9George D. Small, "What We Learned From Current Programs
and Research About Dis-Advantaged Pre-School and Elementary School
Children," (Tulsa, Oklahoma: University of Tulsa [n.d.]).

10Raymond H. Muessing, "Change -- the Only Constant, "
Educational Leadership, XXVI (March, 1969).

11Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn, WW
Wm... York: Iohn Wiley and Sons, Inc. . 1966).

12Kurt Lewin, "Quasi-Stationary Social Equilibria and the
Problem of Permanent Change. " The Planning of Changel First Edition,
Warren G. Bennie, Kenneth D. Benne, and Robert Chin, editors (New
York: Holt. Rinehart and Winston, Inc. , 1961).

A

20

schools have a tendency to infuse innovation by simply identifying
programs that follow traditional patterns and practices and therefore
" do more of the same. "

Truman M. Pierce13 implies that innovation can only be achieved
as a result of strong community participation. He feels it has been
demonstrated that a close relationship between the adaptability atmosphere
is necessary for the acceptance of change. One problem identified by
Thorington B. Robertson14 in relation to community involvement is that
sometimes people have clear wants with respect to change and unclear
wants in regard to objectives. A tendency to criticize the present
educational system without viable alternatives is a hazard that school
administrators must face if they are to solicit strong community participation.

A lack of common understanding relative to the meaning of the
term "planned change" has caused confusion and disagreement among
authors addressing themselves to the process. Muessing15 defines
planned change at least three different ways. He places a value

judgement on each definition, which creates confusion in interpreting

 

13Truman M. Pierce, " Educational Change and the Role
of Media, " Media and Educational Innovation, W.C. Meierhenry,
ed., Lincoln, Neb.: University of Nebraska, 1964.

14'Thorington B. Robinson, " The Public's Share in Shaping
Educational Policy: A Pilot Study. " A Pilot Center for Educational
Policy Research, Part 11, Marvin Adelson, et. al. (Santa Monica,
Cal.: System Development Corporation, February, 1968).

15Raymond H. Muessing, "Change -- the Only Constant,"
Educational Leadership, XXVI (March, 1969).

 

_. -o...

21

his writings. He feels that educators don't understand what planned
change means and therefore view the "pilot pattern of innovation" as
an accepted means of introducing change in education. Egon Guba16
argues that revolutionary changes are adequate to produce the education
improvements that are needed. Bhola and Blanke17 point out that the
most dangerous possibility of introducing innovation in schools might

be that administrators will invent needs in order to be considered

18 resists planned change for public education on

innovative. Herzog
the basis that it is primarily professionally oriented and often manipulated
in a manner that fails to recognize that most people are attached to

their current practices and therefore value an innovation if it reflects

their beliefs, not because they are resistant to the idea of change.

Strategies

In the survey of literature relative to change, it is necessary

to give special attention to that literature which deals with strategies

 

16Egon G. Guba, "A Model of Change for Instructional Develop-
ment" (paper prepared for the Educational Media Conference, Indiana
University, June, 1968).

17Harbans S. Bhola and Virgil E. Blanke (eds.), A Report of
Conference on Strategies for Educational Change (Columbus. Ohio:
Research Foundation, Ohio State University, September, 1966).

18John D. Herzog, " Viewing the Issues from the Perspective
of an R & D Center" (paper read at the American Educational Research
Association Symposium on Educational Improvement and the Role of
Educational Research, New York, February, 1967).

 

.-——_._PTA-

22

related to the change process. Rogers19 points out that a strategy
involving change must include consideration of knowledge, attitude
change and behavioral change. This comprehensive set of principles
and strategy for affecting organizational change was developed by the
National Training Laboratories, Reading Book, Twentieth Annual Summer
Laboratories in Human Relations Training, 1966. Their six basic
principles are:
1. To change a sub—system or any part of a sub—system,
relevant aspects of the environment must also be changed.
2. To change behavior on any level of a hierarchal organiza—
tion, it is necessary to achieve complimentary and rein-
forcing changes in organization levels above and below
that level.
3. The point to begin change is at those points in the system,
where some stress and strain exist.
4. If thorough going changes in a hierarchal structure are
desirable or necessary, change should ordinarily start

at the policy-making body.

5. Both the formal and informal organization of the institution

 

19Everett M. Rogers, "Innovations: Research Design and
Field Studies, " Novel Strategies and Tactics for Field Studies of New
Educational Media Demonstrations, Sidney C. Eboch, editor (Columbus,
Ohio: Research Foundation, Ohio State University, 1965).

23

must be considered in planning any process of change.
6. The effectiveness of planned change is often directly

related to the degree which members at all levels of an

institution of hierarchy take part in the fact finding and

diagnosis of needed changes and in the formulating and

reality testing of goals and programs of change.

Inhibitors

Culbertson20 identifies some inhibitors to the change process
and suggests possible solutions to eliminate the barriers. He first
suggests possible solutions to eliminate the barriers. He first
suggests that there is a lack of personnel who are skilled in carrying

out planned change. He recommends the creation of a national educa~
tion academy to attract promising and imaginative persons into educa-
tion and then prepare them in such a way that they can make a contribu-
, tion to planned change. Secondly, he suggests that there is very
limited knowledge relative to the change process in education. His

suggested solution for this situation is the creation of an institute

for the study of educational innovation that might develop a new con—-
cept that would advance the research in the framework of planned change.

The third inhibitor of change that Culbertson identifies is the con-
flict that usually: exists with local, state, and national govern-

ments that would facilitate policy alternatives. He also

 

20Jack A. Culbertson, "Organizational Strategies for Planned
Change in Education, " (paper prepared for the Conference on Strategies
for Educational Change, Washington, D.C., November, 1965).

24

identifies the general negative attitudes held toward centralized units
devoting time to planning functions as being an inhibitor to the change
process. He suggests that research be made available to local school
districts relative to providing for a meaningful planning process.

Several techniques for carrying out the strategies of innovation
change process are cited throughout the literature. O'Connell best
summarizes the techniques recommended by the literature in describing
the behavioral scientist's point of view,

" Most recent social science involvement in organizational
change has tended to have the following characteristics:

1. Change agent role is more collaborative than unilateral.

2. A human value focus causes emphasis on the social more
than the structural or technological factors of organiza-
tion.

3. Intervention strategies aim at behavioral change through
cognitive or attitude change rather than through a direct.
alteration of the external forces which constitute the
role demands."

O'Connell also indicates the understanding of change process

is dependent upon the knowledge growth in the social science field.
More specifically, he identifies the dynamics of human affairs as

being the most effective in the whole change process.

Carlson suggests that innovation is only one of many forms

 

21Jeremiah I. O'Connell, Managing Organizational Innovation,
(Homewood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc. , 1968).

25

of educational change that can be emphasized. He states,

"Adoption of a new educational practice is only one means
by which a school system attempts to adjust to their environ-
ment. The educational enterprise also changes its structure,
size and support, alters its definition of purpose or mission,
and adjusts the number, competencies and characteristics of
its personnel. "22

Self-Renewal
In order to facilitate an atmosphere to carry out the things
that Carlson suggests, it is appropriate to look at the Miles and

Lake model23 which describes what each school system might do to

become self-renewing. Initially, this model calls for the identifica-
tion of an external change agent chain whose purpose it is to "formulate,
apply, evaluate, and disseminate some variations of a basic strategy

of planned change in collaboration with several school systems." It

is important to note that they do not advocate that this team attempt

to install specific innovations in a school system. It rather suggests

that this team would assist the school to understand the change process

and become a "self-renewing" system. The basic ten steps identified
by Miles and Lake are:

1. Establish a temporary system or group to formulate the

change team. They point out that it is necessary for

 

22Richard L. Carlson, Adoption of Educational Innovations
(Eugene, Oreg.: University of Oregon Press, 1965).

”Matthew B. Miles, "Innovation in Education: Some generaliza-
tions, " Innovation in Education, Matthew B. Miles, editor (New York:
Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University. 1964).

4.

26

this team to have its expectations clearly identified.
Collect information from system members through the
process of questionnaires and interviews.

Prepare statements of how goals, attitudes, and beliefs

in various sub-groups of the system agree or disagree
relative to the most urgent problems.

Examine current operations with special attention given

to the problems identified in the earlier procedure. They
refer to this as problem—sensing or identification, diagnosis,
objectives or targets, locate or invent alternative solutions
to focal group problems, weigh often the gains of each
solution to focal group problems, decide alternatives to

try for solving focal group problems, plan implementation
of solution to focal group problems, and plan how to check
diagnosis and change targets with other organizational
levels, both above and below focal group.

