A COMPARISON OF STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING. EFFECTIVENESS FOR FULL-TIME VERSUS PART- TIME FACULTY IN SELECTED FLORIDA COMMUNITY COLLEGES Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY JERRY W. KANDZER 1977 MJ.MYJZJ¢ l4 2. 3 I“: '1" ' LIPrfli"l’ :4 II III IIIII II II I II IIIIII II II III II II III III III I 1293 10316 09 ”6! This is to certify that the thesis entitled A Comparison of Student Ratings of Teaching Effectiveness for Full-Time Versus PartéTime Faculty in Selected Florida Community Colleges presented by Jerry W. Kandzer has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph .D . d . egree m and Higher Education Administration I Major professor Date «5-9? 0 » Z 2 0-7 639 ABSTRACT A COMPARISON OF STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING ‘EFFECTIVENESS FOR FULL-TIME VERSUS PART- TIME FACULTY IN SELECTED FLORIDA COMMUNITY COLLEGES BY Jerry W. Kandzer Statement of the Problem The rapid growth of the nation's community college system in both the credit and noncredit programs has forced administrators to employ large numbers of part- time faculty. They have recruited them to maintain the adaptability of the community college, while operating within its existing economic constraints. Thus, part- time faculty members have become a critical component of the community college system. In many instances the part-time faculty members are recruited from nonteaching professions. The problem, therefore, is that most of them lack the professional teacher preparation and/or teaching experience to com- plement their specialized knowledge. The purpose of this study was to determine, through the use of a student rating instrument of teach- ing effectiveness, whether there was a significant Jerry W. Kandzer difference in the teaching effectiveness of full-time versus part—time faculty. Univariate and multivariate analysis of variance and Pearson's Correlation Coefficients tests were used to analyze the student ratings of full- time and part-time faculty. The comparison was made in four community colleges from Florida. A stratified sample of teachers was selected to control for experience. There were 759 student ratings comparing teachers. These students were enrolled in sophomore level general edu- cation courses leading to the Associate of Arts degree. Major Findings of the Study The major finding was that students perceive no significant difference in the level of teaching effec- tiveness presented by full-time and part-time faculty. Further, students perceive no significant difference in the dependent variables of: (l) personality character- istics, (2) student-faculty interaction, (3) teaching methods, (4) course organization, and (5) a comparison of the instructor being evaluated to all previous instructors. Investigation of the independent variables of location, building, teacher status, teacher experience, and all possible combinations of interactions and nesting effects indicated that location was the only significant independent variable: that is, rural students perceived their instructors more positively than urban students. A COMPARISON OF STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS FOR FULL-TIME VERSUS PART— TIME FACULTY IN SELECTED FLORIDA COMMUNITY COLLEGES By “C 0% Jerry W. Kandzer A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1977 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As with other candidates who are working toward or finishing a doctor's degree, I have learned much more than academics. I have renewed the pleasure of designing and perpetuating a project from creation to fruition. Long to be remembered are the humbling experiences learned through working for married housing emergency maintenance, the beautiful experiences derived from the M.S.U. farms, Rose Lake, the Fenner Arboretum, the flood, and Michigan's four seasons. But my family and I will remember longest the friends, acquaintances, and experience we derived from the international flavor of Spartan Village. Education is not an individual achievement, as many experiences, many human influences, and many reflec- tions are required to create an educated man. This phase of my education is dedicated to Mrs. Frances Kandzer Brown and Dr. William Sweetland. They have both believed more than I in my abilities, have offered a word of encouragement when it was most needed, and have given greatly of their lives for my education. ii Dr. Max Raines, my family--Joan, Brett, Korie, Blake--and my secretary, Maggie, also deserve a large measure of credit. They all encouraged me to take the giant step, were patient when I slowed, and were ready to proceed as I gained momentum. Lastly, I wish to thank the Polk Community College administration, faculty and staff, the District Board of Trustees, and the Florida community colleges who par- ticipated in the study. Without their endorsement and support, none of this would have been possible. iii I. II. III. TABLE OF CONTENTS iv Page THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . 1 Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . 8 Purpose of the Study . . . . . 12 Questions To Be Investigated in the Study . 13 General Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . 14 Definition of Terms. . . . . . . . 14 Scope and Method of Study. . . . . . . 17 Assumptions . . . . . . . . 18 Uses of the Study . . . . . . . . . 18 Delimitations. . . . . . . . . . l9 Weaknesses of the Study . . . . . . . 20 Significance of the Study. . . . . . . 20 REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND RESEARCH. . . . . 22 Part-Time Faculty . . . . . . . . . 23 Characteristics of the Part-Time Teacher. . 23 Community College Teacher Preparation. . . 25 Preparation Needs of Part-Time Faculty 30 Problems Encountered . . . . . . . . 33 Teaching Effectiveness. . . . . . 38 Characteristics of Excellent Teachers. . . 41 Evaluation Programs. . . . . . . . . 45 Teacher Opposition to Evaluation . . . . 47 Variables Affecting the Results of Teacher Ratings by Students . . . . . 48 The Need for Student Ratings in View of Faculty Opposition . . . . . . . . 51 DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . 55 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Institution Sample . . . . . . . . 55 Teacher Sample. . . . . . . . . . 58 Student Sample. . . . . . . . . . 59 Page Methods of Collecting Data . . . . . . 59 Description of the Instrument . . . . . 60 Measures . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Reliability of Instrument . . . . . . 62 Treatment of the Data. . . . . . . . 65 Hypotheses Tested . . . . . . . 65 Method of Testing Hypotheses. . . . . 66 Summary and Overview . . . . . . . . 66 IV. ANALYSIS OF THE FINDINGS . . . . . . . 69 Background Information Concerning the Respondents Who Participated in the S tudy O O O O O O O O O O O O 6 9 Hypotheses Tested . . . . . . . . . 70 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . 78 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . 86 Recommendations for Further Study. . . . 87 APPENDICES APPENDIX A. TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS AS ILLUSTRATED BY PROFESSIONAL EDUCATORS . . . . . . . 88 B. EXAMPLES OF NATIONALLY ACCEPTED STUDENT ”TING FORMS I O O O O I O O O O O 89 C. CHECKLIST FOR ADMINISTRATORS ASSISTING IN THE STUDY 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 9 S D. STUDENT RATING INSTRUMENT . . . . . . . 96 E. CHARACTERISTICS OF GOOD TEACHING EMPHASIZED BY STUDENTS . . . . . . . . . . . 99 F. MATRIX OF INDEPENDENT VARIABLES . . . . . 100 Page APPENDIX G. RESULTS OF UNIVARIATE TEST OF TOTAL MEAN SCORES FOR ORIGINAL DATA WITH CODING ERROR AND DATA WITH CODING ERROR CORRECTED . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . 104 vi LIST OF TABLES Page TOTAL FALL FTE CREDIT ENROLLMENTS COMMUNITY JUNIOR COLLEGES--—l962, 1967, 1972, 1975 . . 7 FULL-TIME AND PART-TIME POSITIONS BY COLLEGE AND POSITION TYPE—-FALL, 1974 . . . . . 9 OPENING FALL ENROLLMENTS--CREDIT HEADCOUNTS FALL 1975 O I O O 0 I O O 0 O O O 57 RELIABILITIES, MEANS, AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS RESULTING FROM THE ANALYSIS OF THE PILOT STUDY DATA. . . . . . . . . . . . 62 RELIABILITIES RESULTING FROM MAJOR STUDY OF STUDENT RESPONSES . . . . . . . . . 64 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN DEPENDENT VARIABLES. . . . . . . . . 64 ANALYSIS OF TESTS OF SIGNIFICANCE. . . . . 72 UNIVARIATE POST HOC ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLE OF LOCATION . . . 74 MATRIX OF INDEPENDENT VARIABLES . . . . . 100 vii CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction Part-time faculty members are a critical component of the nation's community college system. They are used in every conceivable instructional program, both credit and noncredit. Their qualifications in both academics and experiences vary greatly. Their problems and needs are dissimilar from those of the full-time faculty member. Part-time faculty members have added flexibility and adaptability to the community college philosophy at a time when enrollments have increased faster than economic resources. Through their use, the community college has been able to maintain the levels of programming required to meet community needs. Yet the research literature is practically devoid of references to the problems, needs, policies, procedures, or instructional effectiveness of the part-time faculty member. This study represents an attempt to assess the various uses, characteristics, preparedness, and instruc- tional effectiveness of part-time faculty members. The survey of the literature and the research study itself are indirectly and directly designed to reach this end. The recruiting administrators of the various com- munity college systems, knowing that the various state teacher certification agencies require of new full-time teachers a course in community college philosophy and often one in teaching methods, have requested through their university articulation committees that these courses be added to the teacher training program. In their recruiting practices, they also emphasize, where possible, work experience in the content area to be taught. It is their hOpe that this practical knowledge will be transmitted through the curriculum, thus making the instruction more relevant. While part-time faculty typically possess significant work experience and are engaged in full—time career pursuits, few of them possess either educational coursework in teaching methods or have an understanding of community college philosophy. In the community college's effort to update itself, teacher orientation programs have developed a new profile. The more recent ones frequently contain segments on philosophy and teaching methods. Typically, the modern orientation program may last from one week to three months, in contrast to the historical two-hour "get acquainted" orientation program. Yet, part-time faculty, as a general rule, do not attend such programs. This may be due to the time requirements of their full- time job, or because the orientation was designed exclusively for full-time faculty and presented at a time when it would be unlikely that a part-time teacher could attend even if he wished. There are a few examples of orientation programs offered by evening administrators specifically for their part-time faculty. These range from a one-night, two-hour explanation of institutional policy and the part-time faculty handbook, to a three— month, new part-time faculty training program. In study- ing part-time faculty practices in Illinois and Maryland, Gerald Kennedy states that New part-time faculty received a minimum of orien- tation upon appointment. Only two institutions in each state had any identifiable orientation program for new part-time instructors. At the other junior colleges, where some form of orientation was under- taken, it invariably consisted of a short discussion of administrative and academic regulations by a member of the administrative staff.1 Again, the major drawback in planning such a program is in scheduling a time which is not in conflict with the full-time occupational requirements of the part-time teacher. A new emphasis upon faculty inservice programs has also developed. One area of great concern among such programs is the area of new teaching methods. These 1Gerald Kennedy, ”Preparation, Orientation, Utili- zation, and Acceptance of Part-time Faculty," Junior College Journal 37 (April 1967): 15. programs often include such topics as behavioral objec- tives for instruction, audiovisual aids to instruction, programmed methods of instruction, and criterion and/or norm referenced evaluation. They are typically offered as either in—house programs or as graduate courses pre- sented on campus for the convenience of the local insti- tution. However, these inservice training programs are generally developed for full-time faculty and it is a rarity for the part-time faculty to be invited to par- ticipate in these training programs. ‘ Recently, instructional evaluation programs have assumed a greater level of importance in reaching account- ability. The use of both student and faculty adminis- tration evaluation instruments has become more widespread. Institutions are both developing their own instruments, as well as utilizing nationally validated forms. However, such programs, in many instances, are not mandatory. In . addition, the administrative procedures for administer- ing such forms very frequently ignore proven research procedures. Probably the most flagrant violation is allowing the person being evaluated to administer and collect the instrument. In the cases where the student is evaluating the instructor, this has proven to result in a higher rating. Richard Miller, in speaking of developing programs for faculty, reported that Kirchner in 1969 found that "student ratings were significantly higher when the instructor being rated was in the room 2 The instrument is administered than when he was absent.” before grades have been issued, thus posing a threat to the student completing the form. The data resulting from the evaluation program are used primarily for rank- ing the effectiveness level of the institution's teachers. .The results, by design, produce a numerical coefficient for each instructor based upon how he is viewed as an instructor by his students, peers, and the administration. These results have also been used recently to reward teaching excellence by tying them into a merit teaching program. One author reports that "for most institutions, a merit advancement procedure must be employed to allow faculty members to get ahead by developing excellence in teaching."3 Yet, again, the evaluation program for the part-time faculty member is little more than formality. The results are usually placed in his personnel file with- out comment, the exception being when the instructor personally arranges to review the results, or when the results indicate a pending problem. The part-time faculty members have not been slighted intentionally. They are a product of the rapid 2Richard I. Miller, Developing_Programs for Faculty Evaluation (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974), p. 35. 