A STUDY OF THE ACADEMIC AND PRQFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF JUNIOR COLLEGE TEACHERS OF PHYSECAL SCEENCE Thesis for the Degree 0; Ph. D. MECHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Kenda‘il Scott Kinerson 1957 THESiS Will/WU!!! lllll/llllf/l/Ill/llIll/,fl’lll/llll/H/I/III/ll 3 1293 10382 4367 This is to certify that the thesis entitled A SILLY OF '12:; ACADSIC All?) -LFbSdI‘UZ-IAL FILTRAIIUIJ 0F ‘4"‘? P JLCLIUJ. COLLug 'lLACiLxS OF PETISICAL SCIL‘ECE. presented by Kendall Scott Kinerson has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Major professor Date August 16, 1957 0-169 ll} MSU LIBRARIES RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. l ”BRA—“$4,52- 7‘. l ’ ’5‘- wm‘m-w '1; «K: J 1 LIBR .4 I? Y Micl‘fi "ll [9"th Unwustty A STUDY OF THE ACADEMIC AND PROEESSIONLL PREPARATION OF JUNIOR COLLEGE TEACHERS OF PHYSICAL SCIENCE 317 Kendall Scott Kinereon AN Aesrmcm Submitted to the School of Advanced Graduate Studies or Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requiremente for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Teacher Education 1957 Approved W K. Scott Kinerson I An Abstract The purpose of this study is to determine what would appear to constitute the most appropriate training for prospective junior college physical science teachers as seen by Junior college teachers and admin, istrators, and by a group of the outstanding leaders in the field of Junior college education. Questionnaire responses describing the current status of their formal training and non-academic work experience, and making recommenda— tions regarding these same aspects of the preparation of prospective teachers, were obtained from 186 Junior college physical science teachers located in 12h junior colleges in thirty-seven different states. Respon—~ see which listed recommendations for the training of prospective teachers were also obtained from 10“ administrators in these same colleges, and from thirty-eight national authorities in the field of Junior college education. The findings pertaining to the status of training showed: (1) a median of eight years of Junior college teaching experience; (2) qualifi- cation to teach in two, and often three. of the physical sciences: (3) preparation in an undergraduate major and two minors. and a graduate mad- or'and one or two graduate minors; (4) the equivalent of two years of study in one foreign language; (5) preparation equivalent to about fif- teen semester hours 1n Education courses; (6) an average of eleven sem— ester hours in research by about half of the teachers; (7) practice teach- ing experience in a high school: (8) a bachelor‘s degree held by 9 per K. Scott Kinerson cent of the teachers, a master's degree by about 77 per cent of them, and a doctorate by l“ per cent; and (9) an average of nearly four years 01 non-academic work experience which the teachers rated as being of considerable value to them as physical science instructors. The mador recommendations for the training of these teachers include a_two—year graduate program which is oriented toward the develop— ment of an understanding of the technical-industrial applications of physical science and toward an interest in teaching rather than one in research. The program should prepare a student to teach in at least two physical science areas. ‘The following specific details are recom- mended: (l) a thirty to thirty-six semester hour major, and two twenty- credit minors at the undergraduate level; (2) a twenty-credit major and two ten-credit minors at the graduate level; (3) fifteen hours in a specified list of Education courses at the undergraduate level; (h) six to twelve credits in Education courses at the graduate level;t(5) from nine to twelve credits in the social sciences and a similar number in the humanities at the undergraduate level; (o) a teaching internship in a Junior college; and (7) the acquisition of some nonnacademic work experience in locations where practical applications of the physical sciences are being put to use. A STUDY OF THE ACADEMIC.AND PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF JUNIOR COLLEGE TEACHERS OF PHYSICAL SCIENCE By Kendall Scott Kinerson A THESIS Submitted to the School or Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Teacher Education 1957 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer is indebted to many individuals who by their assistance and cooperation made this study possible. He is especially indebted to Professor Walker R. Hill, Chairman Of his Guidance Committee, and Professors Ma: S. Smith, Clyde M. Campbell, and Charles P. Wells for encouragement, guidance, and helpful criticism. (The author is also grateful to the many Junior college teachers and administrators, and to the national authorities in the field of Junior college education, who cooperated so generously with this study. The aid in editing and organization provided by the author's wife was especially valuable in the preparation of the manuscript. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION . ......................................... Statement of the Problem . ....................... .. . Importance of the Problem ..... ...... . .......... .... Definitions ........................................ Hypotheses ...... ................................. . Assumptions .............. .................... ...... Limitations of the Study ........................... Procedures and Sources of Data .. ...... ............. II REVIEW OF LITERATURE ..... ......... ............. . ...... State and Regional Certification Requirements ...... ‘uthont‘ti'. Wmion ......O...‘.....IIOOC.C ..... .0 The Differences Between Junior and Senior College Teaching ..................... . ........ Academic and Professional Training ............. Training standards . ........ ... ..... . ..... .. Academic versus professional training ...... Practice teaching .... ..... ................. Degree Levels Desired ..... ...... . ..... . ....... . RonmAcademic Work Experience . ....... . .......... Selection of Candidates to be Trained and ruining In'titu‘ion' O0OOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Research Studies . ...... ...................... ..... . Studies Primarily Concerned with Differences Be- tween Junior and Senior College Instructors .... 10 10 13 13 lo lb 20 23 25 27 2? 29 29 CHAPTER Studies Primarily Concerned with Desirable Teacher Attributes and Competencies . . .. . ..... . Studies Primarily Concerned with Academic and Professional Training of Junior College Tmher‘ ease-oeeeeeeeeeeaaeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeee A Study Concerned with the Desirability of High School Teaching Experi once for Junior callege In'tmtors ......OOOCOOOOOOOOOO0...... Studies Concerned with the Availability of Junior College Teacher Training Programs in Colleges and Univarsitie. ......OCO ..... ..OOOOOOOOOOO ...... O A Study Concerned with Ranking, Tenure, and Sex of Junior College Instructors . . ........ .. A Study Concerned with the Physical Science sub- Ject Matter Needed by General or Physical Science Tmhor. ......C...’..‘..... ...... ... ........ 0. SW O'OOOOIOOOOIOOOOOOOO ....... .....OOOOOOOOOOO Areas of Agreement Areas of Disagreement . Areas in Which there is a Lack of Information .. III QUESTIONNAIM TECHNIQUES AND FINDINGS . ..... . . . . . . . . . . Questionnaire Techniques ........ Questionnaire Returns ..... . ..... . Previous TeachingExperience . Number of Teaching Areas .. Training in the Subject Matter Specialties ......... Training in Foreign hlanguages, Social Sciences, and the Humanities ................... ...... . ..... ..... Training in Education Courses . .. . . . . . . . ........... Training in Research .................... . PracticsTeaching ...... .......... iv PAGE 32 39 55 50 57 58 59 01 b7 b9 74 82 85 92 91+ IV Degree Levels ..... ..... ........... ........ .......... NonnAcademic Work Experience ........................ Niscellaneous Recommendations ....................... Michigan Teachers ........................... ..... ... Summary ................................... ..... ..... INTRRPRETATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................... Academic Training in the Subject Matter Specialties .. Social Science, Humanities, and roreign Languages ... Professional Education Courses ...................... Research ............................................ Practice Teaching ............ ..... .................. Degree Levels ....................................... NonnAcademic Hort Experience ........................ A Recommended Program for the Preparation of Junior College Teachers of Physical Science ................ OOnCIUdins sutmnt ......0.00.00.00.00...0.0.0.0... slalom ......OOOOOOOOOOOOO......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.00 wrong ......OOOOOOIOOOOOCO......OOOOOOOOOOOOOO ....... .00.. A 3-1 3-2 3+3 B—h an 0-2 Junior Colleges Cooperating ............................ Letter to Administrators ....................... ..... ... Questionnaire for.Administrators ................. ..... . PollowaUp Letter to Administrators .................... Pollowap Letter to‘Administrators . ..... .............. Questionnaire for Teachers ............................. Note to Teachers who have not yet Returned the ‘Questionp naire Concerning the Professional Preparation of Junior College Physical Science Teachers ...................... .' .Mnufi‘m.—_1 ‘ " *" ‘ PAGE 99 103 109 110 113 117 117 119 120 12# 125 126 127 128 132 133 ihi 1&1 in? 1&8 151 152 153 15h CHAPTER D—l List of Outstanding Authorities in the Field of Junior 0011’s. “nation .........00............OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO D—2 Letter to Outstanding Authorities in the Field of Junior College Education . ..... .... D-3 Questionnaire on the Professional Preparation of Junior College Physical Science Teachers ........ D-ll Follow-UpLetterto Experts ............ ..... I Number of Years of Previous Teaching Experience in high School. Junior College, and Senior college as Reported by 185 Tmher. ......OOOOQ...I......QQOOOOOOO.....OOOOOOOO r Number of Teaching Areas in which Teachers are Qualified to Teach, lxpected to Teach, and Recommended for Prospective Tmr. ......IOOIOOOOO‘OOOO 00000 0.0.0.0.... ...... .00... G Reported Preparation in Kinor Areas .. . .. .. R Distribution of Recommended Semester hours in Gradmte “Jo: ......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO......OOOOOQODIO. 70.0.0... I Distribution of Recommended Total Semester Hours in Undergmt. “1M” 0.0.0..............OOOOOOOOOOCOOOOO J Distribution of Recommended Total Semester Hours in th. Gramt. “inor .0. 00000 O0.00.0.0........OOOOOIOOIOOO K Chi Square Test for Significant Differences Between De- gree of Supervision and Value of Practice Teaching . . . . . L Practice Teaching Locations as Recommended by 186 Teachers M—l Summary of General Comments by Teachers ................ 3-2 Summary of General Comments by Administrators . . . . . . . . . . . N—3 Summary of General Comments by Experts ................. vi PAR 155 158 159 162 163 161+ 166 . 167 168 169 170 171 172 171+ 176 II III IV VI VII VIII II II III XIII XIV LIST OF TABLES Relative Importance of Faculty Attributes as Viewed by Brooklyn College Students Mean Ratings Established for Thirty Statements of Instructor Competences by 3148 Instructors of College General Education Courses in Physical Science Percentage Distribution of Teachers Holding the Master's as the Highest Degree, According to further Degrees Toward which They were Norking, Fields of Study of the Further Degrees, and Positions for which Teachers were Working Number and Percentages of Junior College Instructors of Certain Subjects Teaching These Subjects only, and Teaching Them in Combination with other Subjects Percentages of Junior College Teachers of Academic Subjects Reporting Having had the Indicated Courses in Education Mean Ranks Established for Seven Types of Training by Administrators and Instructors Average Faculty Ratings for Junior Colleges According to Size as Measured by Student Enrollment The Per Cent of the Instructors in Public Junior Colleges for the Years Designated who have the Doctor's. Naster's, Bachelor's, and No Degree for their Highest Degree Distribution of Institutions Covered in the Survey Individual Returns Received from Teachers and Administrators Number of Years of Previous Teaching Experience in high Schools, Junior Colleges, and Senior Colleges as reported by 185 Teachers Number of Teaching Areas in which Teachers are Qualified and Expected to Teach Number of Teaching Areas for Prospective Teachers as Recommended by Teachers, Administrators, and lxperts Distribution of Reported Semester Hours in the lhjor Subject l‘ield vii PAGE 31+ 36 1&2 1+2 “3 51 53 51+ 67 7O 75 XVI XVIII XIX 5.8:: XXIII XXIV XXVII XXVIII XXXI XXXII XXXIII XXXIV mu Reported Academic Training in Subject Matter Minors Recommended Semester Hours in the Undergraduate Major Recon-headed Semester Hours in the Graduate Major Recommended Semester Hours in Minor Areas Recommended lumber of Undergraduate Minors Foreign Language Credits Reported by Teachers Foreia Language Training as Recommended by Teachers foreign Lenguage Training as Recommended by Adminis- trators and Experts Recommended Training in the Humanities and social Sciences Reported Training in Education Courses Distribution of Recommended Total Credit in Rduca- tion Courses Rxcluding Practice Teaching Recommended Training in Specific Education Courses Research Experience Reported by Teachers Recommended Training in Research Practice Teaching Recommendations by 186 Teachers According to the Value of their own Experience The Value of Practice Teaching as Reported by Teachers According to the Degree of Supervision Exercised During their own Practice Teaching Practice Teaching Locations Reported by Teachers Recon-leaded Practice Teaching Locations Degree Levels R.ported by 169 Teachers Highest Earned Degrees Reported by 186 Teachers Degree Levels Recommended by 186 Teachers Degree Levels Recommended by Administrators and Xxperts V111 PAM 7b 79 80 81 82 83 an 35 8? 39 93 9h 95 9b 97 99 100 101 102 103 TABLI XXXVII XXXVIII XXXIX XLI EII Reported Hon-Academic work Experience Reasons Why Hon-Academic work Experience was or Value as Given by 132 Teachers Recomendations Regarding the Requirement of Ron- Academic Work Experience Degree Levels Reported by 33 Michigan Teachers Degree Levels Recommended by 32 Michigan Teachers Recommended Levels for Education Courses ix PAGX 101+ 100 108 112 112 123 CRAPTIR I I Statement of the Problem The purpose of this study is to determine what would appear to constitute the most eppmpriate training for prospective junior college physical science teachers as seen by junior college teachers and admin- istrators, end by a group of the outstanding leaders in the field of junior college education. he study has attempted to find answers to the following questions: 1. That degree level would be most appropriate for prospective junior college physical science teachers? 2. Rhat proportions of both graduate and undergraduate prepar- ation should be spent in each of the following areas? a. Subject matter b. Professional lducation courses c. Research d. General education e. Others 3. In how many specific physical sciences should a physical science teacher be qualified to teach? I}. How many of the following experiences are considered essen- tialt a. Practice teaching; at what academic level? b. Ion-academic work experience; what type and for new long? 2 5. If research experience is considered essential. should it be in Iducation or in one of the physical sciences? 6. Are there important differences, that should obtain, between the training of these teachers for private colleges and for the various eises of publicly controlled junior or community colleges? II Importance of the Problem The phenomenal growth of the American junior college has made it evident that it meets an educational need that is not met by other insti- tutions of higher education. This growth is illustrated by the fact that in the 1956-57 year there were approximately 762,000 students in 620 junior colleges in the countryl. In 1930 there were 710,088 students in #35 colleges. and in 1915 there were only 2363 students in seventy- four ccllegeez. The steady growth of this institution appears to be due to the value of the service that it renders to the large groups of individuals tho, for one reason or another, can profit more from junior college training than attendance at a four-year college or university. Among these groups are the following, (a) those who find it financially more practical to take the first two years of professional training at an institution close to their homes, (b) those who are preparing for tech- nical and semi-professional work not requiring a bachelor's degree. (c) persons who can gain by obtaining training in occupations for which the __ 1 , Jesse P. Rogue and Joanne laterman, I'Junior College Directory." Junigr 29.1.1351 M 27:278-30“; January 1957. 2Jesse P. Rogue, Amegcg M m. fourth Idition. 