Carry out plans from previous step with other relevant
groups. Repeat steps 1, 2, and 3 with other groups

under guidance of focal group.

Set up structures and procedures to institutionalize and

support continuing self-renewal processes.

Phase-out active participation by external change agent

staff.

27

8. Complete an assessment of the change program to date.
Questions that might be answered in this assessment will
include: has the school system become self-renewing and
able to continue to improve and develop under its own
initiative?

9. Feed the findings back to the school system.

10. Disseminate accounts of the methods and results of the
change program.

Objectives for this model are substantial. Miles and Lake

often say, "we intend to help this school system become self renewing."
A self-renewing school system would have the ability to continuously
sense and adopt to its changing external and internal environment in
such a manner as to strengthen itself and optimumly fulfill its goal

of providing quality education for all.

Watson's writing takes up where Miles leaves off. Watson24
has developed a model for sustaining a school system in the state of
being self-renewing. He points out that his ten-step model cannot
give equal weight to any and all changes that a school system might
initiate. In its total, it should be used only when the innovation is

a significant one that will affebt the entire system. Those ten steps

 

24Goodwin Watson, Social Psychology, Issues and In-Sights,
(Lippincott, Philadelphia, 1966).

include:

1.

10.

28

Sensing. Everyone in the school system should be involved
in sensing the problems and of new possibilities which are
openly expressed, shared, and considered.

Screening. This process calls for the rank order by im-
portance of the innovations that might be established.
Diagnosing. This step implies careful study of the issue
before change is attempted.

Inventing. After problems have been sensed, screened,
and diagnosed, there is a need for mechanisms to allow

a solution plan to go into effect. Watson suggests the

use of ”brainstorming techniques" in this step.

Weighing. This again is another step for further screening
of the innovation and its mechanisms.

Deciding. Hopefully, as a result of this step, a true
consensus of innovative initiators would be ideal.
Introducing. This simply describes the plan of action.
Operating. This is the implementation of the plan of action.
Evaluation. This should be on-going and conducted from
within as well as from without.

Revising. This one suggests that even the self-renewal
process itself needs periodic review, appraisal and possible

revision.

29

Regardless of what theory or technique we choose to identify
with in the process of innovation and change. the success or failure
could usually be traced to the strengths of proficiency in the strategy
selected. Gross Giacquinta and Bernstein25 describe the process of

implementing an innovation in a public school. Their study emphasizes

the value of seeing change as a process as well thought out and which
has the potential of being a legitimate function of the institution

regardless of the leadership.

Summary

No matter what model, strategy, or technique one would choose

in the process of bringing about innovative change in a school setting,
it is possible to find support for that position or set of positions in
the current literature. The apparent difficulty with the current litera-
ture is that there is not a common understanding of the definitions

regarding this complex process, nor is there agreement as to the con~
ditions under which any one process might be successful. Review of
the literature on this most interesting topic will give the reader a base
on which to conceptualize the various possibilities and hopefully on
which to determine a strategy that will apply to give the leadership

and the system implementation of innovation as deemed desirable.

 

25Neal Gross, Ioseph B. Giacquinta, and Marilyn Bernstein,
An Attempt to Implement a Major Educational Innovation: A Sociological
Ingugy (Cambridge, Mass.: Center for Research and Development on
Educational Differences, Harvard University, 1968).

CHAPTER III

PLANNING AND CONDUCTING THE STUDY

The purpose of this Chapter is to identify the University and
College Dissemination Center goals and objectives, and finally,
identify the factors and explain the methodology that will be used

in the presentation and analysis of data in Chapters IV and V.

Backgroundeor Planning

An examination of the stated goals of the eleven College and
University Centers included in this study reveals two primary goals.
One major thrust centers around activities designed to introduce the
community education concept into public school systems within
described service areas. Specific objectives related to this function
include promotion, consultant services, financial assistance, and
evaluation. A great deal of attention has been given to these activities
and apparent success is evidenced at each of the institutions. Collectively,
the Centers are serving more than 1,400 schools in 310 school systems.
The Center activities which relate to achievement of this goal are

designed to provide a solid foundation for community education in

30

31

public schools. The assumption that justifies these activities is
relatively simple. It is assumed that when a public school system
properly introduces the community education concept within the con-
fines of a planned process, it will eventually be adopted by the system.
When adoption occurs, it then becomes an integral part of the total
educational process.

The second goal common to the eleven institutions calls for
the promotion, acceptance, and adoption of the community education
concept by the institution sponsoring the Center. In the selection of
institutions of higher education deemed capable of giving leadership
to community education nationally, a basic premise must be that they
are the producers of public school educators. Dr. E. O. Melby,
speaking to Mott Interns as far back as 1964, about the gap in
American education said: "American public education is at least
fifty years behind; and fifty years behind American public education
is American higher education. "1 Personnel in positions of leadership
at the eleven institutions in this study basically agree with this state~
ment. However, they feel that if a lasting impact is going to be made
on American public education, the gap must be narrowed and change
higher education as well as the public schools. This very basic con-

cern places the goal of affecting the institution in a position of

 

1Remarks from a speech by Dr. E. O. Melby to the first group
of Mott Interns, Flint, Michigan, October, 1964.

32

importance equal to, if not more important than, the goal of affecting
public education. Very little attention has been given to the assessment
of progress made toward achievement of this latter goal. Perhaps the
lack of attention is attributable to an assumption that this goal was
achieved by each of the institutions prior to their providing services

to public school systems. This may be a false assumption.

For the purposes of this study, it is necessary to be concerned
only with the second goal common to all eleven Centers. That goal
specifically is to accomplish prescribed change within the institution
of higher education in order to adopt the community education concept.
Each of the colleges and universities in this study agrees that the
institution will be affected by the activities of the Center for Com-
munity Education Development. The effect should be evidenced by
acceptance of the community education concept as a primary thrust
of the institution and incorporated throughout the institution wherever
appropriate.

A careful study of the stated goals and objectives of the eleven
institutions reveals a set of common specific objectives that relate to
the achievement of this primary goal. These specific objectives are
supportive of two basic functions necessary for the achievement of
the first goal, service to public schools. These services are pre—
service and in-service training opportunities for community school

educators and people from related disciplines. In order to provide

33

these services, the following set of common objectives has been

extracted from proposals and are identified as being essential:

1.

Involve a maximum number of university staff in seminars,
workshops and other Training and Dissemination Center—
sponsored activities.

Include, where appropriate, units on community education
in undergraduate teacher preparation programs. The rationale
for the objective is based upon the assumption that new
teachers going into community schools will function more
effectively with a basic understanding of the community
education philosophy.

Include, where appropriate, units on community education
in graduate programs. Appropriate disciplines might include
school administration, adult education, sociology, etc.

It is assumed that the broad nature of community education
involves many disciplines.

Offer graduate courses in community education in many
disciplines with a strong emphasis in the educational
administration curriculum.

Offer graduate degree programs that provide for concentra-
tion of community education experiences. These might
include the Masters, Specialist and Doctoral programs.

Provide undergraduate practical experiences in community

34

education. This implies that a portion of practice teaching
experiences might be spent in the role of community educa-
tion practitioners.

7. Involve other disciplines, Centers, institutes and specially—
funded projects in the college or university-centered com-—
munity education activities.

8. Provide in-service experiences in community education for
college and university personnel.

9. Encourage and conduct research in community education.

10. Publish in community education.

An assessment of the progress of the eleven institutions reveals
a wide range of measurable accomplishments related to the goal of
affecting the institution. The assessment contained in this Chapter
is based upon quarterly reports and the questionnaire contained in
Appendix A.

A careful study of each Center reveals that there is no apparent
relationship to goal achievement and age of the Center.2 Nor is
there an apparent relationship between the funding level of a Center
and its ability to affect itself. The age of the eleven University and

College Centers ranges from two years to seven years. The soft

 

2Each of the eleven institutions submit quarterly progress

reports to the C. S. Mott Foundation that reflect financial and program
activities.

35

money funding level at each Center is not significantly different.

Specifically, an assessment of the eleven College and University

Centers' progress collectively reveals:

l.

2.