3Jerry G. Gaff and Robert C. Wilson, ”Faculty Values and Improving Teaching," Reprint, p. 4. (Source unknown.) growth of the community college system. As evidenced by Table l, enrollments increased so quickly that a cor- responding rise in the instance of hiring part-time faculty was inevitable. The full-time faculty in many cases opted to fill their schedules with day classes, thus leaving night classes unmanned. Also, in many cases, night enrollments rose more rapidly than antici- pated and additional part-time faculty were hired to staff the additional sections created for peak periods of enrollment. In many cases, the enrollment surplus, above the regular staffing ability of the full-time faculty of a given department, was not sufficient to warrant another full-time faculty member, nor was it constant enough to be considered a permanent level of enrollment. The part-time faculty then came to serve three purposes for the educational administrator. First, the part-time faculty member could be utilized until enrollments warranted an additional full-time faculty member. Second, the part-time faculty member could be used as a buffer zone whereby full—time faculty could assume their classes if enrollments fell for a short period of time. And, third, part-time faculty could be hired at a lower pay level than full-time faculty, thus reducing the per student costs of the institution. TABLE 1 TOTAL FALL FTE CREDIT ENROLLMENTS COMMUNITY JUNIOR COLLEGES--l962, 1967, 1972, 1975 College 1962 1967 1972 1975 Brevard 1,094 2,953 5,340 7,620 Broward 1,268 3,467 5,730 7,210 Central Florida 840 1,373 1,780 1,910 Chipola 797 1,194 1,130 1,100 Daytona Beach 1,773 3,585 4,250 4,460 Edison 312 998 1,730 2,130 Florida J.C. at Jax. -- 4,708 8,400 11,080 Florida Keys -— 373 520 680 Gulf Coast 503 1,190 1,370 1,380 Hernando-Pasco -- -- 450 640 Hillsborough -- -- 5,540 9,400 Indian River 529 1,194 1,540 1,810 Lake City 320 1,078 1,330 1,490 Lake-Sumter 186 644 790 780 Manatee 1,104 2,084 2,260 2,440 Miami-Dade, North 4,588 11,901 13,840 14,920 Miami-Dade, South -- 5,053 7,300 9,250 North Florida 375 1,034 1,390 1,360 Okaloosa-Walton -- 1,200 2,050 2,670 Palm Beach 1,958 3,402 4,420 4,970 Pensacola 2,262 4,076 4,600 4,980 Polk -- 1,788 2,890 3,420 St. John's River 517 1,161 1,590 1,840 St. Petersburg, North -- 2,829 3,340 3,890 St. Petersburg, South 3,895 4,208 5,600 6,360 Santa Fe -- 2,014 2,310 2,610 Seminole -- 1,253 1,040 1,240 Tallahassee -- 956 2,400 2,600 Valencia -- 423 4,760 8,650 TOTAL 22,321 66,139 - 99,780 122,890 These instances of institutional neglect for its part-time faculty, resulting from the period of rapid growth, which the community college system has survived, must be resolved. Support services for the part-time faculty and evening students must be raised to a com- parable level with day services. Additional evening administrators and staffs should be hired to elevate the efficiency level of the evening programs. It is the responsibility of community college administrators to guarantee the same level of instruction for both day and evening students. Statement of the Problem As a result of their rapid growth, the nation's community colleges appear to have neglected their part- time faculty and evening students. The instances of part-time faculty utilization--particu1ar1y by community colleges-~is high, as shown in Table 2. They are recruited from business, industry health services, public services, and other institutions of secondary education. They may be homemakers or business people who have no teaching experience or a great deal of experience. All of these types are recruited to fill a vital role in the community education philosophy of the community college movement. In many instances, possess- ing only their academic skills, they are placed in the TABLE 2 FULL-TIME AND PART-TIME POSITIONS BY COLLEGE AND POSITION TYPE-~FALL, 1974 Instructional Total Percentage College Facult Part-time Full- Part- y Faculty Time Time Brevard 203 182 385 47.3 Broward 267 851 1,118 76.1 Central Florida 69 120 189 53.0 Chipola 65 5 70 7.1 Daytona Beach 151 390 541 72.1 Edison 60 44 104 42.3 Fla. J.C. at Jax. 319 1,175 1,598 73.5 Florida Keys 24 37 81 60.7 Gulf Coast 70 28 98 28.6 Hillsborough 148 237 385 61.6 Indian River 74 N/A N/A N/A Lake City 65 N/A N/A N/A Lake-Sumter 31 72 103 70.0 Manatee 66 134 200 67.0 Miami-Dade 784 N/A N/A N/A North Florida 38 0 38 0.0 Okaloosa-Walton 72 66 138 47.8 Palm Beach 174 165 339 48.7 Pasco-Hernando 15 85 100 85.0 Pensacola 275 206 481 42.8 Polk 95 110 205 53.7 St. John's River 37 23 60 38.3 St. Petersburg 274 14 288 4.9 Santa Fe 219 91 310 29.4 Seminole 95 160 255 62.8 South Florida 26 48 74 64.9 Tallahassee 61 17 78 21.8 Valencia 123 124 247 50.2 TOTAL 3,900 4,384 10 classroom or laboratory to perform at the same level as the professionally trained and competent teacher. Part-time faculty members are ubiquitous. They are employed in the general education academic divisions, in the vocational education divisions, and in the com- munity instructional services-~continuing education division. The pedagogy in each of these divisions is different, thus adding to the complexity of the concept of the part-time faculty member. General education courses typically utilize the lecture method, and heavily emphasize philosophical concepts. Vocational education courses typically utilize the lecture method to prepare students for hands-on application of more practical con- cepts. The major difference is that general education instructors are teaching philosophically and vocational education instructors are teaching skills. The continu- ing education part—time faculty member quite often teaches both philosophy and a skill; but, again, the primary emphasis is the application of a concept toward developing a skill. Many part-time faculty lack a thorough understand- ing of the philosophy of the community college movement and the special needs of the community college student. They must look to their previous educational and work experiences for models to organize course materials, methods of presentation, and evaluation of student 11 performance. Medsker says community college faculty have several reference points--that is, . . . the attitudes of junior college teachers may reflect the educational values or attitudes of teachers in four-year colleges and universities. Another possibility is that new and inexperienced teachers in junior colleges will retain a close identity with the graduate school or department from which he recently came and thus visualize the role of the junior college in terms of graduate standards and procedures. Another, is that those teachers who once taught in high schools may retain that perspective after they transfer to junior college teaching. Attempts at providing the additional training necessary to elevate them to a functional level of com- petence have been sporadic and for the most part unsuc- cessful as organized long-range programs. Since the part- time faculty member appears to be an indispensable part of the community college system, and his continued use is inherent, community college educators and adminis- trators should take the essential steps necessary to guarantee their optimum quality and effectiveness as teachers. It seems somewhat ironic that these measures have not already been achieved, since the community col- lege movement was founded upon its image as a "teaching" institution. If we assume that these charges are true, the traditional academic divisions of the nation's community 4Leland L. Medsker, The Junior College: Progress and Prospect (New York: McGraw Hill, Inc., 1960), p. 173. 12 colleges are Operating their programs at different levels of effectiveness and with diverse levels of instructor preparedness. This apparent dichotomy of qualifications concerns those administrators responsible for maintaining the quality and integrity of the community college instructional climate. And, due to the lack of research regarding part-time faculty teaching effectiveness, little has been done to correct the situation. Since the uses of part-time faculty spread across all academic divisions, a general study of their teaching effectiveness level would be difficult. The instructional areas differ so greatly in both intent and method that the data from such a study would be subject to too many variables to be meaningful or defensible. For this reason, the study will deal only with those teachers teaching courses in the academic division which lead to the Associate of Arts degree. Purpose of the Study, Although the use of part—time faculty has become a way of life for the community college movement, very little is known about their effectiveness as teachers. The purpose of this study, then, was to determine, through the use of comparative student ratings, whether there was a difference between the teaching effectiveness of part- time and full-time faculty in the traditional academic division. The sample was restricted to full-time and l3 part-time teachers teaching those academic courses which lead to the Associate of Arts or transfer degree program in selected Florida community colleges. This measure was taken to maintain the homogeneity of the student sample and the possibility of wide variance with respect to the types of courses being taught, i.e., faculty teaching vocational skills courses and noncredit courses were eliminated from the study to reduce extraneous variables. In addition, the study provides procedures and recommen- dations designed to assist educational administrators and part-time faculty in improving the level of teaching effectiveness. Questions To Be Investigated In the Study 1. Will part-time faculty score at a comparable level with full-time faculty on a student evalu- ation of teacher effectiveness rating instrument? 2. Is the experience level and number of years of teaching experience of a full-time or part-time faculty member an indicator of teaching effec- tiveness? 3. Will there be any interaction between the experience level and full- or part-time teaching status? 14 General Hypotheses Hypothesis 1: Part-time faculty will score as well as full-time faculty on a student satisfaction rating instrument. Hypothesis 2: Experienced and inexperienced teachers will receive similar composite scores. Hypothesis 3: Teachers in rural and urban schools will receive similar composite scores. Hypothesis 4: The interactions between the teachers' status, experience level, location of the school, and building will have little effect on the composite scores. Definition of Terms Full-time Instructor--a full-time instructor is a person whose teaching assignment is considered by the local institution as full time.‘ Part-time Instructor--a part-time instructor is one who is teaching less than the minimum number of credit or contact hours recognized by the local insti- tution as comprising a full-time teaching load. 15 Transfer Degree Program--a transfer degree program is one which leads toward transfer to a senior institution for the completion of the bachelor's degree. Traditional Academic Division--a division whose courses are attended primarily by students in the transfer degree program. Community College--a community college is a public, two-year, post-secondary institution which offers a two-year general education transfer program, and vocational technical programs leading to occupational entry or re-entry. Accountabilitye-the term "accountability" refers to both the responsibility of educational administrators to provide the highest possible level of educational experience for the student, and doing so through the most efficient expenditure of educational funds. In-service Programs--an in-service program is a training program offered by the local institution or an outside agency, usually educational, which the local institution invited to present a specific tOpic or course. The intention of such programs is to provide an opportunity for the local faculty to update existing skills or acquire new knowledge, skills, or methods. 16 Orientation Program--an orientation program is one which is designed to acquaint new faculty with such topics as: institutional philosophy and policies, the special needs of community college students, modern teaching methods, learning theory, and evaluation of student performance. Teaching Methods--teaching methods refers to different techniques of present course materials. Such techniques as lecture, informal group discussion, formal group discussion, debate, seminars, independent study, team teaching, and technological aids to the above are compared for advantages and disadvantages. Teaching Effectiveness--teaching effectiveness is the degree to which an individual teacher is able to utilize all the characteristics and skills of teaching to attain the highest level of behavioral change for each student. Location--1ocation is the general service area of each school--i.e., whether the service area population is primarily urban or rural. Status--status is the teacher's full-time or part-time employment responsibility. l7 Scope and Method of Study Since the primary focus of this study was directed toward part-time faculty, institutions who were known to utilize a large number of part-time faculty were selected. Therefore, four such institutions in the Florida community college system with a full-time equiva- lent student enrollment of 3,000 to 8,000 were selected for the study. These four institutions were selected from the twenty-eight eligible institutions. Instructors within participating institutions were partitioned into full-time experienced and inexper- ienced. A table of random numbers was used to select participant faculty from the list of eligible instructors. The respondents for this study were students enrolled in evening sophomore level academic transfer courses being taught by the instructors included in the study.. Each respondent completed the student evaluation of teacher effectiveness questionnaire developed for this study.‘ The controlled survey method was used to administer the study. The data were collected two weeks after the mid- term point of the term to insure that the respondents had ample time to learn the characteristics of their instruc- tor. The quantitative analysis of the instructors' ratings by students involved machine scoring and calcu- lation of the percentages, means, and standard deviations. l8 Assumptions The following assumptions were made as a basis for conducting the study: (1) (2) (3) (1) That community colleges will continue to employ large numbers of part-time faculty, and both com- munity colleges and institutions offering teacher training programs need to develop preservice or inservice programs specifically for part-time faculty; That there is a distinct difference between academic versus vocational divisions regarding pedagogy; That a difference exists between the level of instruction provided by full-time teachers and part-time teachers in the classroom, and that the level of instruction currently offered by part-time faculty can be improved as a result of professional teacher education programs emphasizing community college philosophy, special needs of the community college student, and teaching and evaluation methods. Uses of the Study The study will: Provide community college administrators, uni- versity teacher training administrators, and 19 state departments of education with the data necessary to appraise policies regarding the use of part—time instructors; (2) Demonstrate the need for well-formulated insti- tutional evaluation programs of instructional effectiveness at all levels of education; (3) Provide community college educators and adminis- trators with data for policy decisions, practices, and the implications of employing part-time faculty to achieve community—based education. Delimitations The study was limited to the twenty-eight Florida community colleges. Further, the study was restricted to full-time instructors with four to six years teaching experience, part-time instructors with four to six years teaching experience, full-time teachers with customary formal teacher preparation, but only zero to two years teaching experience, and part-time teachers with neither formal teacher training and only zero to two years teach- ing experience. The respondents for the study were limited to sophomore level students enrolled in those general academic transfer courses being taught by the above-selected instructors during the spring term of 1975. 20 In the last half decade the United States has undergone both an economic recession and a reduction in student enrollments. These conditions have resulted in a reduction in the hiring of inexperienced full-time faculty. Since only those institutions who possessed such faculty were eligible to participate in the study, each institution, by design, had to be actively queried rather than randomly selected. Of the four categories comprising the instructor sample, the full-time with zero to two years of experience became the limiting category. Weaknesses of the Study The design of the study precludes the generaliza- bility of the findings to instructors and administrations of other community colleges. Before generalizations can be made, each instructor or administrator must determine the degree to which the criteria of the instrument and the parameters of the institutions surveyed match those of his institution. Significance of the Study Research related to part-time faculty recruitment, orientation, inservice training, and special needs infers that part-time faculty are less prepared as teachers than full-time faculty. The research also implies that since they are less prepared through formal coursework 21 in community college philosophy and teaching methods, they are less effective as teachers. This researcher, however, could find no evidence to substantiate this claim. Therefore, this study may represent original information toward the study of the part-time faculty member. It is, therefore, hoped that this study will provide data which will be beneficial to educational decisionmakers and long-range planners. The first chapter has identified the problem and set the groundwork for completing the study. Chapter II contains a review of the research and related literature. Chapter III presents a detailed description of the design of the study. The background information concerning the respondents in the study is presented in Chapter IV, and this chapter also presents the findings of the study. Chapter V presents the summary, conclusions, and recommendations of the study. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND RESEARCH The studies of literature and research reported in this chapter were selected from many sources as being applicable and relevant to the problem under investigation. For added credibility, the major portion of literature and research citings are from sources published after 1965. The major areas covered in this review are: (1) the part-time teacher, (2) characteristics of teaching effec— tiveness, and (3) student evaluation of faculty perfor- mance. The first category describes the special charac- teristics of the part-time teacher, the preparation needs of the part-time faculty, and problems encountered by the part-time faculty. The second category highlights the characteristics of teacher effectiveness identified by educators, students, and evidence of pedagogical profes- sionalism in teaching. The third area is an in-depth view of the need for evaluation, students as evaluators of faculty, what adequate student ratings should contain, 22 23 factors affecting the results of student rating scales, and the use of evaluation instruments in counseling teachers. Part-Time Faculty The rapid growth of the community college movement in the last decade resulted in a monumental demand for qualified full-time and part-time instructors. Prospec- tive teachers were sought who were understanding of and sympathetic with the community college philosophy. Characteristics of the Part-Time Teacher While the part-time teacher has been used heavily to supplement the staffs of university and evening col- lege programs, few studies have been done regarding his profile, needs, or effectiveness. In many colleges, the ratio of full-time to part-time faculty is almost one to one, and, typically, the majority of part-time faculty teach in the evening division, where they usually out- number the full-time instructors.5 The vast majority of part-time faculty are employed in full-time career pursuits and naturally, their first responsibility is to their full-time position. The part-time teacher has traditionally been recruited from business, industry, health services, public 5Eileen P. Kuhns, "Part-Time Faculty," Junior College Journal 33 (January 1963): 9. 24 services, and other institutions of secondary education. That they are expected to perform at the same level of competence as the professionally trained teacher is illustrated by the fact that junior colleges require the same quality and standards for both day and night instruction.6 The technical qualifications and the adaptability of the part-time faculty make them a welcomed addition when qualified staff are unable to meet peak enrollments. Educational administrators utilize part-time faculty for three main purposes. First, they use the part-time faculty member until departmental enrollments warrant an additional full-time faculty member. Second, the part-time faculty member is used as a buffer zone, where- by full-time faculty can assume their classes if enroll- ments fall for a short period of time. And third, part— time faculty can be hired at a lower pay level than an experienced full-time faculty member, thus reducing the per student hour costs of the institution. In his study of part-time faculty in community colleges of Maryland and Illinois, Gerald Kennedy high- lights the profile of the part-time faculty member. His study of 935 part-time faculty illustrates that: 6Win Kelley and Leslie Wilbur, Teaching in the Communit -Junior College (Des Moines: Meredity Corpor- ation, l 70), p.7128. 25 1. In Illinois 54% and in Maryland 26% of the part- time faculty appointments came from secondary schools. 2. In Maryland 75% of the part-time faculty had master's degrees or advanced work; in Illinois 78%. In Maryland 18% of the part-time faculty held doctorates, but only 4% in Illinois. 3. Junior college administrators preferred to select applicants who had had some previous teaching experience, yet 28% of Illinois and 31% of Maryland's part-time teachers had no previous professional teaching experience, when initially appointed. 4. Typically, the part-time instructor conducted one course (75%), and had a 3 credit hour teach- ing program per semester (53%). 5. There was no instance in either state where a part-time teacher was teaching in a field in which he had not been academically prepared. Thus, the part-time teacher characteristically is employed full-time in a professional career, has a minimum of a master's degree, has some experience in teaching, and teaches one course in the technical or academic area for which he is educationally prepared. Community College Teacher Preparathn The community college is an institution designed to serve the needs of its community. It fills a niche in the educational schema which before its inception, remained unattended. Namely, the community college is an accessible institution that serves young and old, capable and marginal, rich and poor, in a wide array 7Gerald Kennedy, "Preparation, Utilization, and Acceptance of Part-time Faculty," Junior College Journal 37 (April 1967): 14-15. 26 of programs. It is the first two years of a college degree, a vocational training center, a retraining center, a community action and cultural center, and a place to acquire knowledge in fields of special interest. Because of the diverse nature of its environment, special prepara- tory training is needed by the community college faculty. Gleazer suggests that the community college offering a comprehensive curriculum does need special preparation of its faculty extending beyond academic competence or technical excellence. He further states that "the junior college teacher encounters a wider range of student abilities, motivation, interests, and achieve- ment than is usually found in the lower division of senior colleges and universities with highly selective requirements."8 For this reason, he suggests that the junior college teacher possess a strong guidance compo- nent, academic proficiency, and teaching proficiency.9 That academic or technical competence is essential can hardly be questioned, but this is the easiest criteria to measure, and it has long been the measuring stick for teacher selection. Academic prowess, however, is no guarantee of teaching effectiveness. Likewise, while 8Edmund J. Gleazer, Jr., "American Association of Junior Colleges Approach--Preparation of Junior College Instructors," Junior College Journal 35 (September 1964): 3. 91bid. 27 a prospective teacher can be required to take courses in guidance, there is no assurance that it will make him more sympathetic to students' needs and interests, or that it will help him be a better teacher. The complexity of the human personality makes it difficult to measure. Probably the most ignored, poorly taught, and difficult to measure criterion of teacher preparation is teaching proficiency. Until recently, the majority of teachers in higher education have not been offered any courses on teaching methods, and those they now have are usually too brief to be really effective. While no one would argue that a teacher becomes more proficient with practice, he should also possess a thorough knowledge of teaching methods. Diekhoff said the following concerning the principles of teaching: If teaching is an art which requires no study, no deliberate planned practice, which is based on no principles, and comprises no skills that must be mastered, surely it is unique among the arts. But it is not unique. . . . We must assume that teachers are born to be made, that an inept teacher can improve his practice of his profession, that a good teacher can become a better teacher, and that the improve- ment of teaching may be fostered by study, thoughti practice, criticism, practice, thought, and study. The need for improvement in teaching methods, by those within the profession and those now in training, has been voiced by others. Joseph Katz, in his 10John S. Diekhoff, ”Untaught Teachers," Saturday Review, October 15, 1960, p. 90. 28 contributions to "College and Character," wrote that "the college teacher has probably never once systemati- cally analyzed a single classroom hour to find out how effectively he communicated."11 F. Robert Paulsen, Dean of the University of Connecticut, wrote "when it comes to different methods of teaching, how many professors really know the advantages of various instructional pro- cedures?"12 He goes on to comment that many who are most vehemently opposed to learning about techniques of teach- ing are those who have never bothered to study techniques as a skilled process.13 Gordon and Whitfield found in their study that community college staff members felt a sophisticated colleague cannot be prepared in an environment foreign to the kind of institution for which he is training. They proposed that: Prospective community college instructors should serve an internship on the scene; furthermore, the internship should be of such length and depth as to produce an understanding of the situation and afford a personal appraisal of whether the prospective instructor and the particular demands of the institution are truly compatible.14 11Charles E. Chapman, "Resharpening the Tools of Instruction,” Junior College Journal 37 (October 1966): 34. 12 13 Ibid. Ibid. 14Shirley P. Gordon and Raymond P. Whitfield, "A Formula for Teacher Preparation," Junior College Journal 37 (May 1967): 27. 29 If such internship programs were coordinated with an institution's need to fill a vacancy, it would enable them to get an in-depth look at the human interaction side, the academic proficiency, and the level of teaching proficiency, exhibited by the candidate. A policy such as this would not only assist the student in gaining experience and an understanding of the community college environment, but it would also provide community colleges with a more qualified staff member. If teaching is to become accountable for its products, it must be based upon a systematic plan which can be evaluated. A program for preparing junior college faculty, which can be accommodated by the existing uni- versity and college teacher training programs, was pro- posed by Arthur Cohen when he wrote the following: My rationale for junior college teacher preparation is based upon these premises: 1. Teaching is the prime function of the junior college. 2. Teaching is, itself, the process of influencing learning. 3. Learning is changed ability or tendency to act in particular ways. 4. Operationally, both teaching and learning may be assumed to have occurred only when observable changes are demonstrated by the learner. 5. Change may be observed only if there has been determination of students' abilities prior to instruction. 6. Specific measurable objectives must be set so that learning may be appropriately guided.15 15Arthur M. Cohen, "Teacher Preparation: Rationale and Practice,” Junior College Journal 37 (May 1967): 21-25. 30 It becomes apparent that teacher preparation programs should emphasize the whole teacher. No longer is academic excellence and a course in community college philosophy sufficient. Future programs for teacher preparation should also weigh heavily the need for training in com- munity college student personalities and needs, desirable teacher personalities, learning theory, teaching methods including the advantages of each method, a sophisticated practical course in developing behavioral objectives and evaluation techniques for instruction, community college philosophy, and an internship service to provide the prospective teacher with the opportunity to practice his skills. To expect less of a newly trained teacher is to perpetuate the shortcomings of the past, and to allow our resident faculties to continue without pro- fessional teacher training is less than professional. Preparation Needs of Part-Time -‘.—_ Faculty The standards for hiring the part-time faculty member are similar to those for the full-time faculty. Like the full-time faculty, the main criteria for selection is the prospective faculty member's academic competence. Moreover, the standards against which his performance is judged are those established for the institution's full-time faculty. Thus, it is implied that he will be able to perform at the same level of 31 teaching competence as a professionally trained teacher with comparable teaching experience. Unfortunately, there is no research data to arrest this assumption. Educators must assume that the courses comprising college and university teacher training programs, preservice pro- grams, and inservice programs have been developed through careful research, and that participation in such programs better prepares one for the responsibilities of teaching. While the research does not indicate what percentage of part-time teachers are certified in community college philosophy or teaching-learning methods, it does reflect a prominent lack of preparatory programs for the part— time faculty member. Kennedy's study of nineteen Illinois and twelve Maryland public junior colleges revealed that only two institutions in each state had any identifiable orien- tation program for new part-time instructors. He further emphasized that of the remaining colleges, where some form of orientation was attempted, it invariably con- sisted of a short discussion of administrative and academic regulations by a member of the administrative staff.16 Gowin and Daigneault's study of the part-time college teacher perpetuates the lack of part-time faculty 16Kennedy, p. 15. 32 preparation. They reported that only eighteen of thirty- six institutions reported any kind of pre-service prepar- ation for part-time faculty and that . . . the typical pattern of these 18 was a con- ference with the department head, or dean, or director of the evening division concerning college routines and student relations. Even fewer reported any kind of inservice program for part-time faculty, 12 of 36.17 The part-time faculty member is aware of his lack of teaching skills. In a study of Michigan community colleges, Messerschmidt found that part-time and full- time vocational—technical instructors, when asked to list their inservice needs, requested that teaching methodology, exam preparation, item writing, lesson plan preparation, and the philosophy of the community college be included in their inservice education program.18 Most colleges claim to have some form of orien- tation or inservice training programs, but the effective- ness of these programs is not known. Typically, says Monroe, inservice programs ”include orientation sessions prior to the opening of a school term, weekend seminars, lectures by outstanding educators, and university 17D. B. Gowin and George H. Daigneault, The Part- Time College Teacher (Chicago: The Center for tfie Study 0 L ra E ucat on for Adults, 1961), pp. 7-8. 18Dale Harvey Messerschmidt, "A Study of Part- Time Instructors in VOcational-Technical Education Among Community Colleges in Michigan” (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967). 33 extension courses in the college campus."19 Even when institutions have well-planned inservice programs, part- time faculty may not be invited to take part, or their regular employment may prevent them from taking part. In order to insure a high level of teaching competence in our evening colleges, community college administrators should design inclusive inservice programs either spe- cifically for part-time faculty, or accessible to them. Problems Encountered While the part-time faculty are an essential part of the community college system, they are not without their problems, and the institution is not without its problems as a result of the part-time faculty. Schmidt found in his study of "The Problems of Part-time Industrial and Technical Instructors," from interviews with twenty-one instructors in eleven Michigan community colleges, that their major problems were the following: 1. Lack of materials such as course outlines, plans, and faculty handbook, which should be furnished upon appointment. 