1956. Iashingtonx American Council on Dducation. p. lb. high schools provide basic instruction, (d) those who wish to add to their general education before entering employment or becoming homemakers, ad (a) employed adults who wish to further their education through part- time courses. Junior colleges. operating within a philosophical frame- work of community service, can serve all of these groups more adequately than most four-year institutions. In addition to these reasons for its past growth, the junior col- leges can well play a vital role in relieving the pressure of larcc num- bers of lower-division students from the four-year colleges and univer- sities as they face unprecedented enrollment increases in the immediate future. Because of the unique nature of its functions.the junior college is not generally expected to carry on any research program that is com- parable to that which constitutes one of the major functions of a univ- ersity. Thus, the two-year colleges of this type are teaching institu- tions . It would appear then that their primary instructional staff needs are for people who are philosophically oriented toward an interest in young people, the giving of instruction, and community service. As will be documented in Chapter 11. these needs are currently being met primarily by teachers from three sources. The largest group is composed of those who have had high school teaching experience and who originally prepared themselves for this service. A second group is composed of semi- professional people with experience .in business and industry. Their technical knowledge and skills are most appropriately employed in the teaching of the vocational courses. A third. and much smaller, portion of the teachers are obtained from among the ranks of experienced four- year college teachers. It is evident from the above that very few of the present-day junior college teachers have had training which was designed for direct entry into this teaching field. One of the reasons for this curious sit- nation appears to be that a.community in which a junior college is estab- liehed is almost certain to have had a.goed high school in.operation for some years, aid the opening of a junior college provides an avenue for the promotion of experienced.and deserving teachers to a.position of somewhat higher’prestige and salary. It is also possible that some high school principals here used this means to “promote“ some of their staff members who had tenure but whom they were otherwise unwilling to retain. In this way, and with smaller numbers from the other two sources mention- ed above, the need for staff has been met without too much.pressure be- ing placed on colleges and universities to train people specifically for the junior college level. An.obvious question at this point concerns the adequacy of the A preparation of the high school teacher who has been transferred to a junior college. Is he prepared to give college-level instruction! It seems most likely that he will have had an undergraduate major in.a.eub- ject matter field, one minor in Education, and perhaps a second minor in another subject field; if he has an advanced degree, it is most likely to be in Iducation. A.numbor of studies, which.will be cited in the next chapter, have shown that junior college teachers should in general have at least a.master's degree in the subject matter field. There appears to be divided opinion regarding the desirability of the doctor's degree. This immediately-suggests that the high school teacher is not adequately prepared for his new position. I The studies, which are mentioned.abeve, have dealt with the 5 training of junior college teachers in generala, with selection and re- tention of these teachers in California“, with preparation for teaching _ in the biological sciencess, with preparation for teaching general ed- ucation coursesb, and with the training of undergraduate college teachers in all types of institutions7. lone have been found which dealt direct- ly with the training needed by physical science teachers at the two-year colleges . III Definitions M21 29.11159. In general the term is used in this study to refer to all insti- tutions of higher learning that limit offerings to the first two years of post-high school work. It also includes those institutions designat- ed as community colleges and those that extend their offerings downward to include one or two years of high school study. To be of interest to 3 Amos 1!. Garrison, “Junior College Teachers: Their Academic and Professional RducationJ' Unpublished Doctor's dissertation. Tale Uni- versity, 19102. la. Selmer Ostlie, 'The Selection and Retention of Junior College Teachers.“ Unpublished Doctor's dissertation. University of Southern mitomip‘, 1951s SRalph P. Trasier, ”The Competencies and Patterns of Training Desirable for Instructors of Biological Science Courses in College Gen- eral lducation Programs.‘ Unpublished Doctor's dissertation. Univer- sity of Illinois, 1956. 6Gerhard l. lhmann, “Some Criteria for the Training of Teachers in General Education at the Junior College Level in California.'_' Unpub- lished Doctor's dissertation. University of California at Los Angeles, 1951. 7 . Rex C. Xidd. “The Improvement of the Pro-service Iducation of Undergraduate College Teachers.“ Unpublished Doctor's dissertation. . University of l'lorida. 1951. 6 this study a junior college must offer two-year programs of university parallel and college preparatory course work, or terminal programs in general education, or sub-professional areas leading toward the Associ- ate in Arts or Science Degree or its equivalent in the form of a certi- ficate or diploma. The institutions studied are all listed in the 1956 Junior College Directorye. and it in general lists all junior colleges that are so designated by state departments of education. 1211.12: £211.25! £323.23 1.9.4.922 $523.11.: This term is used to describe all junior college teachers whose principal duties involve the teaching of one or more of the physical sciences. Physical science teaching is construed as giving instruction in courses in astronomy, chemistry, geology, mathematics, meteorology. physical science, physics, and others which represent combinations of these. IV mpotheses The hypotheses being tested in this study are: 1. Junior college physical science teachers need preparation at the graduate level: usually sometdnat beyond the master's degree. and in at least two of the physical sciences. 2. These teachers also need considerable preparation in special professional lducation courses which emphasise the history. philosophy. and purposes of the junior college as well as courses in teaching meth- ods, psychology of the late adolescent, and guidance and counseling. 8 Jesse P. Rogue and Zora Ritter. '.'Junior College Directory," Lungs; Collegg M 263281-307: January 1956. ' 7 3. These teachers should have some practice teaching in a junior college. h. These teachers should have some non- academic work experience where practical applications of the physical sciences are being put to use. 5. These teachers do not need training in research beyond what could be obtained from a course which taught them an appreciation of the capabilities and limitations of research, and the usual rigor involved in a subject matter master's thesis. V Assumptions This study has been conducted on the basis of the following under-— lying assumptions: 1. That the prospective junior college teacher needs training that differs in some respects from that of both the high school teacher and the college teacher. 2. That current programs of preparation are inadequate. 3. That graduate school faculties. junior college administrators and teachers. state department of public instruction officials, and pros- pective junior college physical science teachers can obtain valuable information and usable recomendations from an analysis of the type of data gathered in the course of this study. 15. That junior college teachers and administrators and the out- standing leaders in the field constitute the best available sources of knowledge pertaining to the problem and, furthermore. that these groups are sufficiently interested in the problem to respond to a questionnaire survey. VI Limitations of the Study Several studies pertaining to Junior college teacher education in general. and one or two pertaining to particular fields. have recently been reportedg. For this reason it seem: apparent that mother study covering the field in a general way is not particularly needed at this time. However. no comparable study which dealt specifically with this question in the physical science area has been found. This. combined with the fact that the author's previous training has been centered in mathematics and physics. led to the limitation of this investigation to the physical science area. In the interest of feasibility and financial practicability of a study conducted by a single individual. this investigations was further limited in two respects. The first ef these concerns the limitation to the formal academic and professional requirements that seen advisable for these teachers. Thus. questions such as those dealing with the so- lection of promising students to be trained for this field. the competi- tion between Junior colleges and various- industrial organisations for the services of university graduates in this highly critical area. ad the benefits derivable from the in-service training of these teachers. have been left to other studies. A second limitation was imposed on the sise of the sample to be drawn. There are approximately six hundred Jun- ior colleges in the country and it was felt that a sample which would adoquately represent the population of physical science teachers would consist of those institutions which were chosen according to the criteria 9lee Chapter 11: particularly for studies reported by Blake. lhmann. Irasier. Garrison. Ostlie, loos. and Tapley. listed in part I of Chapter III. VII Procedures and Sources of Data In order to obtain the met pertinent information bearing on this problem. two principal sources were used. nese were: (a) a moderately extensive survey of the literature pertaining to Junior college teacher education, and (b) a questionnaire survey of Junior college teachers and administrators. and a group of the outstanding leaders in the field ef Junior college education. The literature search was made in an effort to find answers to the follewing questions: 1. "hat studies have been recently reported that have a direct bearing on this problem? In this connection. anything appearing since 19160 has been considered sufficiently recent to be of significance to this study. 