All colleges and universities in the study make available
short term training experiences for practitioners in com—
munity education. Seven hundred and ninety people have
taken advantage of these programs nationally since the
inception of the first Center in 1965. The number trained

in this manner ranges from two hundred at one institution

to three at another. All institutions offer graduate credit

for these experiences. Participants, however, can participate
without receiving credit. For the most part, this category

of training requires an outside source of finance. Therefore,
the existing assessment does not give evidence that this
activity would continue if the total cost was accepted by

the institution. Under these circumstances, it is not possible
to assess the institutional commitment until outside financial
support is withdrawn.

All Centers report non-Center professional staff personnel
involvement in Center—sponsored activities. These non-
Center staff members are reported to have included the
community education concept in their assigned teaching

and administrative responsibilities. The number of people

included in this category ranges from two to twenty. The

36

average of the eleven institutions is eight. When the overall
potential of non-Center staff at each of the eleven institutions
is considered, the progress in this category must be considered
very slow.

None of the eleven institutions offers any Bachelors Degrees
with an emphasis on community education. This condition

can be traced to one of two possibilities. Either there is

no need for such a program or the undergraduate curriculum

is difficult to change. The availability of employment opportunities
in community education seems to indicate that people in
Michigan cannot be certified with only a Bachelors Degree.
Nationally, the second factor seems to be dominant.

Seven of the eleven institutions are reported to offer a Masters
degree with an emphasis on community education. Ten of the
eleven institutions studied have the capability of offering

the Masters degree. The three institutions with a Masters
degree capability, but not offering one with a community
education emphasis, have been in existence the least

number of years. Therefore, a relationship between the

age of the Center and progress may exist in this category.
Five of the eleven institutions presently offer a Specialists
Degree with an emphasis on community education. Progress

in this category is excellent since only five of the eleven

10.

11.

37

institutions offer Specialists Degrees in any field. It is
generally felt that the greatest demand for community educators
presently is in middle management positions which require a
great deal of specialization.

Two of the eleven institutions report opportunities for a
doctoral candidate to concentrate the major portion of his

work in community education. Of the eleven institutions,

five have the capability of offering this opportunity.

With five of the eleven institutions participating, there

have been 93 Masters theses and three Doctoral disserta-
tions completed whose themes were related to community
education.

All of the institutions have conducted community education
workshops for professional school personnel in their region.

A majority of these workshops were available for academic
credit, obviously implying a definite impact upon the institution.
Nine of the eleven institutions hold regular inwservice com“
munity education workshops for their institutions' staff.

Nine of the institutions have introduced new graduate courses
in community education. A wide range exists in this category,
extending from a one-hour possibility to as much as a twenty-
four hour possibility in community education.

All institutions collectively reported that from five percent to 80%

38

of graduate and undergraduate courses in education had

at least one class period devoted to community education.
Less than 22% of the education classes available at the
eleven institutions are affected.

12. Only three of the institutions reported new undergraduate
courses in community education.

13. Six institutions reported that special units on community
education have been incorporated into existing under-
graduate courses. Special units refer to two or more
class periods being devoted to the concept of community
education.

14. Ten of the eleven institutions reported that undergraduate
class periods are devoted to community education within
the structure of the existing curriculum. The range in this

category is from five percent to 100%.

Biennirig

In an attempt to analyze the perceived conditions that lead to
the present success or failure of achieving stated goals and objectives,
the analysis strongly points out the need for identifying factors that
will affect change in an institution of higher education. It is difficult
to assess what factors may have caused one institution to be more

effective than another. At this point, it is not possible. It is possible.

39

however to identify factors common to all the institutions, therefore
implying that some conditions are important. A cursory examination
would seem to indicate that the length of time the institution has
received funds in order to attain the goals and objectives has no
relationship to the speed with which these goals and objectives are
reached. Similarly, it appears that money is perhaps a very insignificant
factor. This conclusion is based upon the fact that all of the Centers
have received approximately the same funding level. Hence, the
difference in progress cannot be accounted for financially. Other than
these observations, it is impossible to analyze the progress or lack

of progress at the institution level until more is known about the factors
that affect change in Schools of Education in institutions of higher
education. Hopefully, this study will add to the knowledge base that
will make this assessment possible in the future.

It is acknowledged that the perceived conditions that lead to
the achievement or lack of achievement of present goals and objectives
of the existing Centers cannot be adequately analyzed until the findings
of this study are complete. For this reason, the rank ordering of the
factors perceived to be important in the process of innovation adoption
in Regional Community Education Dissemination Centers was deemed
crucial in the process of developing a model Community Education

Dissemination Center.

4O

Conducting the Study

 

An extensive search of available literature was conducted for
the purpose of identifying an instrument that would assist in the
identification of measurable factors contributing to the change process
in higher education. This search did not produce an instrument deemed
satisfactory to accomplish the task identified in this study. As a
result, the process for developing an instrument to identify these
measurable factors began. This process started with the extraction
from available literature on the change process those factors most
commonly referred to as being important in the change process generally.
After these factors had been extracted, they were sent to 20 outstanding
nationally-known educators considered knowledgeable in the field of
higher education. (See Appendix B for a listing of these educators.)
These people were asked to study the list of selected factors and make
additions or subtractions as they felt necessary, based upon their experiences
in Schools of Education within institutions of higher education. In
addition to that task, each of the experts was asked to cite an example
of change that he had observed or had been a part of in a College of
Education during his professional experience. The reason for this
exercise was to study each of the responses and thereby identify
additional factors that may have gone unnoticed in previous attempts

to identify significant factors. See Appendix C for correspondence to

the identified experts in the field of innovation of higher education.

41

In addition to the twenty people identified as experts, all of
the Dissemination Center Directors were asked to assist in the instru-
ment development process. Each director was asked to prepare a list
of both positive and negative factors that he felt would influence the
success or failure of a Center for Community Education at a university
other than his own. Additionally, directors responded to form a composite
list of identifiable factors. They were asked to rank the importance
of these factors. See Appendix D for correspondence to the eleven
Center Directors in this study.

The writer's purpose in this initiatory inquiry was to identify
factors necessary for effective innovation in higher education in the
School of Education. Upon completion of these steps, twelve major
factors were identified as being important in the innovative process
as it would relate to the Educational Division of institutions of higher
education. In addition to the twelve major factors, 29 sub~factors
were identified as important. It is interesting to note that in the
forementioned process, the initial factors identified from the literaw
ture were consistent with those factors identified by the field of
twenty experts and the Center Directors from the eleven institutions
under study.

The factors were then randomly listed with sub-headings.

This list of factors was then sent back to the original field of twenty

experts. They were asked this time to rank order these factors as

42

they perceived them to be important. An early discovery in the process
of developing the instrument revealed that all factors identified could
be both positive and negative; therefore, for the purposes of this study,
each respondent was instructed to react in the rank ordering process

to the factors in a positive way. It can be assumed, then, that through—
out this study any rank ordering resulting from the process described
will be from a positive point of view as the respondents view the

factors as necessary in order to facilitate the adoption of innovations

in Schools of Education in higher education. Within the process for
identifying factors perceived important in innovative change in higher
education, the next crucial decision was to identify the population for
the sample selection. It was decided at that time that 100% of the
universities and colleges in the country identified as Centers for the
Development of Community Education would be studied. This represents
a total of eleven colleges and universities. Ten people from each
institution were identified as potential respondents to the questionnaire.
Included were: the President of the University, the Vice-President,

the Dean of the School of Education, one Department Chairman within
the College of Education, the Center Director, two Professors within
the School of Education, two graduate students, and a Trustee of the
institution. In all categories except the President, Vice-President,

Dean and Trustee, arrangements for the interviews of the people were

arbitrary. The other respondents were identified by Center Directors,

43

some by Deans, and some by secretaries in order that the study could
be completed in a time span of one visit to each Center. This plan
called for a total of 110 possible respondents to the questionnaire.
The process of administering the questionnaire was the next
task for consideration. It was decided that the best possible way
would beacombination of personal interviews and mailings which
would best facilitate the gathering of data for this study. Seven of
the eleven institutions were visited and personal interviews were
conducted with nine people at each institution. In all cases, it was
impossible to arrange a meeting with a Trustee of the institution: all
respondents in this category were a result of mailing and not of
interview. This condition was less than desirable although there
were no alternatives. It is appropriate to note that in identifying
the Trustee for each institution, a complete list of Trustees from each
institution was acquired and a random sampling from each list was
made by identifying one person. In three of the eleven institutions
in the study, response was not received due to the potential respondent
being deceased. In this case, another random sampling of the list
of Trustees was conducted and another mailing. The response from
this category was less than desirable. This lack of response might
possibly be attributed to the Trustees' desire not to get involved in
the administration of the institution.