2. Self-evaluation of one's effectiveness as a teacher. 3. Adapting instruction to individual differences. 4. Determining the various competencies required of graduates in one's subject area. 19Charles R. Monroe, Prgfile of the Community College (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1972), p. 284. 34 5. Keeping abreast of current ideas and trends in one's occupational area. 20 6. Developing satisfactory tests and examinations. Siehr reported the problems of 2,783 new faculty 21 While members in 429 community colleges in 50 states. his study dealt with new full-time faculty, six of the nine most common problems appear to be applicable to part—time faculty and similar to Schmidt's findings. They are: 1. Lack of time for scholarly study. 2. Adapting instruction to individual differences. 3. Dealing with students who require special attention to overcome deficiencies. 4. Challenging superior students. 5. Obtaining needed instructional materials. 6. Grading and marking students' work.22 If these qualities are problems for new full-time faculty, who hopefully are professionally trained teachers, then it is difficult to imagine how severe a problem they must pose for new part-time faculty, who in many cases are not prepared professionally as a teacher. Administrators of community colleges employing part-time faculty also have their problems. Kuhns says that ”occasionally a part—time faculty member will feel 20Carlos R. Schmidt, "A Study of the Problems of Part-Time Industrial and Technical Instructors in Selected Michigan Community Colleges” (Ph.D. dissertation, 1971). 21Hugo Emil Siehr, ”Problems of New Faculty Mem- bers in Community Colleges" (Ph.D. dissertation, 1962). 22Ibid. 35 that administrative deadlines (for such things as mid- term or final grades) are meant for others, but not him, and by his tardiness will hold up the registrar's orderly process for hours or days."23 Robert E. Horton, Dean of Educational Services at Los Angeles City College, was quoted by Kuhns as saying that part-time teachers are not on campus frequently enough to become fully identified with the college, and, because of the full-time employment, communication with them is very difficult."24 Teachers lacking professional education courses in teaching methods and the community college student can cause other problems as well. Often they lack the required knowledge in the areas of techniques and the appraisal of student abilities and needs. Hiring pro- fessionals with graduate training may result in the level of instruction being pitched too high, while~high, while hiring part-time faculty from secondary education results in instruction being pitched too low. Gowin and Daigneault wrote: It has been my experience that the average part- time person, when compared to the professional teacher, is not so skilled a teacher, not so devoted to his work, is not well informed regarding the workings of the university, is 23Ibid. 24Kuhns, p. 10. 36 an easy grader, cannot spare much time, if any, working with students outside of class, etc. My point is that we cannot expect the average part-time faculty to perform as well as the full-time faculty.25 These findings suggest that community college administrators, even though they profess to offer equal levels of instruction for day and evening programs, are not living up to their responsibility. Many of these apparent problems could be resolved through joint planning .of preservice and inservice programs by the administration and representatives of the part-time faculty. Such plan- ning will both increase the guarantees of more effective classroom teaching and improve the educational climate of the institution. Vairo and many other educators believe that ”since it is in the classroom, under the guidance and leadership of the teacher, that the minds of American students are developed, the qualifications of the teacher are of paramount importance."26 Com- munity college administrators, faced with the continued use of part-time faculty, shoulder the responsibility of clarifying to their public that the qualifications of their part-time faculty are the highest possible. And in addition, that their practices of recruiting, 25Gowin and Daigneault, p. 3. 26Philip D. Vairo, "Faculty Quality: A Challenge to the Community College," Journal of Higher Education 36 (April 1965): 217. 37 orienting, and training part-time faculty are consistent with demonstrated needs and methods. A composite program for part-time faculty prepar- ation, according to various articles of research, might include the following: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) theory, Preparation of a part-time faculty handbook to be used as a supplement to the full-time faculty handbook; Creation of a part-time faculty-administrative planning committee; The administration of a needs-analysis study to determine the problems and deficiencies of new and returning part-time faculty; Joint planning of a part-time faculty orien- tation seminar; Joint planning of an inservice training program for part-time faculty; Scheduling of a number of department meetings at times when part-time faculty can attend. While such a program might appear ideal in one must face reality. The plight of the part- time faculty member is a result of both a lack of commit- ment by institutional administration and a lack of sup- port services for the evening program. Before such a 38 program, as outlined above, could be initiated in full, both of these criteria would have to be secured. A recent California study identified eight major areas where evening instructional programs received fewer support services than day instructional programs. They were: 1. general administrative services 2. office facilities 3. faculty orientation 4. curriculum and instructional support, i.e., supervision, evaluation, course outlines, etc. 5. counseling, guidance, and student testing 6. library services 7. teaching aids 27 8. compensation of instructors In defense of the evening administrations, who are normally responsible for the part-time faculty, the part-time faculty dilemma is not simply the problem of an administrative arm; it is an institutional problem. With the lack of institutional commitment and support services, it is commendable that evening administrators and the part-time faculty have accomplished so much. Teaching Effectiveness The thesis that the community college teacher should represent teaching excellence is not a new one. O'Banion notes that in 1931, Eells stated that "the com- munity-junior college has little or no excuse for 27Kenneth R. Evans, "Evening Services of Junior Colleges," Junior College Research Review 4 (March 1970): 74-75. 39 existence if it does not place prime emphasis on superior teaching, superior instructors, and superior methods of instruction."28 This idea was reinforced in 1960 by Thornton when he agreed that "either the community- junior college teaches excellently or it fails com— pletely."29 Other community college spokesmen, like Evans in 1970, have continued to stress the importance of qualified staff and teaching excellence, to build the curriculum, and to attract and retain good students.30 Teaching excellence is a very complex concept. Moreover, it is compounded because, in many respects, educators have not reached concensus as to a definition of teaching, whether it is an art or a science, what makes a teacher excellent, or the relative importance of various teaching methods. There does, however, appear to be agreement that teaching includes many variables and that teaching is much more than subject area compe- tence. James Laurits defines teaching as ”the process by which changes in behavior are effected in an indi- 31 vidual.“ This definition was chosen both because of 28Terry O'Banion, Teachers for Tomorrow: Staff Development in the Community Junior College (Tucson: The University of Arizona Press,71972), p. 52. 29 30 Ibid. Ibid., p. 53. 31The Evaluation of Teaching, A Report of the Second Pi Lambda Theta Catena, Pi Lambda Theta (Washington, D.C., 1967), p. 32. 40 its simplicity and its quasineutrality. It is assumed that, whether art or science, teaching is a process. A teacher in either case must organize, present, and evaluate. Also, it is further assumed that for both, the end product of teaching is to effect (through newly implanted knowledge) a change of behavior in the indi- vidual student. By comparing the explanations of teach- ing as an art and as a science, further common variables are revealed. Win Kelley and Leslie Wilbur maintain that superior teaching at any level of education is an art and go further by citing the following from Kegel: The teacher is both mirror and lamp. Knowledge of subject matter, of media and techniques is not enough. Art uses this knowledge as a means of creative communication, the creativity being the unique addition of the artists; the manner in which the artist uses the variety of materials and techniques that affect the behavior of his audience and establish his art form or style. His imagination and personality combine with the means of teaching to determine his effec- tiveness as a teacher. Speaking about the science of teaching, Diekhoff says "there is a theoretical base in philosophy, psychology, history, and sociology that may be learned by study. There is a body of skills that may be learned by practice."33 32Win Kelley and Leslie Wilbur, Teaching in the Communiterunior College (Des Moines: Meredith’Corp., I576) . p. 136. 33John S. Diekhoff, "Untaught Teachers," Saturday Review 8 (October 15, 1960): 90. 41 Therefore, whether art or science, educators agree that certain variables such as knowledge of subject matter, communications skills, personality, materials, and techniques contribute to the level of teacher effec— tiveness. The argument, therefore, is not whether these variables are ingredients of teaching effectiveness, but whether they can be accurately measured, and to what degree is their importance. Characteristics of Excellent Teachers Probably one of the most extensively researches areas of education is the characteristics of teaching effectiveness. For the purpose of clarity, we are addressing ourselves to those characteristics which are believed to enhance student achievement. Listed below is a composite outline of those characteristics and skills recorded by seven writers as essential elements of teacher effectiveness: (1) Personal characteristics (2) Faculty-student interaction styles (3) Professional knowledge (discipline competence) (4) Organization of materials (objectives) (5) Presentation of materials (techniques, methods) 42 (6) Evaluation of student outcomes (7) Institutional teaching climate It is interesting to note that no one writer included all seven categories in his remarks about teaching effective- ness. Also, a great amount of material deals with the personal attributes of the teacher. A topical outline by the author is presented in Appendix A, where the recurring tendency to illuminate the person as the teacher becomes apparent. National rating scales, on the other hand, manifest the need for judging the total makeup of the teacher, as indicated in Appendix B. Attempts at predicting and measuring teacher effectiveness are in many instances the conveyance of opinions. There is little evidence of a research base which permits the prediction of those traits which are closely associated with teacher competence. One document which approaches the subject from a research orientation is the American Association of School Administrators report. It analyzes studies dealing with the traits of intelligence, age and experience, professional knowledge, cultural background, socio-economic background, teaching attitudes and interests, and voice and speech character- istics. Their findings were as follows: 1. Intelligence--there appears to be only a slight relationship between intelligence and the rated 10. 43 success of the instructor, and that it is of little value as a single predicator. Subject Matter--findings simply do not support this assumption. Scholarshipe-not essential to teaching competence. Professional Knowledge-—there is some evidence that teachers who have more professional knowledge make better teachers, but the evidence is not as strong as might be expected. Age and Experience--teacher's rated effectiveness at first increases rather rapidly with experience, then levels off at five years or beyond. Cultural Background--no substantial evidence of differences in effectiveness. Socio-economic Status-~rated low by Sims Socio- Economic Scales. Men and WOmen Teachers--no particular difference has been shown. Marital Status—-no evidence of a significant difference. Aptitude for Teaching--data fails to establish the existence of any specified aptitude for teaching. 44 ll. Attitude Toward Teachers and Teachingr-the Yeager Scale seems to bear a small but positive relation— ship to teacher success measured in terms of pupil gain. 12. Voice Quality-~not considered very important.34 The most revealing aSpect of this study is that the major categories of subject matter, scholarship, professional knowledge, and age with experience were less than sig- nificant as contributors of teaching success. These are, after all, among the most highly acclaimed traits of the profession. Since there are apparently no guarantees of what enhances teacher effectiveness, perhaps Richard Morton's comments regarding the improvement of teaching through improving the institutional climate for teaching can eliminate some of the complicating variables. Morton suggests that one of the best ways to improve teaching is to improve the campus, student-faculty, and faculty- administration relationships; let the teacher know he counts and that he is wanted; build an atmosphere of cooperation and ”espre de corps.” He continues to say that "if you want to increase the guarantees of more effective teaching, then increase the chances that the 34American Association of School Administrators, Department of Classroom Teachers of the N.E.A., National School Boards Association, Who's a Good Teacher (Wash- ington: 1961), pp. 22-26. 4S instructor who goes into the classroom will be one whose personal, domestic, community, and classroom relationships are smooth and well defined, and who is given reason to be cheerful and hopeful, as well as inducements to make 35 This his subject as important as he possibly can." may be a big pill for administrators to swallow during a time when state monies are being guarded, enrollments are dropping, layoffs are imminent, and adversary relationships are mounting. Nevertheless, the rewards to our clientele, the student, are worth the effort. Evaluation Programs If educators wish to insure the best possible education for our students, the need for evaluation of teaching effectiveness is paramount. Further, educators must realize the positive merits of the evaluation of teaching effectiveness and take the initiative in the development of comprehensive evaluation programs. The need to evaluate teaching is imperative if we are to effectively change teaching and improve learning. . . . Also, as we move more and more into programs of team teaching and into developing instructional programs calling for staff differ- entiation, we must evaluate staff in order to 35Richard K. Morton, ”Personal Backgrounds of Effective Teaching," Improving College and University Teaching 8 (Autumn 1960): 137. 46 determine those persons suited for differentiated roles. Finally, we simply need a check on our- selves to see how well we are doing.36 Simply, evaluation is defined as "the process of ascertaining or judging the value of something by careful appraisal."37 This appraisal may be informal, in which case it is based primarily upon supervisory opinion. Or, it may be formal, and include such stages as ratings by peers, students and administrators, observations by peers and supervisors, and conferences with supervisors which include written reports and recommendations. Sample criteria for classroom teaching effectiveness appraisals are often cited as student achievement, the level of student behavioral change, personality traits, and skills of teachers, and student, peer, supervisory, and admin- istrative opinions of teaching effectiveness. Still another concept is that an even better indicator of effective teaching is to appraise the functioning level of the whole school.38 36Elmer G. Ellis and Lutian R. Wooton, "Valid Evaluation of Teaching Is Imperative,” Kappa Delta Pi Record 7 (April 1970): 139. 