2. lhat could be learned from the above-mentioned reports con- cerning all of the questions listed in part I of this chapter? 3. What are the viewpoints of the leading authorities in the field regarding the current preblem? The questiennaire survey of the teachers was made in order to de- termine the current status of their formal training and non-academic work experience. hey were also asked to make reco-endations regarding the training that would be most appropriate for teachers in this field. The administrators and experts were asked for their recommendations in these 10 cm 11 REVIEW 01‘ 1.1mm file literature pertaining to higher education in general. and to the Junior and community college in particular. contains frequent refer- ences to the problem of adequate academic and professional preparation of teachers in this type of college. The publications concerned with this problem can be divided into three general types. These are: (l) pub- lications describing state and regional certification requirements, (2) books and articles. which frequently reflect ideal rather than actual conditions. but nevertheless show the opinions held by the leading auth- oritiee in the £1.14. and (3) research studies. which are frequently limited in scope but do portray the most complete factual data which are available. I State and Regional Certification Requirements Ioellner and Iood1 list the requirements for state certification of teachers at all levels in each of the forty-eight states. Variations in these requirements for Junior college teachers are so great that few generalizations can be made. However. this publication does reveal the following: 1 . Robert C. Voellner and Aurilla ll. Wood. Muiremgnts £9; Ogrti- 1412.223 9.1: 222932.. W. L._____:.1brtr1nn mmmumtor- £9; ......llo-cn- .ten m.m Schools. and Junior 0911352.; 1256-52. Twenty- first edition. chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1956. Pp. iv—lZu. ll 1. Twenty-five of the states require some form.of state certifi- cation for Junior college teachers. 2. The master's degree is expected.more frequently than any other but wide variations are permitted in the different states. For example. some states grant temporary certificates to holders of the bachelor's degree. others accept approximately thirty semester hours of graduate credit in lieu of the master's degree. still others specify minimum re- quirements that are different for teachers than for department heads. and in some states teachers are certified automatically upon recommenda- tion by the state university. 3. .1 comparison of the 1956-57 requirements with those for 1938- 39 reveals that changes in these requirements seem to have been relative- ly minor in the past eighteen years. Thus ten of the states that have such requirements have not changed them in that time and.most of the ob- served changes were slight. “. The requirements in a few of the states. where the Junior col- lege movement is particularly well developed. are as follows: leigglpi;.requires a.master's or doctor's degree. one teaching Elder and one minor. ten credits in professional lducation courses. and four semester'hours in directed teachingz. .112£193 requires a master's degree including at least twelve sem- ester hours of graduate credit in the teaching subject area?. Illinois requires a master's degree. a total of forty-three credits 2 Ibid.. p. 1“ 3 Ibid.. p. 26 12 in‘a specified list of general education courses. a.total of thirty-six credits in a.maJor academic field. and twenty semester hours in Iducation“. 'ggnggg does not list any state requirementss. m requires a bachelor's degree. one year of graduate work (content unspecified). and ”efficiency in teaching6." ‘flighiggg requires a.mastor's degree with a maJor in the teaching subJect. and fifteen hours in a specified list of lducation courses7. Minnesota requires a master's degree or its equivalent. eighteen semester hours in Education. and eight hours in practice teaching. The practice teaching requirement is waived for those with a.master's degree in an academic area. and both professional requirements are waived for applicants who hold a doctor's degrees. I ligsisgippi does not list any state requirementeg. Missougi requires that these teachers'be approved by the Committee cn.Accredited Schools and Colleges. University of lissourilo. ‘133‘22§§_does not list any state requirementsll. Egrth nggli a requires only that department heads hold a master's “Ibid.. p. 32. 51bid.. p. “h. 6Ibid.. p. 53. 7Ibid.. p. 57. 8Ibid.. p. 59. 9Ibid.. p. 63. “Ibid.. p. 67. 11 Ibide. ppe 81‘83 13 12 degree or equivalent . Accreditation data. obtained from each of the six regional accre- l diting agencies. were also reported by Tapley 3. This report is in gen- eral agreement with erllner and flood and concludes with the statement that “the master's degree or its equivalent is usually cpscted of the Junior college teacher. " I I Autho ri tative Opinion The Junior college literature contains a large number of books and articles that pertain. in one way or another. to the training of in- structors at this level of higher education. This section contains a review of many of the significant items in each of the following catego- ries: (l) the differences between Junior and senior college teaching; (2) academic and professional training; (3) degree levels desired: (1+) the desirability of non-academic work experience; and (5) the selection of candidates to be trained. 1. 1h; Differegces betgen £391.91 a; 9.28.1.9; Collegg Teachi g. The differences identified in the literature do not appear to be nearly as numerous as the similarities between these two types of teach- ing. In general those qualities which make for good teaching in a senior college are also desired at the two-year institutions. Those differences 12 Ibid. . p. 85. E. R. Tapley, “Preparation for Teaching General lducation Courses in Junior Colleges.” p. 38. Unpublist Doctor's dissertation. Univer- sity of Chicago. 1955. Pp. xi - 200. (‘3'?! .. I I: I'll" 1‘» which have been identified are due to the different purposes which the two types of institutions serve. The Forty-Sixth Yearbook of the Nation- cl Society for the Study of lducationlu emphasises one of these that per- tains particularly to science teachers. There it is pointed out that the senior college functions primarily for the purpose of training special- ists or for general education. In addition to these the Junior college has a third purpose; it is that of offering science for the terminal- vocaticnal student. both for its practical applications to his particu- lar field and for its general educational value. In another article Donovanl5 points to a second frequently men- tioned difference. The senior college instructor is typically expected to be not only a teacher of students but also a producer of independent research. The fact that many at this level contribute little if anything of this nature does not change the fact that this is one of the more im- portant criteria which are used in determining promotions and as a mea- sure of success in college teaching. 1'he Junior college teacher is more frequently referred to as a consumer of research. and is generally ex- Pected to carry a heavier teaching load than his senior colleague. The criteria used as measures of his success are much more likely to include excellence in teaching than such measures as number of publications and allount of original research accomplished. m1. clearly implies that his training should be directed toward 9 future in teaching rather than in research. Current graduate degrees. ‘_ ll: Nelson 3. Henry, Editor. Science Education _i__n American Schggls. r01‘ty--Sixth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Part1, Pp. 222-4. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1947. 15 . T. P. Donovan, "Problems of the Instructor in the Junior Col- 1Oee.“ 1h; Junior Collegg gourna; , 22:1!r916—7: May 1952. 