The questionnaire was originally designed to allow the

44

respondents to weigh factors on a scale from one to five. Upon the
advice of the Michigan State University Research Department, the
questionnaire was changed to a forced—choice instrument. This change
reduced the predictability of the responses. It also allows the applica-
tion of the one way statistical analysis test.

As the questionnaires were completed, the responses were
recorded on a data coding form. The questionnaires were computer-
coded for ease in transmitting data from the coding form to computer
forms. The code allows for the description of the institution, the
individual and the main and sub—factors.

Data obtained from the questionnaire are grouped according
to frequencies, percentages, and reactions of the respondents by
categories to the rank ordered factors. Recommendations and con-
clusions are drawn from the information obtained from the questionnaire
and applied to the research questionnaire around which the study has
been directed.

Part I of Chapter IV will describe the analysis procedure.

Part Two will be a summary and presentation of the computerized data
obtained from the questionnaire. Part III will be the analysis of the
data which will be used to describe the model College or University
Center for the Development of Community Education. This data and

its interpretation will be used to make recommendations and conclusions

in C hapter V.

45

Summary

The purpose of this Chapter has been to describe the University
and College Dissemination Center goals and objectives, analyze col-
lective progress toward achieving the goals, develop an instrument
for identifying factors contributing to the achievement of goals and
objectives, and finally, identify the factors and explain the methodology
that will be used in the presentation and analysis of data in Chapters

IV and V.

CHAPTER IV

PROCEDURES FOR ANALYSIS

This Chapter presents an analysis of data obtained from
the selected positions of leadership of the eleven universities and
colleges comprising the total study population. Subsequent sections
deal with the statistical analysis utilized in treating data from the
questionnaires.

The statistical analysis used in this study are: 1) one-way
analysis of variance, comparing mean scores for each of the twelve
major factors identified as important in allowing innovative change
to take place in the Schools of Education in higher education with
the twenty—nine sub-factors that describe the major factors; 2) Chi
square -- analysis of contingency tables were used to explain
responses that revealed a significant difference of opinion on the
part of respondents.

Statistical data obtained in this study results from the
individual responses of 95 college and university personnel from
eleven institutions. They responded to a forty—one item forced choice

questionnaire. (See Appendix C.) These respondents are categorized

46

47

in Chapter 111.

Statistical data obtained from this study has provided mean
scores used to rank order the factors identified as important in the
process of introducing innovative change in Schools of Education
in institutions of higher education, with responses of the groups
combined to form gross mean scores. The mean scores of each of the
ten domains were arrived at by summing the individual responses
and dividing the resultant total by the number of respondents, providing
an attitudinal profile for all participants. This, therefore, has provided
a ranking of each of the twelve major factors and their corresponding

sub-factors identified in this study.

Presentation and Analysis of the Data

Table I of this Chapter presents a rank ordering of the twelve
major factors determined by the total population of this study. It
is interesting to note that there are no significant statistical differences

in the responses to the twelve major factors.

48

TABLE 1. -- Rank Ordering of the Twelve Major Factors that Affect
Change in Schools of Education in Institutions of Higher Education
Based on Mean Scores

 

 

Mean F Rank Probability of
Dependent Variable Score Statistic Order F Statistic
2. Leadership 1. 989 1. 319 1 0.239
13. Philosophical
commitment 3.315 0.822 2 0.597
9. Need for Change 4. 084 0.458 3 0. 899
12. Money 5.357 1.369 4 0.215
3. Policies 5.778 1.491 5 0.164
6 . Institutional
capabilities 6.115 1.757 6 0.089
10. Administrative
structure 6.715 0.828 7 0.592
8. Tradition 8.136 0. 618 8 0.779
4. Procedures 8. 347 0.680 9 O. 725
11. Research 8.431 0.846 10 0.576
7. Ancillary services 9.600 0.528 11 0.851
5. Physical facilities 10.073 0.807 .12 0.611

 

Degrees of Freedom - 9/94
N - 95

It is evident in observing the data that leadership is felt
by the respondent to be the most important factor that affects innova-
tive change in Schools of Education in institutions of higher education.
Forty-eight and 4/10 percent of the total respondents identified leader-
ship as the most important factor (see Table 1).

Within the category of leadership, the respondents felt that

it was most important to have supportive administration at the college

49

level. Secondly, the departmental administration must provide leader-
ship. Professors ranked third in importance, and the special project

director ranked fourth (see Table 2).

TABLE 2. -- Rank Ordered Scores for the Four Sub-factors of Leadership

 

Mean P Rank Probability of
Dependent Variable Score Statistic Order P Statistic

 

14. Admin. (college) 2.084 0.638 1 0.762
15. Admin. (dept.) 2.158 0.466 2 0.893
17. Professorial 2.821 0.505 3 0.867
16. Admin. (spec.

project) 3.042 0.917 4 0.515

 

Degrees of Freedom = 9/94
N = 95

The second most important major factor identified by the
total group is philosophical commitment (see Table 1, page 48).
Within the category of philosophical commitment, the commitment
of the individual in charge of the project is felt to be most important.
Departmental commitment ranks second and institutional commitment

ranks third (see Table 3).

50

TABLE 3. -- Rank Ordered Mean Scores for the Three Sub-factors of
Philosophical Commitment

 

 

 

===== m

Mean F Rank Probability of
Dependent Variable Score Statistic Order P Statistic
41. Individuals 1.789 1.068 1 0.395
40. Departmental 2.063 0.563 2 0.823
39. Institutional 2 . 147 2 . 086 3 0. 040

 

Degrees of Freedom = 9/94
N = 95

A significant difference of opinion exists regarding the
importance of institutional philosophical commitment as it relates

to allowing innovation to take place (see Table 4).

TABLE 4. -- Categorical Breakdown of Responses to the Dependent
Variable of Institutional Philosophical Commitment

 

 

 

m ‘T ‘—
Standard Rank Percentage

Group N Mean Deviation (1) (2) (3)
Trustee 5 2.2 0.8 20 40 40
President 8 2. 5 0. 5 0 50 50
Vice President 11 1.6 0.9 63.6 9.1 27.3
Dean 10 2,3 0.9 30 10 60
Dept. Chrmn. 9 2.4 0.9 22.2 11.1 66.7
Center Director 11 2.8 0.4 0 18.2 81.8
Professors 20 2.0 0. 8 30 35 35
Graduate Students 21 1. 8 0. 9 47 .6 23.8 28. 6

2.1 0.9 30.5 24.2 45.3

TOTAL 95

1 v v *7

Contingency Co-efficient = 0.461
Chi Square =-- 25.752
Degrees of Freedom = 14

51

In this category, the greatest difference of opinion exists
between the presidents and vice presidents. The presidents' responses
indicate that the institutions' philosophical commitment has no bearing
on the success or failure of introducing innovative change to a university.
Their responses indicate that the responsibility is equally shared by
the department and the individual in charge of the project. Deans,
department chairmen and special project directors strongly agree with
this point of view.

Vice presidents place the need for a strong institutional
commitment over that of the department or individual. The graduate
student responses tend to agree with the vice president's point of
view.

Ranked third by all respondents is the need for change (see
Table 1). No significant difference of opinion exists in its ranking
as a major factor; however, a significant difference of opinion exists

relative to the sub-factor rankings (see Table 5).

52

TABLE 5. -- Rank Ordered Mean Scores for the Four Sub-factors of
Need for Change

 

 

Mean F Rank Probability of
Dependent Variable Score Statistic Order F Statistic
32. Department 1. 979 1.144 1 0. 342
31. Field 2.621 2.410 2 0.017
33. College 2.653 2.812 3 0.006
30. Students 2.737 0.814 4 0.605

 

Degrees of Freedom = 9/94
N = 95

There is significant agreement that the department is a
reliable source for identifying need for change when consideration
is given for introducing innovation in a School of Education in an
institution of higher education. A significant difference of opinion
exists between the groups relative to the second and third most
important sub-factors in this category. There is also significant
agreement that students are the least important (ranked fourth) in
identifying the need for change. Need for change as identified by
the field ranked a weak second and need for change identified by
the college ranked fourth (see Tables 6 and 7). The vice presidents'
and deans' responses indicate they feel the "field" has little influence
upon an innovation being accepted or rejected by a School of Educa-
tion in an institution of higher education. In contrast, the responses

from professors and department chairmen indicate they feel the "field"

53

has a great influence upon the acceptance of innovation in a School
of Education in an institution of higher education. The graduate students
tend to agree with the professors and department chairmen.