37Delmer Goode, ”The Centrality of Evaluation,” Im rovin Collegg and University Teaching 7 (Winter 1950): 16 38The Evaluation of Teaching, A Report of the Second Pi Lambda Theta Cotena, P1 Lambda Theta (Washing- ton, D.C., 1967), p. xi. 47 Even with a comprehensive evaluation program, the resulting data are, in the end, subject to human judgment. So many variables are associated with teach- ing effectiveness that the results in most cases are less than conclusive. Just as teachers teach in dif- ferent ways and possess different skills, so do students learn in different ways and possess different abilities. Thus, through the complexity, and in the face of a diverse number of criteria and varying abilities of both student and teacher alike, educators must attempt to construct an evaluation system whose results indicate a number of factors which reflect successful teaching. Teacher Opposition to Evaluation Even under optimum conditions, teacher ratings have received open criticism. Student governments bar- gain for student evaluation programs while claiming that they, being the direct recipients of instruction, are the most qualified to judge teaching effectiveness. College administrations, often with a mandate from state officials or boards of trustees, have, with or without the support of their teaching faculties, developed appraisal systems to measure teaching effectiveness at their respective institutions. A minority among teaching faculties have themselves, in many cases, voiced the strongest opposition to teaching effectiveness appraisals. They ask what a student knows of the 48 complexities of teaching methods, of scholarly competen- cies, and of their degree of professional preparedness. They scorn their administration for their lack of involvement in the creation of appraisal systems, for the frequent linking of a merit system with the appraisal system, and for viewing the results of the total appraisal as a single neutralizing mathematical average. ”After all," says Ernest House, . . . what does a teacher have to gain from having his work examined? As he sees it, absolutely nothing. He is exposing himself to administrators and parents. He risks damage to his ego by finding out he is not doing his job as well as he thinks he is. Perhaps worst of all, he risks discovering that his students do not really care for him-- something a teacher would rather not know. Since there are no punishments for not exposing one's behavior and many dangers in so doing, the prudent teacher givgs lip service to the idea and drags both feet.3 Variables Affecting the Results of Teacher Ratings‘By Students Historically, a multitude of factors have been designated as variables which interfere with the validity of results arising from student rating plans. A number of studies in the past ten years have both refuted and endorsed findings of the past. Richard Miller, in addressing a number of these variables in his book, Developing Programs for Faculty 39Ernest R. House, ed., School Evalggtion: The Politics and Process (Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Corp., 1973), p.“126. 49 Evaluation, stated that no significant relationship exists between course grades, achievement, gradepoint average; teachers cannot be differentiated on the basis of person- ality; no significant difference exists between the sex of the student rater or that of the teacher; and whether the course is required or elective is of little conse- quence. Miller felt that the data on the other variables, however, are more complicated and less conclusive. In speaking of the class level of the student rater as a complicating variable, Miller cited a number of related studies. Echert and Keller (1954) and Miller (1972) concluded that seniors and graduate students rated courses higher than undergraduates. Gage (1961) found that teachers of low-level courses were rated lower than teachers of upper-level courses. Bendig (1952) found that upperclassmen were more unfavorable in their opinions than lower classmen. However, Delchen (1940) and Hildebrand (1971) found little difference in student ratings at various grade levels. The effects of the_ teacher's rank, age and experience upon the student rater are also uncertain, according to Miller. Among the studies he used to illustrate this issue were Bowie (1952) who found no difference in student ratings between the under and over 40 age group, Guthrie (1954) found no relationship between experience and teaching effec- tiveness; and Centra (1972) who stated that the more 50 experienced teachers were rated no better than those in their first and second years of teaching. Results of the class size variable were also mixed. Guthrie (1954) found little relationship between the size of the class and the rating given. Goodhartz found that in classes with fewer than twenty students, the ratings were not always high. Gage (1961) and Miller (1972) agreed that the student's personal view about the effectiveness of small classes affected the results. Finally, Eckert and Keller (1954) found that ratings in early morning courses were lower than those for mid-day courses.4o Another variable which Miller isolates in his search is the procedure for administering the student rating form. He cites studies by Kirchner (1969) who found that student ratings were significantly higher when the instructor was in the room, and Colliver (1972) who found that students who do not sign the rating forms give significantly lower ratings.41 In contrast to Miller's "no significant difference" view on the students' sex as a complicating variable, 40Richard I. Miller, Develo in Pro rams for Faculty Evaluation (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, I974), pp 0 61"“. 41Ibid., p. 35. 51 Richard K. Morton provides a very convincing argument for the affirmative. Morton sees the . . . man as more strongly conscious of economic values and employment needs--he wants to get right to the business and have it over with; he wants clear and direct assignments. He wants an instructor who moves surely and vigorously. The woman, on the other hand, wants a neat and orderly presentation which is done in an enjoyable manner by a pleasing personality and by an indi- vidual who remembers the needs she has for relat- ing what she learns to her daily life. She is more conscious of life goals than purely intel- lectual or vocational goals.42 The Need for Student Ratings in View of Facultnypposition The initiation of an evaluation program does not always carry the blessings of the faculty. There is usually a minority who oppose student ratings and the philosophy of evaluations, per se. They argue that evalu- ation programs are too complex to provide meaningful results, that the results are not used for the purpose for which they were created, and that the students are too immature to answer the highly technical questions appearing on most student rating forms. Opposition or not, the instance of student ratings is on the increase. The decisions on recent court cases, the public, and the students demand that faculty be evaluated. Hoffman indicates why the evaluation programs 42Richard K. Morton, "Students' Views of Teach- ing," Improving College and University Teaching 13 (Summer 1965): 141. 52 are in such demand by referring to "The Editors Uneasy Chair," ICUT, Vol. 7, No. 1, Winter, 1959, from which he states that . . . professors cheat students too. 'They arrive at their classes without preparation, repeat or skip topics without realizing it, indulge in extended discourse on irrelevant matters, waste class time in incredible ways. Excessively involved in personal research or community interests, they teach without plan or schedule, run out of time each day and each term, ask test questions on things that have not really been taught, tolerate disorder, demoralize students by their inefficiency, and cancel classes without warning or without arranging makeup time.43 Although Hoffman's illustration represents the atypical faculty member or a minority of the faculty, it may more nearly reflect a minority public view of the college teacher. How do you explain to a prejudiced ear that your workload is nine hours a week while his is forty? One way educators can eliminate a measure of this unpOpular public opinion is through evaluation itself. As Paul Dressel states, in addition to competence in one's discipline, we need . . . insight into the effect of one's instruc- tional practices in promoting both the quantity and quality of student learning. Only by sys- tematic study of student 1earning--by evaluation-- 43Randall W. Hoffmann, "Students Portray the Excellent Teacher," Im roving College and University Teaching 2 (Winter 19 3): 2I-24. 53 can the teacher know his effectiveness and make such judgments as promise to increase it. As students have the opportunity to evaluate instructors and feel that their comments are used for the improvement of the educational system, their opinion of education will improve. Also, as faculty learn to use student feedback to improve their instruction, and not to view student evaluations as a threat, their relations with students should improve. Dressel states that two points should be kept in mind as an educator collects and uses student evaluations: First, student reactions are but indirect evidence of effectiveness, though they may point up factors which impede effectiveness. Second, students should be asked to evaluate a course or a teacher in such a way as to keep in evidence that the students share responsibility with the teacher for the effectiveness of the course. Just as there are varying opinions about the con- cept of evaluation, there are also varying opinions on the use of students as evaluators. J. T. Hastings feels that students are well qualified as evaluators. He states that "students can be an excellent source of data about perceptions of structure, relevance of material presented, adequacy of reference material, and tests." Hastings goes on to say that students' expectations for a given 44Paul L. Dressel, "Teaching, Learning, and Evalu- ation," Im roving College and University Teaching 8 (Winter 0): 11. 4SIbid., p. 15. 54 course or program are often revealed in the data.46 As strongly as Hastings has praised the use of student evaluations, others have adamantly opposed them. The American Association of School Administrators suggests that "there is very little research evidence suggesting that student ratings contribute to instructor improvement or could be used to improve supervisory ratings."47 While the philosophy and worth of evaluation systems is far from decided, they are being used and will continue to be used. Since any evaluation results in a judgment, the question is, do we make that judgment with or without factual data to substantiate that judgment? Today's educators or administrators cannot risk intui- tive judgment, for they are too often called to task. 46Ernest R. House, ed., School Evaluation: The Politics and Process (Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Corp.,41973), p. 144. 47American Association of School Administrators, Department of Classroom Teachers of the N.E.A., National School Boards Association, Who's A Good Teacher (Washing- ton: 1961), p. 33. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Introduction The present study was designed to determine the differences in teaching effectiveness among part-time and full-time faculty with reference to: (1) personality characteristics, (2) faculty-student interaction, (3) technical and professional skill, and (4) organi- zation and evaluation. The determination of the levels of teaching effectiveness was made through the use of a self-designed and pilot-tested student rating instrument. The procedures and methodology used to identify and analyze the problem will be presented in this chapter. Specifically, the procedures for selecting and identifying the sample, methods of collecting the data, the descrip- tion of the instrument, and the treatment of the data will be discussed. Sampling Institution Sample Since the primary focus of this study was directed toward part-time faculty, institutions who were most 55 56 likely to utilize a large number of part-time faculty were selected. Hence, those Florida Community Colleges with an opening fall 1975 enrollment by credit student headcount of 3,000 to 8,000 were selected for the study (Table 3). By design, this eliminates those institutions with both the least and the greatest numbers of students. It was assumed that those with the least number of full- time equivalent students would have a low instance of part-time faculty. And, those with the greatest number of full—time equivalent students, while they probably employ a large number of part-time faculty, may not rep- resent the typical state institution. In addition, the study was further restricted to include those full-time and part-time faculty teaching only those academic courses which lead to the Associate of Arts or transfer degree. This limitation was prescribed in order to eliminate com- plicating factors such as dealing with academic, vocational, and noncredit faculty, and students enrolled in academic, vocational, and noncredit, occupational or avocational courses. With these restrictions established, the researcher utilized the 1975 Florida Public Community College table of opening fall enrollments to select those institutions with enrollments of 3,000 to 8,000. The enrollment statistics revealed that nine institutions were eligible to participate in the study (Table 3). 57 TABLE 3 OPENING FALL ENROLLMENTS--CREDIT HEADCOUNTS FALL 1975 College 1975-76 Enrollment Brevard 8,816 Broward 13,706 Central Florida 2,089 Chipola * 1,086 Daytong Beach 3,952 Edison 3,154 Florida J.C. at Jacksonville 13,110 Florida Keys 1,301 Gulf Coast 2,871 Hillsborough* 10,433 Indian River 3,791 Lake City 2,410 Lake-Sumter 1,670 Manatee 4,137 Miami-Dada 37,669 North Florida 885 Okaloosa-Walton 2,634 Palm Beach* 7,946 Pasco-Hernando 2,214 Pensgcola 8,124 Polk 4,305 St. John's River 1,388 St. Petegsburg 12,492 Santa Fe 5,922 Seminole* 3,423 South Florida; 656 Tallahassee 2,884 Valencia* 6,721 * Institutions with 3,000 to 8,000 credit student headcount enrollment in the fall of 1975. 58 The researcher then calculated the time and cost necessary to administer the instrument and decided that four institutions would be the maximum number possible. The sampling procedure used to select the four institu- tions involved placing the individual names of the nine eligible institutions in a container and drawing them out, one at a time. Initially, five institutions acknowledged their willingness to participate, but one later withdrew because of an unusually large number of solicitations for research assistance. Administrative directors at the four identified institutions were then mailed a synopsis of the study, with an attached check- list. The checklist outlined those steps of the study which the participating institution would be asked to perform (Appendix C). Teacher Sample The four institutions which agreed to participate in the study were asked to categorize all eligible instructors into: (1) full-time with 4-6 years of teaching experience, (2) part-time with 4-6 years of teaching, (3) full-time with 0-2 years of teaching experience, and (4) part-time with 0-2 years of teaching experience. Initial eligibility of the teachers within the four categories was requested from the administrator(s) responsible for full-time and part-time credit faculty. 