15 in fields other than Education. generally are research centered and thus appear to be far more appropriate for the university professor than for the Junior college teacher. In support of the previous point regarding teaching load. Belle 16 had this to say in 1931 . a common stardard for teaching load in standard colleges is twelve to eighteen hours per week; the prevalent figure being fif- teen or sixteen. Vhile this is only one element of the teaching load. it is the single unit employed by all the accrediting agen- cios. Right or ten hours is a more common university load. but there the professor is expected to devote at least half of his time to research. In a series of studies reported by Kcos17 the median load for four-year colleges was thirteen hours per week; for universities. nine hours: for Junior colleges. four different studies reported median loads 18 ranging from fourteen to seventeen hours. As will be shown later . this study also demonstrated that work in Education courses constitutes an important part of the training of most Junior college teachers. That this is not the case with senior college teachers is well known. It should be mentioned in conclusion that although many writers have pointed to the differences mentioned above. there are also those Who feel that no distinction should be made in the training of teachers for different types of higher education. Among these is Theodore Ble- zen who commented as follows in an address to the fifth Annual 16 Walter Crosby Tells. Th____e_ Jun____i___or Cgllego. p. 1:12. New York: Boughton Mifflin 0a., 1931. 7Ioeonard V. loos. ”Junior College Teachers; 3 ackground of Ex- Perience, " pp. 1457-69. ”Degrees and Graduate Residence." pp. 77-89. “Pr-penuoe in Education.” pp. 332-111;, “Subjects Taught and Specialised P1‘eparation." pp.196-209. Junigr Collegg m. 18: (pp. as above): September 1915? to May 191:8. 18 ' See p. 1&3 lb 19 Conference on higher Education in 1950 . Should there be a specific differentiation in training for higher education--that is. for a Junior or community college. or a liberal arts college. a teacher's college. or some other kind of college? The conference on the Preparation of College Teachers last year believed it would be a mistake to plan for such differentiation. Since the above quotation represents the consensus of opinions held by a number of authorities. it is evident that authoritative opin- ion varies considerably. not only as it regards the question of what spe- cial types of training the Junior college teacher needs. but also as to whether he actually needs any training that differs from that of the sen- ior college instructor. 2. M _an_§, mfessional Training. me Junior college literature contains frequent references to the training of instructors. These fall roughly into three categories. The first is concerned with more or less complete sets of recommendations of Itandards and criteria that should be used in determining the adequacy of fi prespective teacher's preparation. The second deals with the well known controversy between those who favor academic courses only and those who ffiver the inclusion of some work in Iducation courses. The third concerns “10 question of practice teaching. 1331.93.55 standagg . One of the most frequently quoted authorities in the Junior college literature is Walter Crosby Bells. In 33:; m 921.13“. published 'in 1931. Iells made the following statement regarding 20 the teacher training standards that should obtain in the future . \A 19 Theodore Blegen. “Ferment in Graduate lducation.‘ llatigggl= m Agsgciatign Journal 39:685-6; December 1950. 20 Salter Cresby Sells. op. cit.. p. #21. 17 It is not too much to expect every permanent. well-qualified instructor to have had at least two years of graduate work. largo— 1y in the field in which he expects to teach, or in closely ro- 1ated work; and that he should have had a substantial training in professional courses in Education. to prevent him from being a narrow specialist in his own field. and to see his own work in its proper perspective with relation to the rest of the institution. It would be desirable that heads of departments should have had the equivalent of the training and breadth of view represented by the degree of Doctor of lducation...Their (the instructors) norm- al teaching load should not exceed twelve to fifteen hours per week. Instructors in junior colleges should receive salaries some- what bstter than lower-division instructors in universities. There should be other attractive features of permanence of tenure. professional development. and community standing to place them on a par with university instructors...It is true that those suggest- ed standards are higher than those obtaining at the present time. The academic and professional standards proposed by lells have be- ccme relatively common today. In fact. they seem to have been in current practice eleven years ago when Sexson and Harbeson published 1h; 19; 2 22 m Cgllegg 1. In this work the following is stated : a list As a general principle. it may be stated that in the academic departments the minimum amount of academic training acceptable for appointment as a junior college instructor is that represented by a master's degree with a major in the field of his teaching. Regarding professional training. Sexson suggests23 : Administrators probably need a more extensive training in the scientific study of Iducation than do the teaching faculty but certainly sixteen semester hours of professional training are none too many for the classroom teacher. 21+ At about this same time (19“?) Ruth 3. Ickert suggested of objectives toward which professional training of college 21 J. a. Sexson and J. U. Harbeson. T_hg is; Amegigg qulegg, in York: Harper and Brothers. 191:6. rp. xviii-312. are.” 22 Ibid.. p. 180. 23 Ibid.. p. 181 24 Ruth I. Eckert. '1 low Design for the Training of College Teach- Mai 99.1.1259. m. 18:25-33: Berta-bar 19“?- 18 teachers should be directed. While these were not limited to Junior college instructors. they would seem to apply equally well to that field. 25 They were : 1. An understanding of educational obJectives. 2. An appreciation of social trends. 3. A sense of the functional relationship between aims and con- tent. h. An understanding of human development and human relations. 5. A knowledge of the psychology of learning. 6. An understanding of the major trends in education. 7. A knowledge of curriculum development. 8. An understanding of adjustment and guidance problems. 9. A knowledge of the basic principles of evaluation. 10. an understanding of the nature and significance of the teach- ing profession. 11. The development of a readiness to experiment. 12. The development of skill in democratic participation in the development of educational policy. One of the very few articles which have made specific reference to the preparation needed by Junior college physical science teachers was written by H. L. Smith26. He suggested that such teachers should have a broad foundation in all of the physical sciences. with some spec- ialisation in one. Specifically he urged that such teachers should have at least the equivalent of an undergraduate minor of fifteen semester hours in each of the naJor subdivisions of physical science. Smith also favored a professional sequence of from nine to twelve hours which would include some work in psychology. techniques of teach- ing. the Junior college. professional ethics. problems of administration. Md curriculum construction. In addition to these he favored practice tCaching {to be performed simultaneously with graduate study and not undertaken at the end of it); non-academic work experience. primarily k 25 Ibid.. p. 29. 263. L. Smith. “Better lducation of College Teachers; Junior Col- lege.“ lgrth m Assgciatign Quarterly. 23 3391-6: April 19%. 19 for teachers of terminal-industrial and semi-professional courses: and ‘he ability to lead some extra-curricular activity. Harold Anderson27 also suggested a list of nine points which he eahtiaereci desirable objectives for Junior college teacher training pre- 33;... nost of these are similar to the suggestions previously cited. but he seems to put considerable stress on the importance of research for these candidates. Thus three of his points wore28: 1. He (the teacher candidate) should have research exper- ience to give him the experience of making a contribution to un- derstanding. 2. The research problem should require a considerable var- iety of the principles. materials. and technics of his eventual teaching field. 3. He should have an acquaintance with the full range of basic research methods used in his division of studies. his emphasis on research runs contrary to most writers in the 1’ 101d who have generally suggested that Junior college teachers should I" thought of as consumers and not producers of research. In summary it appears that there is pretty general agreement with the desirability of the nine characteristic. which Hawkins listed in 29 1955 . These were: The Junior college teacher: 1. should have an understanding of the history. philosophy. and functions of the Junior college. 2. should have some knowledge of Junior college administration. \ 2 7Harold Anderson. ”The Preparation of College Teachers.“ Nation- 9a. Emotign isgcietien m. henna; us: 1951. ZBIbid. . p. 3&3 29 1 T. G. Hawkins. ”Junior College Teachers. Some Unique Character- “ice." Junior m Jgurnal. 253298-302; January 1955. "v-‘m 20 3. is a full-time public relations officer for the school. It. should know his community. 5. should be able to communicate effectively with both adult. and youth. 