The responses of trustees and deans indicate they agree that
"the college" must identify the need for change if innovation is to
be accepted by a School of Education (see Table 7). Project directors
and professors strongly disagree.

TABLE 6. -- Categorical Breakdown of Responses to the Dependent
Variable "Field" Identification of the Need for Change

Ag

 

Standard Rank Percentage
Group N Mean Deviation (1) (2) (3) (4) V
Trustee 5 2.8 1.3 20 20 20 40
President 8 2.9 1.2 25 0 37.5 37.5
Vice President 11 3.4 0.8 0 18.2 27.3 54.5
Dean 10 3.0 0.8 0 30 40 30
Dept. Chrmn. 9 2.2 1.3 44.4 11.1 22.2 22.2
Center Director 11 2.3 1.0 27.3 27.3 36.4 9.1
Professors 20 2.1 1.2 45 15 25 15
Grad. Students 21 2.8 1.4 33.3 4.8 14.3 47.6
TOTAL 95 2.6 1.2 27.4 14.7 26.3 31.6

 

Contingency Co-efficient = 0.459
Chi Square = 25.309
Degrees of Freedom = 21

54

TABLE 7. -- Categorical Breakdown of Respondents to the Dependent
Variable "The College" Identification of the Need for Change

 

 

J
Standard Rank Percentage
Group N Mean Deviation (1) (2) (3) (4)
Trustee 5 1.8 0.8 40 20 20 0
President 8 2.1 0.8 12.5 75 0 12.5
Vice President 11 2.3 0.9 18.2 45.5 27.3 9.1
Dean 10 1.9 1.2 30 60 0 10
Dept. Chrmn. 9 3.1 0.9 11.1 22.2 11.1 55.6
Center Director 11 3.1 1.0 0 36 18.2 45.5
Professors 20 3.2 1.1 5 20 25 50
Grad. Students 21 2.7 1.1 19 23.8 28.6 28.6
TOTAL 95 2.7 14 34 18 29

 

Contingency Co-efficient = 0. 276
Chi Square= 7.817
Degrees of Freedom = 7

Money ranked the fourth most important factor by the total
population in the study (see Table 1). It is interesting to note that
the respondents place leadership, commitment and the need for change
above the need for financial resources. The respondents indicated

that money for the operation of the innovative project and money for

equipment have priority over building needs (see Table 8).

55

TABLE 8. -- Rank Ordered Mean Scores for the Three Sub-factors

 

 

of Money
F Rank Probability of
Dependent Variable Mean Statistic Order F Statistic
36. Operation 1.053 1.323 1 0.237
38. Equipment 2.221 0.670 2 0.733
37. Buildings 2.726 0.516 3 0.859

 

Degrees of Freedom = 9/94
N = 95

The study reveals that operating policies ranked fifth
in importance (see Table 1). Of the two categories of policies
identified in the study, ”college" policies ranked higher than
"dpeartment" policies. It can be assumed that if college policies

allow for innovative change, they would supercede departmental

policy (see Table 9).

TABLE 9. -- Rank Ordered Mean Scores for the Two Sub—factors of

 

 

Policies
F Rank Probability of
Dependent Variable Mean Statistic Order F Statistic
18. College 1.400 1.251 1 0.276
19. Department 1.600 1.251 2 0.276

,_

Degrees of Freedom = 9/94
N = 95

56

Institutional capabilities ranked sixth in importance of
the twelve factors identified as important in the process of allowing
innovative change to take place in a School of Education (see Table
1). The "college" capabilities ranked over the "department"
capabilities by a very small margin (see Table 10). It seems
apparent that the capabilities of each of these sub-factors depend
a great deal upon each other.

TABLE 10. -- Rank Ordered Mean Scores for the Two Sub-factors of
Institutional Capabilities

 

 

m
P Rank Probability of
Dependent Variable Mean Statistic Order F Statistic
22. College 1.463 0.856 1 0.567
23. Department 1.537 0.856 2 0.567

 

Degrees of Freedom = 9/94
N = 95

Administrative structure ranked seventh among the twelve
major factors considered important in this study (see Table 1).
The two sub-factors rank ordered in this category are college
administrative structure and departmental administrative structure.
The respondents ranked the college administrative structure more
important than departmental structure (see Table 11). The closeness

of their mean scores seems to indicate the respondents feel they are

57

almost equal in their importance.

TABLE 11. -- Rank Ordered Mean Scores for the Two Sub-factors of
Administrative Structure

 

 

F Rank Probability of
Dependent Variable Mean Statistic Order F Statistic
34. College 1.389 0.942 1 0.493
35. Department 1.610 0.942 2 0.493

 

Degrees of Freedom = 9/94
N = 95

As a major factor, tradition was ranked eighth by all respondents
(see Table 1). Of the three sub-factors ranked in this category, the
institutions' traditional emphasis upon instruction of students was
ranked most important. Second, service was felt important to the
change process. Least important is research in the innovative change

process as identified by the respondents in this study (see Table 12).

TABLE 12. -- Rank Ordered Mean Score for the Three Sub-factors of

 

 

Tradition
F Rank Probability of
Dependent Variable Mean Statistic Order F Statistic
27. Instruction 1.600 0.853 1 0.570
29. Service 1.947 1.028 2 0.425
28. Research 2.453 0.958 3 0.480

 

Degrees of Freedom = 9/94
N = 95

58

Procedures rank ninth in the scale of twelve factors felt
important in the process of introducing innovative change in a
School of Education (see Table 1). Although there is agreement
in its rank order among the twelve major factors, there is significant
disagreement as to the ranking of the two sub-factors, college

procedures and departmental procedures (see Table 13).

TABLE 13. -- Rank Ordered Mean Score for the Two Sub-factors of

 

 

Procedures
F Rank Probability of
Dependent Variable Mean Statistic Order F Statistic
20. College 1.379 2.745 1 0.007
21. Department 1.621 2.745 2 0.007

 

Degrees of Freedom = 9/94
N = 95

The trustees, presidents and deans strongly agree that
college level procedures are necessary in order to allow innova-
tive change to occur in Schools of Education (see Tables 14 and
15). Graduate students tend to agree with this point of view more
than the respondents from other categories. Less than 50% of the
time, the department chairmen and professors disagree. These
observations indicate that no categories of respondents have a

strong feeling for the importance of departmental procedures and

59

only a few categories have very strong feelings for the importance

of college procedures .

TABLE 14. -- Categorical Breakdown of Responses to the Dependent
Variable of College Procedures

 

 

Standard Rank Percentage
Group N Mean Deviation (1) (2)
Trustee 5 1.2 0.4 80 20
President 8 1. 0 0. 0 100 0
Vice Pres. 11 1.5 0.5 45.5 54.5
Dean 10 1.1 0.3 90 10
Dept. Chrmn. 9 1.4 0.5 55.6 44.4
Center Director 11 1.5 0.5 54.5 45.5
Professors 20 1. 5 0. 5 45 55
Grad. Students 21 1.4 0.5 61.9 38.1
TOTAL 95 1.4 0.5 62.1 37.9

 

Contingency Co-efficient = 0. 3479
Chi Square = 13. 082
Degrees of Freedom = 7

60

TABLE 15. -- Categorical Breakdown of Responses to the Dependent
Variable of Departmental Procedures

 

" m:
-

Standard Rank Percentage

 

Group N Mean Deviation (1) (2)
Trustee 5 1.8 0.4 20 80
President 8 2 . 0 0. 0 0 100
Vice Pres. 11 1.5 0.5 54.5 45.5
Dean 10 1.9 0.3 10 90
Dept. Chrmn. 9 1.6 0.5 44.4 55.6
Center Director 11 1. 5 0.5 45.5 54.5
Professors 2 0 1. 4 0. 5 55 45
Grad. Students 21 1.6 0.5 38.1 61.9
TOTAL 95 1.6 0.5 37.9 62.1

 

Contingency Co-Efficient = 0. 3479
Chi-Square = 13. 082
Degrees of Freedom = 7

Research ranked tenth as a major factor in the process of
introducing innovation in higher education (see Table 1). It is
interesting to note that only ancillary services and physical
facilities rank lower on the scale of twelve used in this study.