59 The assignment to categories was based upon the infor- mation contained in their personnel vitae. The administrators were instructed to provide all eligible instructors with an introductory letter and synopsis of the study and asked if they were willing to participate. Those who indicated a willingness to par— ticipate were then, according to their status and exper- ience, placed into one of the categories. Following the assignment to categories, an equal number of faculty representing each of the four cells were randomly chosen for each participating institution. Student Sample The respondents for this study were students enrolled in evening academic transfer courses being taught by the instructors included in the study. The students responded to the sthdent evaluation of teacher effective- ness questionnaire designed for this study (Appendix D). Methods of Collecting Data After eligible instructors had been identified, schedules for the administration of the student evalu- ation form were prepared for each participating insti- tution. The data were collected two weeks after the midterm point of the term to insure that the respondents had ample time to learn the characteristics of their instructors. Likewise, by administering the research 60 instrument prior to the end of the term, conflicts with existing institutional student rating of teaching effec- tiveness programs were eliminated; Extreme care was taken to conform the program to the wishes of the participating instructors. The researcher entered the classroom at the time prearranged with the instructor. To eliminate anxiety on the part of the stu- dents, the instructor, as had been arranged previously, agreed to leave the room. Following the instructor's departure, the instruments were distributed to the respondents, and the instructions on the cover sheet were read. Each student was asked to participate and answer as honestly as possible. The class was further informed that the survey is not an institutional evaluation form, that it would not be traceable to the instructor or the insti— tution, and since the results were for research purposes only, it in no way posed a threat to their instructor or themselves. Further, students were informed that they could elect not to participate. When all instruments had been completed and returned to the researcher, they were placed in a sealed envelope, coded for status and exper- ience levels, and removed by the researcher. Description of the Instrument The instrument was developed according to (a) the ten criteria of teaching effectiveness most often mentioned by students (Appendix E), and (b) questions believed to 61 measure these criteria as derived from a number of nationally accepted and validated student evaluation forms (Appendix B). The students' response to the items of the instrument was on a seven-point scale. This scale represented a modification of the five-point scale, to include an absolute high and an absolute low. It was hoped that the addition of the absolute category would encourage the students to be more realistic in their responses. That is, if it is true that students would tend to respond either above or below the average, this modification would, by design, move their scores nearer the average. The student instrument was developed according to six domains: instructional procedures, course objectives, course demands, evaluation procedures, personal character- istics, and the degree of student-faculty interaction. Related categories were combined to form the four cate- gories which comprised the final student rating instrument of teaching effectiveness. The four final categories were: (1) Personality Characteristics, (2) Student- Faculty Interaction, (3) Technical and Professional Skills, and (4) Evaluation and Organization. These categories represent major areas of teaching effectiveness as voiced by both students and evaluation researchers. 62 Measures Since the instrument was developed specifically for this study, the researcher felt it was imperative that the reliability of the instrument be established. To test the reliability of the instrument, a pilot group of students completed the rating form with a comments supple- ment added. Questions posing problems or comments illus- trating ambiguity were rewritten to eliminate such errors. Since the reliabilities derived from the pilot study were acceptable, no questions on the student rating instrument were added, deleted or reordered. There were, however, several changes in the wording of items. These changes were made as a result of the pilot respondents' suggestions on the comment supplement for the pilot study instrument. Reliability of Instrument The reliabilities were determined through the use of Hoyt's analysis of variance procedure for estimat- ing item homogeneity reliability. The reliabilities derived from the pilot study are presented in Table 4. TABLE 4 RELIABILITIES, MEANS, AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS RESULTING FROM THE ANALYSIS OF THE PILOT STUDY DATA Scale Reliability Mean Std. Dev. Personality Characteristics .88 28.88 7.46 Faculty-Student Interaction .77 37.50 7.59 Technical 5 Professional Skills .89 40.95 8.73 Organization & Evaluation .89 36.19 9.15 63 Since the pilot study was conducted in Michigan and the major study was conducted in Florida, it was felt that an additional test of reliability should be performed for the major study. The reliabilities result- ing from the major study are presented in Table 5. Even though both sets of reliabilities are within acceptable limits, the reliabilities for the major study are higher than those derived from the pilot study. This indicates that the Michigan students, the pilot sample, and the Florida students, the respondents for the major study, were responding to the questions in the same way. The higher reliabilities of the major study may, also, have resulted from the greater number of respondents. The Pearson Correlation Coefficients illustrate a high degree of relationship in student response over the five dependent variables (Table 6). A test of correlation across five scales which results in scales that intercorrelate the lowest at .91 indicates a general halo effect. That is, the scales are measuring the same thing; likewise, the respondents are not differentiating between the scales. These data can also be viewed as generalized consumer satisfaction with the teacher according to the five categories of teacher behaviors. 64 TABLE 5 RELIABILITIES RESULTING FROM MAJOR STUDY OF STUDENT RESPONSES Experience in Years A11 0 - 2 0 - 2 4 - 6 4 - 6 Students Combined Part- Full- Part- Full- Status Time Time Time Time = 159 N = 195 N = 198 N = 207 = 759 All 40 Items 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.98 Personality 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.89 0.93 Faculty-Stu. Interaction 0.95 0.95 0.93 0.92 0.94 Teaching Methods 0.95 0.96 0.93 0.92 0.94 Organiz./ Evaluation 0.96 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.94 TABLE 6 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN DEPENDENT VARIABLES Person- Inter- Skills Organi- Total ality action zation Qualities Personality .96 .96 .94 .94 Interaction .96 .94 .92 Skills .95 .95 Organization .91 65 Treatment of the Data Hypotheses Tested Hypothesis 1: There will be no significant difference between the level of teaching effectiveness as reflected by composite student ratings of full-time and part-time faculty. Hypothesis 2: There will be no significant difference between the composite student ratings of faculty with little teaching experience and those with considerable experience. Hypothesis 3: There will be no significant interaction between status (full-time or part-time) and experience. Hypothesis 4: The location of the school (urban vs. rural) will create no significant difference in the scores. Hypothesis 5: There will be no significant interaction between the teachers' experience level and the location of the school. Hypothesis 6: There will be no significant interaction between the teachers' status and the location of the school. Hypothesis 7: There will be no significant interaction between experience, status, and school location. 66 Method of Testing_Hypotheses The hypotheses were developed around groups of teacher behaviors and teacher-school conditions. Each of these groups provided item means and group means. Therefore, a method of testing differences among all the means at the same time was needed. Analysis of variance and the corresponding test of significance based upon the F distribution was chosen as the statistical method to accomplish these tests. This study used the .05 alpha level for acceptance or rejection of the hypotheses. The response data contained in the student rating of teaching effectiveness instruments were transferred to key-punch cards at the Michigan State University Edu- cational Research Consultation Office. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 6.0 was used to obtain reliabilities and Pearson's Product-Moment Correlations. The Fortran Program for Univariate and Multivariate Analysis of Variance and Covariance (FINN) version 4 was used to test the major hypotheses. The data were processed by a CDC 6500 computer. Summagy and Overview Through the use of a self-designed and pilot- tested student rating instrument, part-time and full- time instructors with experience levels of from zero to two years and four to six years were rated for 67 instructional effectiveness by their students. The instrument was designed to indicate where students felt instructors varied in the evidence and dispensation of: (1) personal characteristics, (2) faculty-student inter- action, (3) technical and professional skills, and (4) organization and evaluation. The nine Florida com- munity colleges with a 1975 opening fall headcount enroll- ment of between 3,000 and 8,000 were selected as repre- sentative of the typical community college in terms of size and employment practices. In addition, the study was further restricted to those full-time and part-time faculty teaching in the Associate of Arts or transfer degree program. The respondents for this study were students enrolled in the evening academic transfer courses being taught by the instructors included in the study. The student rating scales were administered by the researcher at the times requested by the instructors. The instructors were not present during the ratings of teaching effectiveness; and to reduce the anxiety of the respondents, they were informed that this study was for research purposes only, and not a threat to their instructors or themselves. The data were collected two weeks after the midpoint of the term to insure that the respondents had ample time to learn the character- istics of their instructors. The data were analyzed 68 by the use of univariate and multivariate analysis of variance, and Pearson Product Moment correlation. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE FINDINGS Background Information Concerning the Respondents Who_Harticipated‘ in the Study The purpose of this study was to determine whether there was a significant difference in the levels of teach- ing effectiveness between full-time and part-time faculty. It was assumed that (l) a student rating instrument of teaching effectiveness would illustrate any such dicho- tomy, (2) that students are valid raters of teaching effectiveness, and (3) that students are in the most unbiased position to judge teaching effectiveness. The 759 student respondents who participated in the study were enrolled in four Florida community colleges. The forty-four faculty members who participated were equally divided into the four cells of the study. The study was further defined by segregating the participating institutions into rural or urban. This determination was made by examining both the location of each college and the community which it serves. It was determined that two of the participating institutions 69 70 were urban and two were rural. The matrix resulting from these independent variables is illustrated in Table 9 (Appendix F). The forty-item instrument to which the students responded was composed of randomly ordered items dealing with the dependent variables of personality, student- faculty interaction, teaching methods, classroom organization, and Item 40, which was ranking this instructor according to all previous instructors the student had studied under. Table 9 (Appendix F) shows a variable by variable listing by mean and standard deviation for each of the forty-four teachers. The total mean and standard devi- ation were derived by adding the means and standard deviations across the five independent variables. Hypptheses Tested This section is devoted to the presentation of the data resulting from the analysis in relation to the stated hypotheses. The data were analyzed by multivariate and univariate analysis of variance over four dependent variables. The analysis of the data is presented in the order in which the hypotheses appear in Chapter III. In order to determine if a significant difference in the level of teaching effectiveness of full—time versus part-time faculty exists, it was hypothesized that: 71 Hypothesis 1: There will be no significant difference in the level of teaching effectiveness as reflected by composite student ratings of full-time and part-time faculty. The overall multivariate test of this hypothesis indicates that there is no difference between the level of teaching effectiveness of full-time versus part-time faculty relative to a student rating instrument. The MANOVA for this analysis yielded an F-ratio of 1.46 with 4 and 25 degrees of freedom. These results are signifi- cant at the .25 level. Therefore, since this exceeds the .05 level of acceptance, the null hypothesis was not rejected. The remaining hypotheses were developed from the independent variables of location, school, status, and experience. Each was tested independently and followed by tests of interactions with the others to determine which were significant. Table 7 displays the data resulting from these multivariate analyses for the remaining hypotheses. Hypothesis 2: There will be no significant difference between the composite student ratings of faculty with little teaching experience and those with considerable experience. The multivariate test of this hypothesis yielded for Hypothesis 2 an F-ratio of .67 with 4 and 25 degrees 72 pmuomnmu uoz om. mm was He. cowucooq Hoonom can .msumum .cocmwummxm consume cowuocumucH pmuoonmu #02 um. mm can anon. cowumooq can moumum cmmzumn coauocumugH cabochon uoz mm. mm was me.a coaumooq can mocmwummxm ammsumo cowuomuoucH emuomnmm mo. mm can ma.~ league .m> Housmv cowumooq cabochon uoz mm. mm can mm. mocmflummxm msumum consume cowuomumucH cabochon uoz mm. mm can we. poocmfiuomxmcH .m> omocmflummxm empomflmp uoz mm. mm was ov.a lmsneuaasm .m> mafialuummv msumum coemwomo m .w.o m mUZ¢UHhHZOHm m0 mBmNB mo 5 mqm¢9 mHmMAwuoz huasomm npuuzmm uaom mo huw>wucouu hufi>wumouu oaoqmcducu vogue: coaumoouum comm momgdnu monuauud moum nuwm Hound! audaudomuom unanoauso m.co«unuwuncH nomnnam noaaum mouuoqussou auw>aum0uo coauocuoucu mnflumma m>wumwuHcH mo>auoonoo unmao>ao>cH pouwcmmuo muwnowuau ucooavm monsooooum namwuuuuz mo Emsamseucm moonumz HocowuosuuncH cowuuuacdmuo consecum m>aunauacH Snowmanucu uaum mo nucuonum nowunquouocudnu anew nmmau moccasoam Enuwmsnuau msocM Enuwmsnuam mo>Huoonno acconuom canons acnumocd Hanawzlamaaox menu muumgd manoooxuz xooodEcm mmoadubnm AdZOHmmNthm Nu QdemBmDAAH m4 mmNZfi>H60mhhw mmfl0¢flfi 4 XHDzmmmd 88 APPENDIX B EXAMPLES OF NATIONALLY ACCEPTED STUDENT RATING FORMS APPENDIX B EXAMPLES OF NATIONALLY ACCEPTED STUDENT RATING FORMS THE PURDUE RATING SCALE FOR INSTRUCTION Note to Students: Following is a list of factors which are important to many courses but over which the insrmctnr often has listie control. You are asked to rate the course on each of the factors by selecting one of the letters and write in space at the right of each statement. If the course is extremely poor with respecr to the factor write E in space. If the course is below average with respecr to the factor write D in space. If the course is crerage with respect to the factor write C in space. If the course is above average with respect to the factor write B in space. If the course is excellent with respect to the factor write A in space. For example: If you feel that the course is no: contributing very much to the attainment of your ultimate goal; but on the other hand. is not a complete waste of time you would probably respond to item number 20 by writing I) in space. if. Suitability of the method or methods by which subject matter of the course is presented (recitation, lecture. labora- tory, ere.) .. ........ . ...................................................... . ..... ...... 12. Suitability of the size of the class (consider the subject matter and type of class—lecture, lab, etc.) ........ ...... . _ 13. 11.: degree to which the objectives of the course were clarified and discussed ............. . ...................... 