6. must know his field but must not be a narrow specialist. 7. must participate in extra-curricular activities of the school. 8. must understand the development stage of Junior college youth. 9. should see to it that each student. youth or adult. gets what he needs and desires from the courses he takes. Although there is considerable agreement that these attributes and characteristics should be possessed by Junior college teachers. there seems to be considerable disagreement as to how prospective candidates can best acquire these qualities. The remaining divisions of this sec-- tion will consider two of the more critical issues. Acadgmic m pmggsgignal training. At first thought it would not. seem that these two phases of training should clash; they are both nficteasary and should complement rather than interfere with one another. Indeed. many writers such as Bellow. been. and Soxson and Harbeson32 “‘70 advanced this point. Nevertheless there seems to be continued fric- ‘1011 between professors of the older academic disciplines and those whose Weeialty lies in the field of Education. The former object to their 't‘ldonts "wasting time" in ‘ducation courses when they could more profi- ‘ably be taking additional work in their academic specialty. The latter unlat that the acquisition of knowledge in a field does not necessarily \ e 30 filter Crosby lells. op. cit.. p. #21. 31 ’ ‘ Leonard V. Koos. op. cit.. pp. 33241;. 32 J. A. Sexson and J. V. Harbeson. op. cit.. p. 181. r: 13 -1. ‘Illli Ill: 21 insure the ability to transmit it to one's students. In an analysis of “the quarrel between professors of academic subjects and professors of Education”. I. H. Reader” presented arguments which obviously favored the professional educator's side of the debate. He saw the major source of friction as lying in the fact that the aca- demic professor was primarily interested in subject matter while the pro- tenor of Education was primarily interested in individuals. It was fur- ther suggested that the Educationist is in an unenviably unique position among his colleagues in regard to the results of his teaching efforts at the university. Upon graduation. the students in all fields. except Id.- ucation. generally go to work in those fields. and their work. or the product of it. is not generally subject to direct inspection by those who taught them. In Education the graduates become teachers who train stu- dents that are soon in the classrooms of both the academician and the ldueationist. The argument proceeded with the statement that professors have always been dissatisfied with their student's preliminary education. but that now the professor of academic subjects has a scapegoat. He blames the ldmtien department for producing poor high school teachers. Roeder insisted that this seems unjustified in light of the fact that those 'poor teachers” probably spent about five-sixths of their college time in pursuit of academic subjects under the guidance of those same professors who now say they were badly trained. The academic professor was also pictured by this author as gener- ally holding certain misconceptions about the study of lducation. 33!. H. Beoder. "The Quarrel Between Professors of Academic Sub- jects and Professors of Education; An Analysis." American Assgciatign g; Qniversitz mfgssogs 25112339378506-21; September 1951. a‘r——.. " V" ‘m.‘ "‘ a Ill 11'. .I II II... .I .|.| 3h Those were : 1- 21;: £252.! a: may W- Thou prof-mt- are prone to adhere to what Dewey once called the “cold storage“ idea of learning. i.e. the mere accumulation of facts without . learning how they are interrelated nor how to think or integrate these facts. 2. __g 29.1.51 {gmggibility g_f_ _t_e _s_____cheel £51 .15.! g each; g. These professors tend to view the school only as a place to train future scholars. and while vocational and general education cours- es are perhaps needed in high school. they are more “training" and should not be dignified by inclusion in programs of higher education. 3. in; ggntgt Li: Education 3.; g field 31 stLdy. The aca- demician generally recognises only three principal areas. 1‘hese are methods. educational administration. and history of education. He sees little need for methods because of his own interest in training future scholars with "cold storage“ heads. He sees little need for administration courses because "all it requires is common sense and a little oa-the-job training.'. As for history of educa- tion. “that is a worthy subject for historians.“ but he fails to see a need for it in the training of teachers. fhis writer freely admitted that there have been amorous instan- ces of peer instruction in lducation classes. but he believed that those were probably no more prevalent than in academic classes. The real roa- sens fer the friction were thus seen as those cited above. i'hat this controversy affects the training of junior college tea- chars is evident a... statements such as the following from luau-35: Candidates for teaching positions frequently offer unbalanc- ed programs. ‘l‘hoy have majored in lducation with a subsequent lack of thorough subject matter knowledge. or in a subject matter field with no training in Educational psychology. guidance. and human relations. In describing three different surveys of the adequacy of doctoral programs. Hollis made the following comment which appears to be typical Burma. . pp. 512-520. 353. 0. Ingalls. “Problems of Staffing the Community College.“ 31.1.2.2; mm of £99.21 £222.12}: Bantu. 37093-1501: April 1953- 23 of the experiences encountered by those who have conducted surveys where 6 lducation courses were being evaluated3 . his point of greatest tension within each group. attested to by the vigor and emotionalism of the statements concerned. had to do with the function and offerings of departments of Education. The heaviest criticism of all tended to come to a head over courses in Education and practice teaching. m M. As mentioned in the last section. practice teaching has frequently been a controversial issue. Host of the writers in the junior college field seem to agree that some type of practical. on-the—job training of this kind is desirable. The controversy has con- tered around the question of how it should be conducted and at what ed- ucational levels. In practice this phase of the training of junior col- lege teachers has generally been secured in high schools. This is true by virtue of the fact that the largest majority of these teachers have originally prepared to teach in the high school. and most states require such practice teaching before certification. Junior college authorities have. however. urged that this practice be obtained in a junior college. The teachers who have come directly from university training have fre- quently not had any supervised apprentice teaching of this type. They have generally had some experience as graduate assistants but there seems to be a considerable Question as to the training value of such oxper-f ience. In this connection. Rex Kidd surveyed the records of 561 college teachers in a study aimed at the ”Improvement of the pro-service educa- tion of college teachers”) He found that seven out of ten had had 6 3 1L V- 3.111.. ..2__T «rd mm. m. p. 171- Iashington: American Council on Education. 191+5. pp. xii-201+. 7 ‘ Rex 0. Kidd. “The Improvement of the Pro-Service Education of Undergraduate College Teachers.“ Unpublished Doctor's dissertation. University of Florida. 1951. 21+ graduate assistantship experience. but there was little evidence that these assistantships were used to provide help in preparation for better teaching. ' . .At least one institution has inaugurated a program of internship in junior college teaching that seems to bear considerable promise. Such a.program, which has been in operation at the University of Florida for the past eight years. has recently been described by'Henderson38. In this program. interns are carefully selected after completion of all necessary course work. and then work under a directing professor who accepts only those interns who he feels are qualified. Their teaching. in lower division courses at the university. is closely supervised by this professor and all interns meet in a weekly seminar with a coordina- tor. .at the end of the term the intern. the directing professor. and the coordinator meet in an attempt to evaluate the work of the student tea- cher. In California. where practice teaching in a junior college is specifically required for a.state certificate. the actual practices ap- pear to depart considerably from the ideal as evidenced by these remarks from lhnanngg. In view of the lack of satisfactory arrangements between cre- dential-granting institutions and nearby junior colleges. candi- dates have been permitted to offer “other“ or “equivalent“ exper- ience. Instead of doing a semester of practice teaching in their academic major in a regular junior college class. they nave been 8 3 L. E. Henderson. “Internship in Junior College Teaching. .Lnicr June: @2221 27: 388-95: larch 1957. 