Ancillary services ranked next to the last as an important
factor (see Table 1). Its sub-factors ranked as follows:

1. Departmental services

2. College services

3. Other department services (see Table 16)

61

TABLE 16. -- Rank Ordered Mean Scores for the Three Sub-factors of
Ancillary Services

 

 

F Rank Probability of
Dependent Variable Mean Statistic Order F Statistic
25. Department 1.579 1.022 1 0.429
24. College 1.716 0.805 2 0.612
26. Other depts. 2.705 0.799 3 0.618

 

Degrees of Freedom = 9/94
N = 95

The least important factor identified by the respondents of
this study is the institutions' physical facilities. It ranked twelfth
on the scale of twelve. It is most significant that according to the
respondents consideration for introducing innovative change does not
rely upon physical facilities. It can, therefore, be assumed that the

availability of extensive physical facilities will not insure innovation.

Summary

The purpose of this Chapter has been to present the statistical
data gathered in this study. This data has provided the base for
the rank ordering of the major and sub—factors found in this Chapter
(see Table 1). Where significant differences of opinion were found
through the use of the One Way Analysis of Variance Statistical Text,
they were explained by the use of a second statistical test, Analysis

of Contingency (Chi-Square). This Chapter has provided the base

62

for Chapter Five, which will: 1) develop a theoretical model for
the ideal Center for Community Education Development; 2) draw
conclusions from the study; 3) provide recommendations and

implications for further study.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Review of the Problem

 

This study of the identification and rank ordering of factors
that allow innovative change to take place in higher education was
conducted in an effort to enhance efficient utilization of all resources
to insure higher education effectiveness. In this final chapter, a
brief review of the problem is presented, followed by rank-ordered
factors that make up the model conditions for a college or university
Center for the Dissemination of Community Education. Observations
that lead to conclusions and implications for further study will con-

clude the chapter.

Introduction

Construction of a model for introducing change in a university
or college Community Education Center is possible as a result of
this study.

Specifically, the study investigated the factors necessary

for Community Education Centers to accomplish prescribed change

63

64

within their institutions. Accordingly, the conclusions of this
study lead to the development of a model center. This first
attempt to pictorially describe a model center could vary depending
on the strengths and weaknesses of the institution. An institution
with exceptionally strong leadership may be able to compensate for
a weak institutional philosophical commitment. Hopefully, the
strong leadership would be able to build a satisfactory institutional
commitment.

Early in the study, it became evident that all factors that
affect change or innovation are both positive and negative. For
example, one brand of leadership will allow innovation, while another
will prevent innovation. Recognizing this fact, the decision was
made to deal with the factors in their most positive sense. The
respondents to the questions were instructed accordingly.

The evidence put forth by this study should contribute to
the process of identifying conditions that allow the acceptance
and adoption of innovations in higher education, regardless of
their nature or origin. The perceived importance of the rank-ordered
factors should assist in establishment of broad guidelines applicable
to a variety of funded projects that call for initiation of planned
change in higher education.

The following is a pictorial model of the ideal university or

college Center for the Dissemination and Training for Community

65

Education as determined by the findings of this study.

 

Institutional
sf, Capabilities-Traditions-—Research \
0
Q
PHILOSOPHICAL COMMITMENT
LEADER- INNOVATIVE
NEED FOR CHANGE
SHIP CHANGE

 

 

«' . fl.
0.. Admin. - Procedures - Services

\ Structure

The factor of physical facilities has been omitted from
the model. The respondents in this study placed such little importance
on facilities that it is probably insignificant in the process of intro-
ducing innovation in an institution of higher education.

It is suggested that the following rank-ordered set of factors
be considered with their sub—factors and not in isolation.

The following is a rank-ordered set of factors that resulted
from this study. These factors should be considered in order of
their perceived importance when an institution contemplates the
establishment of a Center for the Development of Community Educa-
tion. This study implies that the factors of leadership, commitment,
and need for change should be positive prior to the establishment of
such a center. Ideally, all factors would be supportive of a strong
institutional commitment to assist the development of community
education.

The accurate assessment of these factors is perhaps the

most important task confronting colleges and universities.

66

Although

difficult, the proper assessment of the major factors identified in

this study will allow an institution to utilize its strengths and

strengthen its weaknesses .

Leadership

Philosophical

Commitment

Need for
Change

Money

Policies

Institutional
Capabilities

Administrative
Structure

Tradition

Procedures

Research

1—4 wat—J
O O...

(A) N
e o

waI—i
.0.

College level (administration)
Departmental level (administration)
Professorial

Special project director and staff

Special project director and staff
Department (administration and instruction)
Institutional (administration and instruction)

Department (administration and instruction)
Field (practitioners in the profession)
College (administration)

Students (graduate and undergraduate)

Operational (for special project)
Equipment (for special project)
Buildings (for special project)

College (supportive)
Department (supportive)

College (degrees)
Department (classes)

College (supportive)
Department (supportive)

Instruction (students)
Service (to the field)
Research (from the field)

College (supportive)
Department (supportive)
Research (from the field)

67

Ancillary 1. Department (supportive activities)
Services 2. College (enabling capabilities)

3. Other departments (supporting attitude)
Physical 1. Institutional (room for expansion)
Facilities
General Conclusions

It is most interesting to note that the two top ranking
factors are leadership and philosophical commitment. Both of
these must be developed within any institution, and neither one
can be applied to any institution by board action, administrative
fiat, or other coersive action. The two forementioned factors are
very much dependent upon the identification of the need for change ~—
which holds the third position of importance.

Beyond the top three factors, the remainder can be classified
as mere tools necessary to the process of introducing a new idea.
None of the tools can be functional unless the first three factors --—
leadership, commitment, and need -- are in their proper perspective.

This study also points out where there is conflict of opinion
relevant to the importance of factors. The conflict, it should be
emphasized, is in opinion rather than fact. Each time a significant

difference of opinion occurs, it gives evidence that within the total

categories there is a lack of role perception.

68

Specific Conclusions

Analysis of the data collected for this study provides the

following conclusions:

1.

3.

Institutions of higher education should consider
establishing a Center for Community Education only

when proper leadership is available. The leadership

of the college, department and professorial ranks must

be supportive of the special project if it is to be success—
ful. Lack of support from any of the categories of leader-
ship from within will retard the progress of a special
project and may result in failure.

Colleges and universities that establish a Center for
Community School Development should have developed

a philosophical commitment supportive of the functions

of the Center. The commitment should be institutional;
however, it should be extremely strong in the individual
responsible for the special project, the Center Director.
The vice presidents and graduate students in this study
felt that the institutional commitment was most important
in predicting success. All other respondents identify

the Center Directors as the most important place to have
a strong philosophical commitment.

Colleges and universities that establish Centers for

69

Community Education Development should have in
evidence a need for such a Center. The data in this
study suggests that the need for a Center should be
identified at the department level because of their
close relationship with the "field". The college should
recognize this need in order to provide support. The
data indicates that the least important source in
identifying need is the students. It is difficult to
agree with this finding because the literature places
much more importance upon the role of students in
determining innovations in higher education. This
study involved graduate students who typically are
representative of the field; therefore, it may have been
appropriate to consider their response as a resource
from the field. If this assumption is valid, the study
agrees with the majority of the literature.

Money is important in the process of establishing a
Center for Community Education. A study of budgets
of the eleven Centers reveals that most of the expendi-
tures are in salaries (leadership), and the related
expenses of making leadership available to public

schools. It is important to note that the second most

7.

70

important factor "philosophical commitment" doesn't
cost anything, but philosophical commitment probably
could not be purchased at any price.

Operating policies are necessary in order for a Center
for Community Education to function within the structure
of a college or university. As previously mentioned, all
factors can be both positive and negative. Operating
policies have a tendency to be more negative when new
practices are introduced. It is imperative that a method
of adjusting operating policies accompany the plan for
introducing a Center for Community Education into an
institution of higher education.

Institutions of higher education that establish Centers
for Community Education Dissemination should have the
capabilities of providing the services of such a Center.
These basic capabilities include: a) accreditation,

b) undergraduate programs in education, 0) graduate
programs in education, d) rapport with communities to
be served, e) flexibility to meet current needs, f) financial
resources.

The administrative structure of a college or university
should allow communication to flow to and from a Center

for Community Education Development.

71

8. The tradition of an institution sponsoring a Center for
Community Education should identify a strong instructional
and service history. Traditional research produced by
universities has little effect upon the success or failure
of introducing innovation in higher education. The
respondents in this study agree with this conclusion
statistically; however, informal conversations with them
and their colleagues reveals a much stronger desire to
rely upon research as a determining factor of change.