14. The agreement between the announced objectives of the course and what was actually taught ....................... 15. Suitability of the reference materials available for the course ................. . . ............................. . . 16. Suitability of the laboratory facilities available for the course .................................................. i7. Suitability of the assigned textbook ......................................................................... 18.'I‘heusemadeoftesrsasaidsrolearning ............ . ....... ............................. )9. Amount of freedom allowed students in the selection of the materials to be studied (considering the subject matter) . . 20. How the course is fulfilling your needs (consider your ultimate as well as your immediate goals) ......... . ..... . . . . _ 21. Range of ability in the class (are there too many extremely dull or extremely bright students?) ................... . ...... 22. Suitabilisyofthe amounfandtypeofassigned outside work......... ..... ............ ............ ..... ... -..—.... 23. The weight given to tests in determining the final grade for the course .......... . ............................. . . .... 24. Coordination of the tests with the major objectives of the course . .I ................ . ............................... _..__ 25. Frequency of tests .......... . ............................................................................. ....— 26. The overall rating of the instructor ........... . ............ . ............... .. .. ....... . .................... . __... 89 90 83.35.. ...: 3.312.. .882... 56 26> .2. 63.5... was-u .33.... .o .8: 622.9... ...... 35...... 1.2.6 ... 5.23... .0153 ...... glangu a... .o 33.. .3... ...... 8.39.... ... 93.30.... ...... 3.8558 .33.. ...-u o. n§.u.a.v..§..8 32.8.5.5. .2. 2.33.8... 83.53 c. 5......“ 9.39.59... ....n ..o................ 28.3.: 13.... 09838.8 2 ...-3.. 9.3.25...— .3 3.5.4... ...... “9.32.: 3.3.9 Eu... 2 3...... {23.35.— .3 35.8.... 9.1:... ..n...u 3.... o. .35.... u...c.u....:.. an Anna... 2.83.. o... a. 3.953.. 0... .... 3.8... ....n 62.32... e .9 =8... n =5. .. 3.22.... \o 8.5.39... no.3... 2.9a .... .3... .35... .823 u... o. 3.». o. no... .... 3.3.3... V3... 2:. $3.28.... ...: ... ...... en 3......» 3 “282‘ ...... .9 ~52... ....uecu a... 3:21;.” 3.... cook ...ok ~80 ...... 6...... .s 43.4% 32 tl...»33=....8. ......_3=&< ... 3350 m0 mus—mom”... ..n tea ma...” «933.9 .26. «E... :9. v... .3333 .23 no 333...... .8. 8.58. .623 A lil- 5.8.5 :..»..8........ 9.....535 .....a. waists»: ..u 33.258... 33.—399.5 .8 an. 8. 38am .... . 3.82.. 5...: 02 p.800 .2 32.3.... S... ... 88.3- 8... d. see... 95...: ... o n w n a — 93:53.. ... .525». .... 3 3.2.. .. ...... .... nah «on .o 85.3.... 832:... 8.383205 ”33.... we. ... .33 8h «823.39 a. so 3.8.83.3». ...: 3.5 «bran... 8 :53 u ? on... s... 3.5: .233. a... ... 333.922.... 39.2.8 b8 3.: Cabin... 9.0... .o a 3 h... .n ...u a 805 8 . 2 ...-am... :9. ...: 8.390. use... 30.. §< .2 «08:3 a... ... 22......— o... 3.... ..o.. 3.6.: 30.. ......cc......~ ... ...... 9:... ...... c8... .3. ...—.8 .... o. 53.5.53 :— .N. 0.9.... a an «2:89. o... ...o ban-... .328» 9... 2nd .2 8.58 o... .o 8.....— . .850 ......» vo.n.......ooo 93.: .o. 03.2.? 2.82.3 n 138:... ...... .8593 0.8 o. 33.... 89.5 .m an... .o 93.. ....o £38.... .53.... 182.5...» d 5.3:...- usveloce. @396... ...... ....8 ...—=9 ......_..o..o=.. 25.. 122.53% ... «...-=63?" $89.2 ....n 31:95:. .Cs.v.5....=... ... 89.352... .0 5...: .9.an ....o... ...—.279 e. 1.5.... ...... .3... ..c 32.2. 8...»... ...:ch .n no.3... 39.7.... :36... a... $0.58... 3.3.0 ... ......z... a... ...: 19331.22... cc. huff: I....€. Est-.3... 3...... 15...: ..e .9. 3......5 a... theta .n c c n v n N . 33...... ...... 5.35.... ......» 2.... .N ...O... .32.... a. 3.9... 2: \o 3...... .... 8.3.... ...: ... 5:2... 2.. taxi. ..u 3... .2... ....C 12....» ...... cat... .3... ..e./. e 333......2. .....c...a< .. mazabnfi. ... ...... .8...— Vc........: .5. 5.5. c... ... 9.5.... 3.1.3.3.... 8n p.363 98... .....o :5 .... 3.5:... .3... 6:55.... ... 2.5. ... 3...... .5551 o... :2... 5;... 36...... 2.... 9:2...» has... .... .... one; ace... n .....n 3...... 2.... 9:55....» 7.35... n .o E»... c... e. a. ......ccsmcb ESE... .... $3321.39... a. 33...... 2.33.535... 5.23.3.1. 93:8 3:. 3.82 20.95.55,”.— mmdDOU M. 45. Name of Instructor: In relation to your own objectives in this course and compared to other courses you have taken at Princeton, how would you rate this course in terms Value of the precepts or classes as a whole to this course llow many precepts or classes did you miss? l) l or none 2) 2-3 3) ~1-5 4) 6 or more 9]. l 2 3 4 5 6 0 Were there characteristics of the precepts (classes) which you found particularly valuable or not very useful? Please explain and, if pos- sible, suggest modifications. Part 8: OVERALL RATINGS (Applicable To All Courses) of how much it contributed to each of the following: 91. 92. 93. 94 95 96. 97 98. Please write in below any generally descriptive comments you would like to make about the course or specific points which were not brought out in the Excel- lent Good F oi r Poor able Your mastery of the relevant con- tent or subject matter Your mastery of the relevant skills or methods Your ability to see more altema- tives and have more insight into the complexity of the relevant Subject matter Your ability to formulate general principles in the relevant subject matter Your abilities for critical evalua- tion in the relevant subject matter An increase in your interest in the field so as to talce further re- latcd courses or do reading on your own An impact upon your emotional sensitivity to the relevant phe- nomena or upon your values and attitudes towards parts of life or yourself Your total educational growth and development questionnaire. N at A Milie- 92 .9389 1.. in #89936 ~99 .96.. .99.. .939 8.9 8 .9919 9.... 9.9... 39.3.... .59... 93. e. ......) 3.9.5.9.... 9... .. ...¢9_...o..9 9... ..o 9.. ...... Blink... .occ.......< .952 n + . .. . .29... e... .89....fi....oc o. .2933... 9.... .5 95.69 9.... 29......999. .5. 2.63 ...N . ...cz . ¢ . .. . .39... e... ......91 ...: ... 9.9.2.... o. .89.: .9... 9.... .... 93.89 9.... 9.9.5.399. :9. ...—:93 .MN ....8. ...... .. .. . ... . ...... .5... «......39. ...... .5. 9... ... 399.9512... 3.9:”... 9... .99.... 9.3.3.... .99. 33 .NN .... .. ...z n . . .. . 4...... ......» .5959... u......8-...9...o... ...: $96.82... no: ..N 1995.395 ... 9 n N . 1995.39..."— n..9.9 .999... ..9... 892.5 .9823... $3.39.... a... o. 99... 8.8.5.. 9.9.5 .9... ...... .....S ... 9 n u . ...... ...... $9.599. ... .623... an... 8.89.3.1...» 59...... .9 .999. 3...: .... 19.8.8... .99.. n v n N . 3.9.9.9.... 9.92 oats... ...... .3 $993.... 89......» 9... ... 39.9.... 5.9. 9...: ......E 96—. d. ............ . $5.5. :59... «.39.? .h. 92.99.39 .9 5.32.89... ... ...9... 7.9... .... ....... 3...: 9.9.3 ...9 £2.99 2... .9193... .c ......Euh... .n. . . . . 959...... .3343. 9. .55.... .2 .. ................. 5.39.... 29‘... 5904.93 9 .... .8398... 3.8.... .n. 99.....99. ... .553... ...3.§.......E 33...... .... £2.89 .9: 2.. .2... n 9 n N . 9.... ...... «5.9.9.9... 995. 99.59.... ... .33. a... .o E ...... ....o .... .525... E 9.22.... E 9...}...26 ... ......3 .... a. U .. < "9.269 ...... ... 99.999. o. .99.... :9. 9.3.» .2... 9... 9.9..0 llltl ..... 9coco-909.999.999.199...u=m020~=m b9.’ 82 Isl-'3' ooooo 99999.999999999099999 u=m~£U~=m x—ergg-‘ l‘tl .o.9o.-.....eoooooooooooooooo. ”Gaga—um “thaw—— .9. 9969 9... ..o .3399 .o .95.... «99......- 2.... $.39 9.9.2.2.? 9... 9.39949 3 9......9. 9... .o .9. ...! 39.3.... 9... .9. 9...... .59.. 83...... 98.9.. 59.. 9... .9... $92.... .219... 9... ..o 8.3.18.529 o. 19......9. .89.. 993. «39:69.... 9...... .a. 3.3. 8.3935598.595&S.9§33u.l 999...... ...... 99...... 9....99... 2...... .395. o. 9.... 9.- 2.8.: 8.9.5.... ......» 93.59 9.... .9 9.3959. 9... ... :9... ...—£92.99 9...... .2. 9.. 999...... :9. ”9.5959- 9. 9.9... .. 96:... o. 9.... 2.6.: 3.9.5.... 39> 09999999999999.9999 Inamuau—ua—QIB 9... ... 9335.39.83 ...... 2.9.9 .. .2 ..... 999......99999 aéufingn—g—fl .o 9.2.2.29... 9.9.. 9... :99? ...... ... ............ 39......» .... 9219—95.... a... ... 9999......89 an... 93...»... d ................... . . . . . . . 1...... 89.. A... o... 3 9... 39.5.3... 9.... .N 35.3.33... .33 8.....35 ..o 99. ......» 8a.... ... . . . . . . .393... 3.8.2:... SKEW .... . . 9.9.9.9.... ...: 39.3.9... ..9...9.. 3... .v 95...... .. ...... .... 23...... a... .. .. 9...... .... .. 928...... 9... ...o .. coo-aoooouoo-oooooouoo.o h—hflU—U ... o n N . 99.39... .9...“ 2.9... 38.3.. 39:55. .. 9.3. a... 8 . ... ...... .....o .... .....a...... .2 ......i... r... 9...}..36 ... 9.5.... .958. .... .... 9...... 9... a. ... 9...... =9. .35.... 95 99...: 9.8 .33.... b9.» 9... 9... ...... .. .9959 ..C «2.9.. .....o 2... an. .93.. $9.. 3 ......25 ....a ......335... no .29.. ......9 9.3. .99.. 9...... ...... £9.39. 3...... .....s ..o...:x....3 ... 29.38.. a... 99.3........ .3... ...... .35.... 9... ......2- 9.9.... a 9.5."... .3 2.9.. 9.9... .9 ..93 .... .235»... ...o.. 9.3. ......5. ax. 3.9.59... .9 399...... 2.1.9.9.. 5...... 9.9.5.2... .2999. 9... 95.9.. 59...... 99:29.... .9. .52.... .959 ...... o. 9.... 4.9.... 9.3... 9.. o. a. .. .9...9...$ .9 59.9.3... 9.. 8 a. ..o..o....o.... ...... 8.19.... 995.589.. 9.3.... 3.9.5.... 3.1.9.3.. 9... 9:... ...... .< 99.5 a. .95.... 9... .2... .....o 3:92....3 ...... 99...... «no.9 .o .9425... o 99...... ...... 9.. .....o..........:. 39...... ...... 3.59.9. ...: ....8 999.999.. 3.9.5.2.. 9... ......2...... .... 3.... .329 9.... ... 3.9.5.... .59.. .o 393...... 9... .a 9.3... 9. .963 9...... Ill 0.» 26.... n.» o. 06 o.» o. n. N ....N 39.9.. .. 5.9 3.3.5.... .... «moo .99.... 9.3.99.9 v8.3.6. 9. 98.89 ...S. ... n. 3.2.... 5.4 .3527. .33 9:30 l i. ll. ...l l... l tllllll... 03-62 .983:— ZOFDZ . . .23 ...O .f...m~.m.>.ZD 02:55.... ...O 20.2.50 .../£2th ...0 >n..>¢3m 93 STUDENT SNSTHUCTIDNAL Raptor-IT SIR Report Number This questionnaire gives you an opportunity to express anonymously your views oi this course and the way it has been tauyu. Indicate the response closest to your view by blackening the zipprOpriate oval. Use a soft lead pencil (prelerably No. 2) for all responses to the questionnaire. . l l l I Do not use an ink 0r ball point pen. lSECTlON l ltems 1- 20. Blacken one response number for ear: h question 1 l NA lOl * Not Applicable or don't know. The statement does not apply to this course or instructor, or you simply are not able to give a knowledgeable response. SA l4l ' Strongly Agree. You strongly ages with the statement as it applies to this course or instructor. A (3) I 512' You agree more then you disagree with the state- ment as it applies to this caursa or instructor. D (2) " Diggee. You disagree more than you agree with the statement as it applies to this course or instructor. SD (1) - Str_ongly Diflree. You strongly disawee with the statement as it applies to this course or instructor. NA SA A 0 SD 1. The instructor' s objectives for the course have been made clear ................... .. (a) re (1 .2. .-.V 2. There was considerable agreement between the announced objectives of the course and , what was actually tauglt GD CD CD C» an 3. The instructor used class time well at) CD a) (12 Q‘ 4. The instructor was readily available for consultation with students ............ a" (.0 O CD CD 5. The instructor seemed to know when students didn't understand the material .................................. <0) GD (1‘ ca 21‘ 6. Lectures were too repetitive of what was in the textbooklsl . - - a! CD a: w '3- 7. The instructor encouraged students to think for themselv“ (a co a) a: -1.~ B. The instructor seemed genuinely concerned with students' progress and was actively helpful ......... . ................. .. ...................................... , ......... (o (1‘ (D (23 .t 9. I he instructor made helpful comments on papers or exams ............................... '15 co m a. r 10. The instructor raised challenging questions or problems for discussion .............................................. ar- an a; .2. .1 11. In this class I felt tree to ask questions or express my opinions . ............... an co Cl) a. 1 12. The instructor was well‘prepared lor each class ...... t9. CD a (1. .r 13. The instructor told students how they would be evaluated in the course ........ at (D (b ca I 14. The instructor summarized or emphasized major points in lectures or discussions ............................. a: (D (D a» 0‘ 15. My interest in the subject area has been stimulated by this course - ............. «11: C!» a: .1. I; 16. The scope of the course has been too limited; not enoud'l material has been covered ........................ m.- cl,» Ct- .1. I A 17. Examinations reflected the important aspects of the courn in CD (D J .r 18. l have been putting a good deal of effort into this course iv: a) a) a. i_. 19. The instructor was Open to other viewpoints ............... at» m a) m l 20. . In my opinion. the instructor has accomplished (is aocornplishingl his or her objectives for the course ............................. . ....................... (o u) (to I ' SECTION ll items 21-31. Blacken one response number lor each question. 21. For my preparation and ability. the 23. For me. the pace at which the instructor level of diliiculty of this course was: covered the material during the term was: a: Very elementary rs Somewhat difficult 0a Very slow a. Somewhat last ' m Somewhat elementary it. Very diilicult ’2) Somewhat slow av Very fast (1* About ri¢lt (r Just about riglt 22, The work load tor this course in rela:ion 24. To what extent did the instructor use examples to other courses oi equal credit was: or illustrations to help clarify the material? 'l- Much liy'lter vJ Heavier 2-3 Frequently -:‘ Seldom 11‘ Llflzflfl‘ 6 Much hmvier t)‘ Occasionally '3, Nina" 0' ' Abou‘ me same ‘ Gm tiomraire continued on the other .uilr- Copyright 0.. 1971 by Educational Testing Service. All Rivas Reserved. .. - No part of the Student Instructional Report may be adapted or reproduced 572MB“ "me in any term without permission in writing from the publisher. 733552 94 25. Was class size satisfactory for the 28. method of conducting the class? m Yes, most of the time 1 No, class was too small an ‘-‘D No, class was too large ‘ It didn't make any differ- '7 "' encc one way or the other ’3 26. Which one of the following best ‘4: describes this course for you? What grade do you expect to receive in this course? A ‘ Fail 8 0‘ Pass C '7 No credit D ' Other D Major requirement or '1 College reatiirement but 29' What is your approximate cumulative elective within major field not part of my major grade-pomt average? 1 Minor requirement or or minor fielrl 3.50-4.00 ‘ l-UGLSQ requrrad elective out- '- Elective not required in »-‘- 3.00-3.49 ’ Less than 2.00 side major field any way 43' 2.50-2.99 l None yet~~freshman ‘ Other " 2.00-2.49 or transfer 27. Which one of the following was your most ‘1' 1504.99 important reason for selecting this course? CD Friendls) recommended it 30- w“" is your Ch“ "3“" a) Faculty advisor's recommendation ‘32 Freshman 0- Senior CD Teacher's excellent reputation iv Sophomore '1 Graduate LD Thought I could make a good grade J, Junior 3) Other m Could use pass/no credit Option (D It was required 3' Sex a: Subject was of interest 31 Female r1) Other .2- Male ‘ SECTION III Items 3239. Blacken one response number “’03 r lor each uesti n. '~ - a o «if “db t 06 90$ ‘\ 4’ \\60 é; . '- ”is” «I; o°°b to" 0‘ 9" 32. Overall, I would rate the textboolds) . . In) a» "(t a: a) u) 33. Overall, l would rate the supplementary readings Q- a) m o so a) 34. Overall, I would rate the quality of the exams a) <1) :1» co (p q. 35. I would rate the general quality of the lectures at a) 33 q» :1) a) 38. I would rate the overall value of class discussions '3.- <1> ”e ca :1) (D 37. Overall, I would rate the laboratories ' n, a) ’D (a (D (D 38. I would rate the overall value of this course to me as 1e '32 'D (I: a} m 39. Compared to other instructors you have had (secondary school and college). how effective has the instructor been in this course? (Blacken one response number.) One of the most More effective Not as effective One of the least effective than most About as most effective . (among the top 10%) (among the top 30%) average (in the lowest 30%) (in the lowest 10%) d) (D (D '1) I“ ' SECTlON lV Items 40-49. It the instructor provided supplementary questions and response options, use i this section for responding. Blacken only one response number for each question. A 40, 2.!) CD to a) a) '3) 1:. :D (b a; 45, {'0 ..D (D ’1) No 5- "in or ’r.