39Gerhard I. Ehmann. ”Some Criteria for too Training of Teachers in General Education at the Junior College Level in California.? p. 230. Unpublished Doctor's dissertation. University of California. Los Angeles. 1951. 25 allowed to offer instead experience obtained as a graduate assis- tant at a university; .At the university of California. Los Ange- les. for example. students have in the past evaded the specific practice teaching requirement and obtained a junior college cre- dential on the basis of a teaching assistantship held for an scan demic year. Curious anomaly though it seems. teaching assistant- ships most often do not involve teaching of classes. but rather assisting professors in preparation of materials. correcting pl— pers. constructing and correcting tests. and the like...Teaching assistants who really teach. do so not for the purpose of giving the graduate student any planned and thoroughly supervised ex- periences in teaching at the junior college level. Such teaching is rarely observed and used as training by master teachers or state education officer...This sort of experience...appears to be quite inadequate as a substitute for practicum in junior college teach— in. 3. 295m 291.11.! Dgsired. .Ls mentioned in the previous section. Halter lells was one of the first to urge that junior college teachers should obtain training at a level somewhat beyond the master's degree. He favored a minimum of two years of graduate studyyo. Sexson and Harbeson have also been previously cited as favoring a similar level of traininghl. Colvert'sl"2 summary of research investigations of this question shows clearly that there has been a steady trend toward this objective since 1918. However. Punke's“3 study reveals that large numbers of junior colleges still have faculties with an average preparation that falls somewhat below. rather than above. the master‘s level. The question of whether junior college teachers should have. or to See p. 17. 1 See p. 17 #2 Clyde 0. colvert. “Professional Development of Junior College Instructors.“ gunior Cgllogg Jgurnal. 25:h7h-78; April 1955. (4 3Harold D. Punks. ”Academic Qualifications of Junior College Inculties.' Junior Cgllegg Jougggl. 23:366-79; March 1953. x.‘ sew \u.‘ #9! 26 at least work toward. a doctorate. has been debated at considerable lenth. In this connection. H. L. Smith wrote“. "the regimen required for the Ph. D. has engendered skills and subject matter fancies which very often cause a person to be ill-equipped to do the job.“ In contrast to this opinion one finds one of the leading authorities. Leonard V. loos. saying“: ”Junior college teachers should be held to a year of graduate residence and the master's program. and at the same time to look toward the doctorate degree.“ Various special degrees and training programs have been proposed. Typical of these proposals. but unique in its actual inclusion in a uni- versity training program. is the series of degrees now available at the University of Florida“). At that institution it has now been possible. for the past eiat years. to earn: (1) an ll. Dd. degree requiring 12 - 18 credits in the subject field plus 18 - 216 credits in professional courses: (2) an Id. 8. (Specialist in Education) degree requiring thirty-six cre- dits beyond the master's; and (3) an Id. D. degree requiring the usual three years of graduate work. A proposal for a similar program was made. but never activated. at the University of Texas in 1951”. This program would have offered a two-year graduate degree based on the completion of sixty hours of grad- uate work; forty-two of these credits to be in the subject matter field with not less than six semester hours in each of three departments: six #4 H. L. Smith. op. cit.. p. 392. “Leonard V. loos. op. cit.. p. 88. “61.. ll. nendorson. op. cit.. p. 390. 7 “a Two-Tear Graduate Degree.” mimeo. University of Texas. June 1951. 27 hours were to be in Education courses dealing specifically with the jun- ior college; a six-credit. or larger. thesis based on research in the subject matter field or in lducation. was to be required; and six hours were to be granted for a teaching internship either in a junior college or as a teaching fellow at the university. ‘h 322M219 19.215. W- Although the literature contains some reference to the desirabil- ity of junior college teachers having had some experience of this type. there seems to be little evidence that it is particularly desired except for those in the terminal-vocational curricula. (.l’ilger'+8 urges it strong- ly for these areas but not for the teachers of academic subjects. Contrasting with this. Bovakug sees industrial experience as high-— 1y desirable for teachers of science. a. feels that it should not be in the nature of regular summer employment for the purpose of aupenting income. but should be sought during an occasional summer to help bring more security. practicability. modernity. and enthusiasm to their teach- ing. lo research relating directly to this question. as applied to junior college science teachers. was found. 5. Selection gf Candidates 3, be 131519.29. $3M Iggtitutigg. These aspects of the problem of securing adequate numbers of 1.3 G. A. Gilger. ”Should Instructors Have Iork Experience?“ mm 92111251 £22m. 13:192-7; Doc-abet 19112. “93. J. lovak. "And is for Industrial Experience.“ Sgiencg m. 213221-33 October 195“; 1J1?" ‘ , . ‘\I . ‘ ‘ -w. .5 —44_ 28 junior college teachers appear to have been largely neglected both in the literature and in actual practice. Blagenso calls attention to the desirability of taking steps to encourage promising students to enter the college teaching field. He m not upecifically referring to junior colleges. but the proposal seems equally valid for them. He emphasises the well-recognised fact "I“ graduate schools are primarily concerned with the training of re- search .cholars who come to consider themselves primarily as subject met-- “1' 'Pocialists and secondarily. in some cases. college teachers. After “king an informal poll of the members of his own staff. Blegen found that over 90 per cent of them became teachers because of the encourage- '9“ given by some one of their undergraduate teachers. He urged that ”I”. Chould be much more of this early "tapping” .of promising prospects. In a similar vein. Buth lckertsl urged the adoption of mid). pro-A 811nm that looked toward a teaching. rather than a specialist. career. 81” h°P¢d that such programs would strive to develop early in graduate Itudent ' m lives the feeling that they were to become teachers rather "in Pharaicists or chemists. etc. A. to institutions that offer training programs for junior college teacher. , there seem to be very few in existence. The 11113; Mg; “$51.52 listed thirty-four institutions where some course work in this ‘\_— 50 ‘ 1°80 Theodore 0. Blegen, ”The Graduate School and Education of Col- T°‘¢h°fl-' Eh: Emilee mm. 29:12-25; January 1918. 51 1 Ruth 1. lckert. “Some Neglected Aspects in the Preparation of 192.9. ”when." 2h: lama]. of More]. mam. 33137-44: January 011 SZ'Vhere to Go for Junior College Teacher Preparation." Junior keg! m. mum-us; April 19%. 29 area wam being offered in 19%. However. none of these were described as well developed or complete in any adequate sense of the word. Many of them. institutions have undoubtedly improved their offerings substan- tially 1n the past nine years. but adequate training programs still appear to be relatively rare. III Research Studies Several research studies which pertain directly to the training 01' Junior college teachers have been carried out. Those which appear to be moat pertinent to the current investigation are reviewed in this.‘sec- tion under these headings: (1) Studies primarily concerned with the dif- ferencoc between junior and senior college teaching. (2) Studies primar- ily concerned nth desirable teacher attributes and competencies. (3) ““19. primarily concerned with academic and professional training of Junior college teachers. (h) a study concerned with the desirability of “5" 'chool teaching experience for junior college teachers. (5) Studies concerngd 31th the availability of junior college teacher training Pr°" Grant in collegem and universities. (o) A study concerned with the rank- “3- tCnuro. and sex of junior college instructors. and (7) ‘ “W “1*" come. with the physical science subdoct utter ”ad“ by 8'3““ °" phyuc‘l science teachers. \ W Primarily ngcgrned 2th Differences m Junior and Mg; Cells” Ingtructozg. In 1929 a survey which attempted to identify the principal dif- 1. f erancmm between junior and senior college instructors was reported uestionnaire responses were obtained from seventy-nine \ “‘1 531'. U. Reeves. "Bow to Improve Instruction in Junior Colleges.” “we Schools. 3:69-75: April 1929. 30 of the 180 junior colleges then in existence. Twenty of these same can- puses were also visited personally by the author. Sixty four-year col- leges were also canvassed in this study. The principal differences 5“ found were 8 1. fifty-seven of the junior colleges required their teachers to have had some work in Education courses; twenty-nine required from fifteen to eighteen semester hours; nine required more than eighteen hours. and the remaining schools required less than fifteen. None of the senior col- 1°80. required their instructors to have any training in ‘ducation courses. 