9. Physical facilities is not an important factor in the
success or failure of a Center for Community School
Development. The physical location of a Center within
its designated college is more important than the quality
or volume of space. Adequate office space strategically
located within the College of Education, will enable the
regular staff to be supportive of the functions. The
clustering of the department chairman, other professors,
and Center personnel allows a team approach to solving

the problems of community education.

Recommendations
The results and implications of the study suggest areas of

study. It is recommended that further study be designed:

72

To assess institutional commitment. The greatest

hazard in the process of establishing a new Center

O for Community Education Development is not knowing

the institutional commitment.

To determine the time span necessary for the adoption

of an innovation by an institution of higher education.

It is unknown how long outside financial support is
needed in order to insure an institution's successful adoption
of an innovative function. Although the time span will
vary from one institution to another, some guidelines are
needed both by colleges and existing and possible outside
funding agencies.

To determine leadership qualities necessary for the
success of a Center Director.

To determine the status a Center Director must have
within the institution in order to insure success.

To develop longitudinal measurements and guidelines

to assess the Center's consequences, both in the field
and in the university.

To determine changes in administrative and professorial
awareness and attitudes over the periods of community

education's initiation, implementation and adoption.

To determine the Center's effect upon other institutions

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

73

of higher education within the region it serves.

To determine the Center's effect upon the State Depart-
ment of Education in the region it serves.

To determine the feasibility of establishing a Center for
Community Education in private institutions.

To compare educational programs of institutions with
Centers for Community Education Development with
institutions without Centers.

To determine where Centers should be located within
the institution administratively.

To determine role perceptions of the Center staff.

To assess the probability of the institutions' accepting
fully the financial responsibility of the Center after
outside funding ceases.

To determine the geographic limitations that a Center
can effectively serve.

To determine the population limitations that a Center
can effectively serve.

To determine the feasibility of community education
becoming the center of attention (the primary thrust) of
a School of Education in an institution of higher education.

To determine the feasibility of staff members other than

Center Directors spending more time providing services

18.

19.

74

to public schools as part of their regular duties.
To replicate the study with a larger sample.
To replicate the study with a population selected from

public school systems .

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Agger, Robert E. , and Marshall N. Goldstein. Educational Innova-
tions in the Community. Eugene, Oregon: University of
Oregon, 1965.

Anthony, Robert N. , Planning and Control Systems: A Framework

for Analysis. Boston, Mass.: Division of Research, Graduate
School of Business, Harvard University, 1965.

Barnett, H.G. , Innovation: The Basis of Cultural Change. New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1953.

Bennis, Warren G. , Bureaucracy and Social Change: Anatomy of
a Failure. Cambridge, Mass.-

. Massachusetts Institute
of Technology Press, 1963. ‘

Bennis, Warren G., ChangLingOrganizations. New York: McGraw-
Hill Book Company, 1966.

Bennis, Warren G. . Kenneth D. Benne, and Robert Chin (eds.) ,
The Planning of Change. First Edition.

New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1961.

Bernard, Chester 1.

The Functions of the Executive.
Mass.:

Cambridge,
Harvard University Press, 1962.

Bhola, Harbans S. , and Virgil E. Blanke (eds.).

A Report of Conference
on Strategies for Educational Change. Columbus, Ohio:
Research Foundation, Ohio State University, September, 1966.

Carlson, Richard O. Adoption of Educational Innovations. Eugene,
Oregon: University of Oregon Press, 1965.

Carlson, Richard O. Executive Succession and O_rganizationalf

Change. Danville, 111.: Interstate Printers and Publishers,
Inc. , 1962.

75

76

Carter, L. F. From Research to Developmentfito Use. Santa Monica,
Cal.: System Development Corporation, February, 1966.

Chamberlain, Neil W. Private and Public Planning. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1965.

Chandler, Alfred D., Ir. Strategy and Structure. Cambridge, Mass.:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1962.

 

College and University Community Education Center Manual. C. S.
Mott Foundation, 1968.

Davis, Richard Howard. Personal and Organizational Variables Related
to the Adoption of Educational Innovations infiLiberal Arts Colleges.
Chicago, 111.: University of Chicago, 1965.

 

Donley, Donald T. , Alfred J. Cali, and Robert L. Lorette. The
Investigation of a Method for the Dissemination of Educational
Research Findipgp to Practitioners. Albany, N.Y.: Capital
Area School Development Association, State University of New
York at Albany, 1965.

 

Eidell, Terry L. , and Joanne M. Kitchel (eds.). Knowledge Production
and Utilization in Educational Administration. Portland,
Oreg.: Center for the Advanced Study of Educational
Administration and University Council for Educational
Administration, University of Oregon, 1968.

 

Eye, Glen G. , fl. 3L. RelationshipBetween Instructional Change
and the Extent to Which School Administrators and Teachers
Agee on the Location of Responsibilities for Administrative
Decisions. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin, 1966.

 

 

Farnsworth, Philio T. Adaptation Processes in Public SchoolSystems.
New York: Columbia University Press, 1940.

Gardner, John W. Self-Renewal: The Individual and the Innovative
Society. New York: Harper and Rowe, 196.4.

Goldhammer, Keith, and Stanley Elam. (eds.) Dissemination and
Implementation. Third Annual Phi Delta Kappa Symposium on
Educational Research. Bloomingham, Ind.: Phi Delta Kappa,
1962.

77

Good, Carter V. (ed.) Dictionaryof Education. University of
Cincinnati, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. , New York,
1959.

Griffiths, Daniel. Administrative Theory. New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts, Inc., 1959.

Gross, Neal, Joseph B. Giacquinta, and Marilyn Bernstein. Ag
Attempt to Implement a Major Educational Innovation: A
Sociological Inquiry. Cambridge, Mass.: Center for Research
and Development on Educational Differences, Harvard University,
1968.

Guest, Robert H. Q‘ganizational Chapge: The Effects of Successful
Leadership. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press, Inc., .1962.

Hamlin, Will, and Lawrence Porter (eds.). Dimensions of Change in
Higher Education. Yellow Springs, Ohio: Union for Research
and Experimentation in. Higher Education, June, 1967.

Havelock, Ronald J. Planning for Innovation Through Dissemination
and Utilization of Knowledge. A Final Report to the U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of
Education, Bureau of Research, July, 1969.

Heck, James B. An Analysis of Chapge in Public Education. Columbus,
Ohio: The Evaluation Center, College of Education, Ohio State
University, 1967.

Hoffer, Eric. Ordeal of Change. Harper—Rowe, New York, 1963.

Innovation in Education: New Directions for the American School.
New York: Committee for Economic Development, July, 1968.

Katz, Daniel, and Robert L. Kahn. The Social Psychology of Organiza—
tions. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. , 1966.

Lawrence, Paul R. The Changing of Organizational Behavior Patterns.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1958.

Lewin, Kurt. "Quasi-Stationary Social Equilibria and the Problem
of Permanent Change. " The Plannipg of Changg. First
Edition, Warren G. Bennis, Kenneth D. Benne, and Robert
Chin, eds. (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. ,
1961).

78

Likert, Rensis. New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-
Hill Book Company, Inc. , 1961.

Lippitt, Ronald, Jeanne Watson, and Bruce Westley. The Dynamics
of Planned Change. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World,
Inc., 1958.

Mann, Floyd C. , and F. W. Neff. Managing Major Change in
Organizations. Ann Arbor, Mich.: The Foundation for
Research on Human Behavior, 1961.

McGuire, Louis M. A Observations and Analysis of Literature on
Change. Research for Better Schools, Inc. , 1700 Market
Street, Suite 1700, Philadelphia, Penn.

Merton, Robert. Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe, N.Y.:
The Ree Press, 1957.

Miles, Matthew B. (ed.). Innovation in Education. New York:
Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University,
1964.

Miner, John B. The School Administrator and Organizational Character.
Eugene, Oreg.: Center for the Advanced Study of Educational
Administration, 1967.

Morphet, Edgar L. , and David L. Jesser (eds.). Emerging Designs
for Education. Denver, Colo.: Designing Education for the
Future: An Eight—State Project, 1968.

 

Morphet, Edgar L. , and Charles 0. Ryan. (eds.). Planning and
Effecting Needed Changes in Education. New York: Citation
Press, 1967. ~

Mort, Paul R. , and F. G. Cornell. American Schools in Transition.
New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College,
Columbia University, 1941.

O'Connell, Jeremiah. Managing Organizational Innovation. Homewood,
111.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1968.

Pierce, Truman M. "Educational Change and the Role of Media, "
Media and Educational Innovation. W. C. Meierhenry (ed.) ,
Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska, 1964.