‘ w [41, do (D to a) a) 9 b (D a) is) 45, to <1) a» CD a) 1» ’0 a) m m _ 42, GD «1» m a) :1) s: ’D (D rD «D 47, up CD (D (r '3.» 1" in 1) 'p n.) ‘ 43 w .r- ’1- '.1: :43 1 5 <1) 1 cc 43. ,9 .;p :1) q, ..., t --,. ,1. r- .4, 44 CD «1) - t) o co 3) '5) a ct» to 49, to (D (D a: 71‘ 't '6- 3" 1) to If you would like to make additional comments about the course or instruction, use a separate sheet of paper. You might elaborate on the particular aspects you liked most as well as those you liked least. Also, how can the course or the way it was taught be improved? PLEASE GIVE THESE COMMENTS TO THE lNS‘lRUCTOR. It you have any comments or suggestions about this questionnaire (for example, the content or responses available). please send them to: Student Instructional Report, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey 08540. 1’79 3.. APPENDIX C CHECKLIST FOR ADMINISTRATORS ASSISTING IN THE STUDY ‘2“ l. Yes 2. Yes 3. Yes 4. Yes 5. Yes 6. Yes 7. Yes 8. Yes 9. Yes 10. Yes ll. Yes 12. Yes APPENDIX C CHECKLIST FOR ADMINISTRATORS ASSISTING IN THE STUDY NO NO No No No NO NO No No No No NO Our opening fall 1975 enrollment by credit student headcount was between 3,000 and 8,000 students. We can prepare a list of those Advanced and Professional full- time faculty with 0 - 2 years teaching experience. We can prepare a list of those Advanced and Professional part- time faculty with 0 - 2 years teaching experience. We can prepare a list of those Advanced and Professional full- 3“ time faculty with 4 - 6 years teaching experience. : We can prepare a list of those Advanced and Professional part- time faculty with 4 - 6 years teaching experience. An equal number of eligible Advanced and Professional can be drawn at random to represent each of the categories listed above. (Note: The full-time category with 0 - 2 years teaching experience will probably be the most critical. It, therefore, may be necessary to ask all such faculty if they are willing to participate in the study. Each instructor will be asked to administer the instrument to only one section or class). Of all the faculty in each category who indicated a willingness to participate, an equal number in each category were selected at random to comprise the sample. (Note: An "N" of 4 per cell is an ideal minimum; however, less is acceptable, and the more the merrier). The research will be notified of the "N" per cell and given a student section count from which to mail the appropriate number of instruments to you. Each packet has been coded as full-time or part-time and 0 - 2 or 4 - 6 years of experience. Each participating faculty member will be instructed to read the instructions, designate a student captain, leave the room during scoring, and instruct the student captain to return the completed packet to the evening office. Upon completion of the study, the student ratings will be mailed in mass to: Jerry N. Kandzer Polk Community College 999 Avenue H, NE Winter Haven, FL 33880 I would appreciate receiving a copy of the results of your study. (Please give name and address). (All answers should be YES to meet with the controls of the study.) 95 Ill-III I!!! It‘ll Ill full‘lh APPENDIX D STUDENT RATING INSTRUMENT APPENDIX D STUDENT RATING INSTRUMENT A RESEARCH STU DY A STUDY OF THE CRITERIA FOR TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS AMONG FULL-TIME AND PART-TIME FACULTY OF SELECTED FLORIDA COMMUNITY COLLEGES AS JUDGED BY COMPARATIVE STUDENT RATINGS STUDENT OPINION SURVEY OF TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS This questionnaire gives you an opportunity to express anonymously your views of this course and the way it has been taught. This is an independent research study, and it is in no way connected with this institution. Your results will not be seen by your instructor, nor the administration of this institu- tion, and there will be no numerical codes to tie the question- naire to the institution or the instructor. We sincerely hope this confidentiality will allow you the freedom to voice your honest opinions. Following the completion of this questionnaire, it will be collected, sealed, and returned to the researcher. 96 l4. 15. l6. l7. l8. l9. 20. 2T. 22. 23. 24. 27. £97 STUDENT EVALUATION OF FACULTY TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS Ability to create an environment in which students learn. Interprets ideas Clearly. The level of agreement between the announced course objectives and what was actually taught. Use of effective communications (speech, volume, vocabulary, etc.) The degree to which the instructor' 5 personal appearance adds to or detracts from learning. Classes were related and followed a coherent sequence. Offers time and assistance equally to all students. Self-confident and cheerful. Motivates students to do their best work. Disciplined and mature with respect to morals and outlook on life. Makes course relevant to careers and/or life. Presentation of the course was interesting. Tests for understanding. Emphasized principles and concepts. Seems to enjoy teaching. Uses a variety of instructional methods. Senses when students do not understand attempts to help them understand. Writes constructive comments on papers and/qr tests. Draws upon supplemental ideas and materials beyond text. Enjoys a good laugh. Periodically asks fbr student feedback as to how the course could be improved. Generally pleasing personality. Demonstrates a sincere interest in students. Covers material at the appropirate intellectual level. Course materials were well organized. The degree to which you were informed of your progress and/or problems throughout the course. Creates a democratic atmosphere for learning. Demonstrates knowledge of his subject matter. Fairness in grading system. Demonstrates respect for student views. Encourages independent thought. Encourages class discussion. Knowledgeable in giving students advice regarding employment and further education. Uses class time effectively. Paces the course well. Dynamic and energetic. , Coordination of the tests with the major course objectives. Course objectives were clarified and discussed.. Your own level of interest, preparation, and participation. According to my previous college experience, I would rate this instructor as: d5Nmmth-l O 0...... N 0 444444 10. ll. l2. l3. l4. 15. l6. l7. 18. T9. 44444444444 4444444444 STUDENT EVALUATION of FACULTY TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS This instructor is: ANSWER SHEET 9E3 for the best in this particular characteristic of any I have ever had. among the best in this particular characteristic of any I have ever had. slightly higher in this particular characteristic of any I have ever had. about equal in this particular characteristic of any I have ever had. slightly lower in this particular characteristic of any I have ever had. among the lowest in this particular characteristic of any I have ever had. the lowest in this particular characteristic of any I have ever had. ****************,************'*********** 44»444 **——-*~ “**** 444444444 444444444 44444444~ 2T. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. BI. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 33 4444444444444~ “I 444444 4444444444444~ 4444444444 4444444444 44444444444444 4444444444 APPENDIX E CHARACTERISTICS OF GOOD TEACHING EMPHASIZED BY STUDENTS .«Ssuo ..puu yo .>vc: an «acne oaua queue-Lu vs. uoaauacu Jeane: an” as .uocoutoqev yo canto ev vouu_4 .o so.» no aucSoa szuo nounauu—a cowauauu.u nun—u «cu-.585 3:025» gauze» apuco_ta «ucmuaun a. unoLouc~ 9:53.. 93.5 nova-ucomocn ucwumocoucu xae-o—u «cvopnxu cannon ovuomeoco we. uVEocsa ovcaunovpvx .ooo—Fou =S.am Loucapssa an macaw ...: 8... 3 oucoueonev no Looco =_ uoaa.s .5 Apes-Pu mcrapaxu Loans—a>o cyan uuonnsn yo oouopxocx soauou .ouopo» no .>*c= an .csapa .xupzoau .mucou -sun mov_ up oucougoae, mo Lovco Cw noumva .0 «anyway» ueg~>vuox x~_~u_mop vouvcooco omcaou uzmsozu ucuecoa Tove? momocaoucw copuoo.cse .Eou osvuuouuu no.» nonpa>o a. c_om nevucmum osovcn Lou «amok avocuoe on. iguana o>.uuo»mm uuonnau mo oaquIch uuowaam c? unocoucw oewuc_m unopo to» 8:30.543: mhpuou 63:8 33m .cmaz ccoumo: an “cyanogen. -Loucs mes An oocnucoaev yo cacao :. woua.s .m atopanouo> «unreaogaao «on: vocanucnI—p-z xuvanvxo—u uuafiaaa c_ «motouc~ page: we omuopxocx m .__.~u.u .couucvcnaz .3 .35 «5 an nuaoavacm £8559 oocnpcoosv pa gauge a. venue; .v «co—uncu—uxo Lao—u nucwoazov> so: «suscou goofing” Co 83,35. . sec: anon no on nouo>_uo: awesome .uuruouavon coca m_~.coooe «5939.: 3323 83.32: 2833 sccxc_;s co np—vxa «noFu>oo umocoucw ucuvaum mno~o>oo apnea—u 88— 329.35 «convex .3063» 9:13: -35 «m to»: as: aouaauacu -Loucs can as mucougoaer \ ho Lao-O c_ voumed .n «25“ 9:53.— up—vxu paco.uuacumc~ mu.- ucwguao» mo om: 2.6803 cowuua_u>w Axco: none can“ vaopso>o xuouaus ucoucou xuvLc—u «Lauuacum «Leanna covuasvuo: mpg no .oocoaguoo mhzuoabm >m om-m~ H5.o~ mo.m~ ou.- ~ ma.av a~.~ om.aa mc.na mm.aa ..o~.a ~n.mna o~.v pm.~n am.an cc.nn .oo.v~ A ouoom nodujoao . ovou coo: Houoa H.309 coHuauwcaouo :Sxm couuoououau haddocoouom uonoaoa 093.3096 253» 956.345 condos nauseous no.5 Fad-woo Boo—”now ~25 cud-Io gags, EOZHQEGZH ho x294! a Hindu. M “392mm: 113() 1131. Hp.mm m~.H Ho.a om.a mn.m oo.o mh.aaa om.~ ou.om mm.vn oH.Hn on.o~ «n m..ov «S.H ~m.oa ma.o oo.oa so.s .uu» o u v on..oa ma.~ nv.om on.m~ mm.h~ oo.m~ Hm viz news mp.vm m~.H as.” mo.o so.a n~.h Iaasm as.mva se.. vv.nn -.Hv pa.mn Ha.m~ on na.pn as. om.aa Ho.oa m~.a aa.m .nus w i o no.am so.a mm.o~ om.v~ po.- on..a m~ mnz o~nz a canes ha.m~ a~.~ no.5 mm.» on.» «H.m .moam no.mma ~m.n e~.mm ~a.am oo.mn om.m~ m~ no.ow o~.~ a~.m. ma.oa wo.a mm.» .au» a u . ~v.am ~..~ ~e..~ ma.m~ mm.a~ mo.h~ s~ viz H~.hv we.” pm.ad .m.~a o~.~a mh.o unuuw mm.aa~ ~o.~ ov.on us.~n oo.~n n~.H~ o~ m..mv ~h.H ov.o~ ma.Hd om.oa we.» .uu» ~ u o -.~oH -.v Ha.ov mm.~v HH.~. an.~n mN ~m.SH an. Sh.n se.. mo.. ca.a oo.nm 0H.H on.ea om.ma om.na cw.m .u «a... on.~ om.ma SH.HH H~.HH AH.F ~H.Ho mm.a ma.m~ on.v~ vc.n~ an.oa n~ v.2 «aha ov.ma on. no.~ mo.v «m.v mo.n iaanm p~.am as.“ oo.n~ me.o~ a~.- mm.pa - . h l ma.a~ an. mm.u wh.o na.m mm.~ mu ~ o ~m.mo ma.H AS.SH ~m.ma va.ma HS.AH H~ muz e~uz nh.mm m~.H Sh.o Ho.o~ oa.m Ho.> .uoam House ~n.maa mo.m ms.m~ H..vn on.o~ hs.o~ o~ o x ' nh.mm as. aa.m Sm.m pm.o s~.o mu m . mm.aa oo.~ ~s.n~ Hm.m~ os.- oo.ma ma viz and“. os.ac o~.~ hm.oa SS.HH oo.o~ mo.a -uuam oa.ooa om.~ Ha.w~ mp.a~ ~w.o~ mp.o~ as v».m~ .m. an." no.“ mo.v mv.~ .uus u u o nn.~oa om.m nm.mv nn.mm se.». on.mm AH :onnowmuoa nowwwwmso GOMuauwsomuo «Hawxm noduuououcu houaecouuom nomwmwa oocouwoaxu usuoum unavaana cadunooq «chance: uo>o nuance envennam uoso cad-on oos:«u:ouuio wands 11l2 mmuoom coauow>oo unmocdun I nouoom 30m vacuum . I GOHOUO GUQE I QGHOOW 30m Unhflh C. mm.mn o~.H ha.m NN.OH ma.oa mn.e . ow.~o mo.~ e~.v~ mm.m~ mo.m~ H~.o~ av vm.av mo.H v~.~H ou.oa o~.HH hv.o Sm.ooa m~.~ m~.m~ ~m.s~ So.e~ mo.ma ma .mu» m i v ma.mm mH.H oa.p Ho.m mm.m «m.» ~e.woa mm.~ ~m.m~ mm.om ma.h~ .o.o~ «a auz . made m~.mm em.H ~m.~H mm.~H HS.SH me.aa uaaam H°.m~H SH.m mm.~m ~m.mm hh.am m~.- as Na.ma mm. Hm.a os.m o~.m ~m.n AH.~S GH.H om.SH oo.ma mo.nH ~S.HH so .mu» ~ I o no.¢n o~.H mm.m ma.m m~.m ma.h ~m.ma MH.~ oo.q~ ma.h~ am.m~ ~v.oa mm «Huz omuz om.m. Hm.H ms.oa hm.~H hm.HH ~m.m .omam canes mo.aoa Ne.~ om.m~ om.m~ «H.m~ am.o~ mm om.ov GH.H ov.oa mm.HH mo.m mo.h ~H.mm oo.~ av.- v~.v~ mm.H~ am.ea an .mu» m u a ~h.~m mm.H hm.ma mo.qa mm.mH am.oa hm.~h ha.a ~m.ma mv.sd SH.SH Hm.~a an onz ms.m~ Na. ma.s so.s ms.» wm.m Immww Sm.ap av.H no.ma so.H~ mm.ha Hm.na mm ~m.sm HH.H ma.oa ma.m aw.oa va.m Ha.oca mm.a mm.a~ mh.h~ m¢.a~ oo.oa an an» N u o sm.oc mo.H om.oa mm.m ~H.He na.m Hm.coa FH.~ mm.v~ mm.m~ 5H.e~ H~.¢H mm ouoom uoauaaozo ooou coo: Houoa Houoa cowuouacomuo uaaaxm cowuomuoucH wuaaocOmuom wonoooa oocoauomxm mounum mdduaaam acauoooa nauseous uo>o cowmon uuoonnam uo>o nowuoa noscwueoouio wands APPENDIX G RESULTS OF UNIVARIATE TEST OF TOTAL MEAN SCORES FOR ORIGINAL DATA WITH CODING ERROR AND DATA WITH CODING ERROR CORRECTED APPENDIX G RESULTS OF UNIVARIATE TEST OF TOTAL MEAN SCORES FOR ORIGINAL DATA WITH CODING ERROR AND DATA WITH CODING ERROR CORRECTED I. Univariate Test of Data with Coding Error n X F df p FT (0-2) T3 108.04 1 94 I and 42 .83 FT (4-6) 9 93.64 II. Univariate Test of Data with Coding Error Corrected n X F df p FT (0-2) ll 105.35 .38 l and 4E‘ .46 FT (4-6) ll 98.90 Therefore, the coding error did not significantly effect the results of the multivariate test results. Note: The univariate analysis of variance was run by Dr. Jon C. Allen, Assistant Professor, Systems Analysis and Mathematics Modeling, Agricultural Research and Edu- cation Center, Florida Agriculture Experiment Station, Lake Alfred, Florida. 103 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY American Association of School Administrators. Department of Classroom Teachers of the N.E.A. National School Boards Association. Who's A Good Teacher. Washington: 1961. Chapman, Charles E. "Resharpening the Tools of Instruc- tion." Junior College Journal 37 (October 1966). Cohen, Arthur M. “Teacher Preparation: Rationale and s Practice." Junior College Journal 37 (May 1967). Diekhoff, John S. ”Untaught Teachers.” Saturday Review 8 (October 1960). Dressel, Paul L. ”Teaching, Learning, and Evaluation." Improving College and University Teaching 8 (Winter 1960). ‘ Ellis, Elmer G., and WOoton, Lutian R. ”Valid Evaluation of Teaching is Imperative.” Kappa Delta Pi Record 7 (April 1970). Evans, Kenneth R. "Evening Services of Junior Colleges." Junior College Research Review 4 (March 1970). Gaff, Jerry G., and Wilson, Robert C. "Faculty Values and Improving Teaching.” Reprint ed., 1971. Gleazer, Edmund J., Jr. "American Association of Junior Colleges Approach--Preparation of Junior College Instructors.” Junior College Journal 35 (Sep- tember 1964). Goode, Delmer. "The Centrality of Evaluation.” Im rovin College and University Teaching_7 (Winter IEEO). Gordon, Shirley P., and Whitfield, Raymond P. "A Formula for Teacher Preparation." Junior College Journal 37 (May 1967). 104 105 Gowin, D. B., and Daigneault, George H. The Part-Time Colle e Teacher. Chicago: The Center for the Stuay of LiBeral Education for Adults, 1961. Hoffman, Randall W. ”Students Portray the Excellent Teacher." Improving College and University Teaching 2 (Winter 1963T. House, Ernest R., ed. School Evaluation: The Politics and Process. Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Corp., 1973. Kelley, Win, and Wilbur, Leslie. Teaching in the Com- mgnity-Junior College. Des Moines: Meridith Corp., 1970. Kennedy, Gerald. "Preparation, Orientation, Utilization, and Acceptance of Part-Time Faculty.” Junior College Journal 37 (April 1967). Kuhns, Eileen P. "Part-Time Faculty." Junior College_ Journal 33 (January 1963). Medsker, Leland L. The Junior College: Pro ress and Prospect. New York: McGraw HiII, Inc., I§65. Messerschmidt, Dale Harvey. "A Study of Part-Time Instructors in Vocational-Technical Education Among Community Colleges in Michigan.” Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967. Miller, Richard I. Develgping Programs for Faculty Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 974. Monroe, Charles R. Profile of the Community_College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1972. Morton, Richard K. “Personal Backgrounds of Effective Teaching." Improvin College and University Teaching 8 (Autumn 9 ). . 'Students' Views of Teaching.“ Im rovin College and University Teaching 13 (Summer I965). O'Banion, Terry. Teachers for Tomorrow: Staff Develo - Tucson: ment in the Community3unior Colle e. TEe University of Arizona Press, 2. Pi Lambda Theta. A Report of the Second Pi Lambda Theta Cotena. The Evaluation of Teaching. Washington, D.C., 19677 106 Schmidt, Carlos R. "A Study of the Problems of Part-Time Industrial and Technical Instructors in Selected Michigan Community Colleges." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971. Siehr, Hugo Emil. "Problems of New Faculty Members in Community Colleges." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1962. Vairo, Philip D. "Faculty Quality: A Challenge to the Community College.“ Journal of Higher Education 36 (April 1965). MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES 111111111111111111111111111111111111| 31293103160985