79

Presthus, Robert. The Organizational Society. New York: Alfred
A. Knopf, 1962.

 

Reisman, David. The Lonely Crowd. New York: Doubleday & Co. ,
Inc., 1954.

 

Robinson, Thorington B. "The Public's Share in Shaping Educational
Policy: A Pilot Study. " A Pilot Center for Educational Policy
Research, Part II, Marvin Adelson, et. al. (Santa Monica,
Cal.: System Development Corporation, February, 1968).

Rogers, Everett M. "Innovations: Research Design and Field
Studies. " Novel Strategies and Tactics for Field Studies of
New Educational Media Demonstrations, Sidney C. Eboch,
(ed.) (Columbus, Ohio: Research Foundation, Ohio State
University, 1965).

Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. Glencoe, N. Y.:
The Free Press, 1962.

 

Rogers, Virgil M. Adapting Educational Change to Manpower Needs
in Qu_incy, Massachusetts, and Wood County (Parkersbupg) ,
West Virginia. Washington, D.C.: National Education
Association, 1966.

 

 

 

Russell, James E. Change and Challenge in American Education.
Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1965.

 

Small, George D. What We Learned From Current Programs and
Research About Dis~-Advantaged Pre-School and Elementary
School Children. Tulsa, Oklahoma: University of Tulsa.

 

 

 

Todd, Eugene. The Change Process: Implications and Applications
for Instructional Improvement. Todd Letters. Chicago, 111.:
Research Associates, Inc., October, 1968-June, 1969.

 

Watson, Goodwin. Social Psychology, Issues and In—Sights.
Lippincott, Philadelphia, Penn., 1966.

 

York, Linda J. Arrangements and Training for Effective Use of
Educational R & D Information: A Literature Survey.
Berkeley, Cal.: Far West Laboratory forEducational Research
and Development, December, 1968.

 

 

80

Zimmer, Basil G. , and Amos H. Hawley. Resistance to Reorganiza-
tion of School Districts and Government in Metropolitan Areas.
Providence, R. 1.: Brown University, 1966.

Periodicals

 

Lawrence, Paul R. "How to Deal with Resistance to Change. "
Harvard Review, January - February, 1969.

Muessing, Raymond H. "Change -- The Only Constant. " Educational
Leadership, XXVI (March, 1969).

" National Community School Education Association News," September,
1970.

Quarterly progress reports to the C. S. Mott Foundation from each
of the eleven institutions involved in the study.

We

Culbertson, Jack A. "Organizational Strategies for Planned Change
in Education. " (Paper prepared for the Conference on Strategies
for Educational Change, Washington, D.C. , November, 1965).

Guba, Egon G. "A Model of Change for Instructional Development. "
(Paper prepared for the Educational Media Conference, Indiana
University, June, 1968).

Herzog, John D. "Viewing the Issues from the Perspective of an
R & D Center. " (Paper read at the American Educational
Research Association Symposium on Educational Improvement
and the Role of Educational Research, New York, February,
1967).

Melby, Dr. E. O. Remarks from a speech to the first group of Mott
Interns, Flint, Michigan, October, 1964.

 

APPENDICES

 

APPENDIX A

PERFORMANCE INDICES QUESTIONNAIRE

 

git. . a ..

APPENDIX A

PERFORMANCE INDIC ES QUESTIONNAIRE

The questionnaire was developed by extracting performance

indices from existing Center proposals.

(Yes) (No)

( ) ( ) 1. Are undergraduate class periods devoted to
community education? If so, approximately
what percent of all those students with educa-
tion majors were affected?

( ) ( ) 2. Are special units on community education
incorporated in an existing undergraduate
education course? If so, approximately
what percent of the education majors were
affected?

( ) ( ) 3. Are new undergraduate courses on community
education offered? If so, how many?

( ) ( ) 4. Are graduate class periods devoted to community
education? If so, approximately what percent
of all those students with education majors were
affected?

( ) ( ) 5. Are special units on community education
incorporated in an existing graduate education
course? If so,~ approximately what percent
of the education majors were affected?

( ) ( ) 6. Are new graduate courses on community education
offered? If so, how many?

81

(Yes)

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

82

Have inservice community education workshops
been held for your institution's staff? If so,
how many people were involved?

Have community education workshops for
professional school personnel been held in
your region? Approximately how many people
were involved?

Have Masters degree theses or Doctoral
Dissertations been completed whose theme
is related to community education? If so,
how many?

13 a Masters degree available with an emphasis
on community education?

Is a Specialists degree available with an
emphasis on community education?

Is a Bachelors degree available with an emphasis
on community education?

Are other (non-Center) staff members incorporating
the community school concept into their professional
activities? If yes, approximately how many?

Are community education short term training

(for credit) experiences available as a result

of your Center? If so, approximately how many
people have been trained?

 

APPENDIX B

SELECTED EXPERTS

Dr.

Dr.

Dr.

Dr.

Dr.

Dr.

Dr.

Dr.

Dr.

Dr.

APPENDIX B

SELECTED EXPERTS

Ernest Melby
Donald Weaver
Howard MC Clusky
James Lewis
Arthur Partridge
James Thrasher
Frederick Bertolaet
Frank Hubert
Donald Butcher

James Bash

11.

1,2.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

83

Dr.

Dr.
Dr.
Dr.
Dr.
Dr.
Dr.
Dr.

Dr.

Delbert Long
William Lee
Edward Sullivan
Richard Williams
Raymond Smittle
Otha Cox

Neil Pohlman

Don Bush

R. Duane Peterson

Joseph Black

 

APPENDIX C

FACTOR RANKING QUESTIONNAIRE

 

 

I l'.‘

APPENDIX C

FACTOR RANKING QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear

 

I am in the process of writing a Doctoral Dissertation at
Michigan State University. The study will investigate factors
necessary for College and University Community Education Centers
to accomplish a prescribed change within their institution. Hope-
fully, you will assist me in this initial process for developing an
instrument. You have been identified as a person knowledgeable
of College and University administration.

If you decide to assist me in this search, your first task is
to rank each of the following factors you feel are necessary to ac-
complish change within a College of Education. The main headings
(Leadership, Policies, etc.) should be ranked 1 through 12. The
sub-headings (College, Departmental, etc.) should be ranked each 15‘
time they appear under a main heading. Prior to beginning, please i
list any additional factors you feel are important and rank them with
those provided.

Main Heading Sub-Heading
Rank Rank

 

 

 

Rank factors from 1-12.

1. Leadership ( )
a. Administrative (College
b. Administrative (Department)
0. Administrative (Special Project)
d. Professorial

vvvv

2 . Policies (Operational) ( )
a. College ( )
b. Departmental ( )

84

10.

11.

12.

85

Procedures (red tape)
a. College
b. Departmental

Physical Facilities

Institutional Capabilities
a. College
b. Departmental

Ancillary Services

a. College

b. Department

c. Other Departments

Tradition

a. Instruction
b. Research
c. Service

Need for change as identified by:

a. Students

b. Field

c. The Department
d. The College

Administrative Structure
a. College
b. Department

Research

Money

a. Operation
b. Buildings
0. Equipment

Philosophical Commitment
a. Institutional

b. Department

0. Individual

Main Heading

Rank

 

(

)

a

Sub-Heading

Rank

 

vvvv

86

Your last task is to cite an example of change that you have
observed in a College of Education. Hopefully, your description
will identify the kind of change that occurred, duration of the process,
and why the change took place.

If you decide to assist me in this task, let me thank you in
advance. If your busy schedule prohibits your participation, I will

certainly understand .

Sincerely,

Doug Procunier

APPENDIX D

FACTOR IDENTIFICATION CORRESPONDENCE

APPENDIX D

FACTOR IDENTIFICATIO N CORR ESPO NDENCE

Dear

 

As you know, I am in the process of gathering data for my
Doctoral Dissertation. In general, I am attempting to identify and
analyze factors that are necessary for Community Education Centers
to accomplish prescribed change within their institutions. Obviously,
I will need your assistance throughout the study. If you decide to be
of assistance, I will appreciate it very much.

For the sake of objectivity, would you please list both posi-
tive and negative factors that will influence the success or failure
of a Center for Community Education at a University other than your
own. As you list these factors, would you please rank order them.

Should you decide to assist in this process, please accept
my appreciation in advance. If your schedule prohibits your partici-

pation, I will certainly understand.

Sincerely,

 

Doug Procunier

87

 

.r.

"Ililiillliiliiills