2. he number of years of graduate training for junior college P‘rtonnel was found to be less than that for senior college teachers. but. the differences were slight when the comparison was made between jun- ior college teachers and lower division instructors in the senior college. 3. l'ifty-three of the junior colleges exercised considerable '“Pervision over their instructors: forty-seven of them to the point of r;- “luent direct classroom observation. This kind of supervision was found to be virtually absent in the senior colleges. In a Yale University doctoral dissertation. which was completed in 19140. Garrison55 reported the results of a survey of the teachers and wimistrators in fifty—one local public junior colleges with enrollments I"“Ween 150 and 750 students. The survey ins conducted in an effort to: ‘1) determine the academic and professional qualifications of instructors t'hen in service in junior colleges. (2) determine the professional 51+ Ibid.. p. 71}. 55 Amos L. Garrison. ”Junior College Teachers: Their Academic and Professional Education." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation. Yale Univer- .1ty. 19M. Ppe V‘173e “1 an 31 responsibilities carried by those instructors. (3) determine wave in which teaching in public junior colleges differed from that in high schools and in senior colleges. and (1+) make recommendations concerning the preparation of junior college instructors. Returns were obtained from 716‘ teachers and forty-nine administrators. all of these coming from fifty—one of the sixty-five schools that had previously agreed to par- ticipate in the stw. The principal findings in this study were”: (1) The master's degree was an almost universal requirement. (2) A tendency to move to- ward requirement of the Ph. D. degree was identified. (3) Instructors were being recruited chiefly from high schools (70 per cent). colleges and universities (35 per cent). elementary schools (22 per cent). and Junior high schools (18 per cent). (1+) In order of preference. the ad» “ni‘trators preferred teachers with experience in: (a) other public Junior colleges. (b) college or university teaching. (c) high 3011001 teaching, (5),)...“ of the teachers in the survey held a state certifi— “t9- (6) ”flaunt“, ten Education courses were recommended by most mantra and administrators. (7) The average teacher gave inatmfiw to tux-9. or four cleeeeerequirihg three preparations and meeting for a t , . “‘1 or twelve hours per week. (8) Many of the teachers also taught in t o 11.” lchool units: chiefly high schools. (9) A majority of the teachers «Winged extra-classresponsibilities. (10) Most of the teachers were t . ching in their subject matter majors. (11) Ninety per cent of the Sage he1‘s reported no research or publications during the year of the . _ '3 - (12) The principal factors considered in the employment of teachers \ b 5 Ibid.. Ppe 83"“ . T—-—-fl a. f Ill. -JII: . ‘ it: (IV); I (L 32 were: (a) ability as a classroom instructor. (b) professional growth. (c) knowledge of subject matter. and (d) understanding of the educative pro- case. (13) The teachers considered the junior college to be more like a high school than like a senior college. (11+) The administrators gener— ally eteted that from thirty-seven to forty-three semester hours were needed ‘oy the teachers in the subject matter areas in which they would give inetruction. (In this light 26 per cent of the teachers in the ample were inadequately prepared.) (15) Many of the teachers were of the Opinion that subject matter training should not be sacrificed to courses in Education. but a very large number approved of courses in psycholog. practice teaching. college education. junior college guidance and coun- “11116. philosophy of education. tests and measurements. and methods of t““at131£:57, Garrison also found some difference in the total number of semes- t" hGuam-s of training needed in different subject matter field? In this "'P‘ct the social sciences led the list with #3.5 hours. while physical "in". and literature needed about forty hours; biological sciences. fin. ‘l‘ts. vocational subjects. and languages each needed from thirty- ”7.11 to thirty-eight hours. 2' Wmmmwmmm W- In a study of the qualities of a good college teacher. conducted at ‘ ‘outhern liberal arts college in l9h3. Odom identified thirty-six \— 57Ibid. ,p. 148. 58 Ibid. . p. 55. 33 such qualities”. All of these were considered to be of some importance by 121 students and twenty—six faculty members. In rank order. the first six of these were: (1) knowledge of subject. (2) knowledge of teaching methods . (3) Pleasing personality. (u) fairness and impartiality. (5) interest in student's viewpoint. and (6) high moral character. Host of the rmining qualities that were mentioned in the report did not receive rating scores high enough to be considered of significant value. 60 In this same connection. Geyer . in 1916 published a brief sum- "47 of several studies of the qualities desired in college instructors. Inlie not all of these studies were in precise agreement as to the rank ”501‘ of importance of these traits. the following appeared to be the most outstanding: 1. Knowledge of subject matter 2. Personality to put the course across 3. Fairness or impariality lb. Ability or skill in teaching or organising subject 5. Ability to get along with students 6. Sincerity and honesty 7. Sense of humor 8. Appearance. An extensive study related to this question was conducted by a t.“ or research specialists at Rutgers University in 191‘?~ and reported by Rilsybl. In this study each student at Brooklyn College was asked ‘0 “to five of his current instructors on ten different attributes that "r. considered important in good teaching. The traits on this list were \ G°°<1 598. I0. Odom. “An Objective Determination of the Qualities of a y“: lgia‘llege Teacher.“ £29931 m g; lducation. 218109-16: Septem- 3. oo 53‘ D. L. Geyer. “Qualities Desired in Gollege.‘I chgl and figciety. 270-71; April 1946. v 61 a John '- 311-! Jr- at '‘1. 29.: M 229.1322; Elam. I" than“tick: Rutgers University Press. 1950. Pp. iii-154. 3h essentially thesame as those listed above by Geyer. Of particular interest to the present investigation is the fact that the Brooklyn Col- lege students showed a marked difference as to the relative importance of the various teacher characteristics as viewed by students from dif- ferent academic divisions of the college. The listings in table 162 show. clearly that science students were not only in closer agreement as to which were the most important attri- butes. but also they favored different attributes than the social science or arts students. TABLI I EILA'I‘IV'B IMPORTANCE OF MUM?! AMIBUTIS M VIIWID BY BROOKLYN 001.1303 STUDENTS Rank Order Attributes Percentag. ~ on; “29.2913. 8C RICE §TUDENTB 1 - Ability to sxplsin 89 .2 - Organisation of Subject Matter 78 3 - g Knowledge of Subject 70 M SCIENCE swam 1 ~ Incouragement to Thinking 70 2 ~ Organisation of Subject Matter 1&8 3 - Tolerance to Disagreement 1&5 M STUDENTS 1 - Knowledge of Subject 5“ 2 ~ Encouragement to Thinking (*7 3 - Enthusiastic Attitude “6 \ \ Ibid' 9 P. 93- 35 The question of teacher competence was also studied by Ostlieba. A part 01' his thesis dealt with the deficiences which were most frequent- ly identified in probationary (prior to placement on permanent tenure) teacher service. Out of a list of thirteen competencies. skill in teach- ing was identified as the one in which failures were most frequent. Ability to inspire students. ability to handle classroom discipline. and ability to deal with individual differences were the next three competen- cies in order of their importance on this list. Failure in the competen- cy entitled “knowledge of subject matter“ was not frequently noted. In 1952. Oren B. ”akin“ reported the results of "A Study of colllmtelncies Desirable for Instructors of College General Education Courses in Physical Science.“ This study did not deal specifically with M10? college teachers. but the findings from it appear to be particu- 1‘1'1? pertinent to the present investigation. Bankin's data were obtain- “ 1' rom and questionnaires returned by general education physical science “toner. in 18h schools in forty-two states. He also obtained responses rm" 1’48 administrators in these same schools. Ilean ratings were obtain- “ f°r thirty different competencies. These were based on a five-point “‘1" with 5 the highest, and l the lowest possible rating. srcerpts, which are thought to be of particular interest to the present study. were ”1 from Rankin's report and are shown in Table 1165. \ (>3 . gut: Selmer Ostlie. "The Selection and Retention of Junior College h0rs.“ Unpublished Doctor's dissertation. University of Southern 1‘.ornia 1951. Pp. ruin-602. to “or“ 3-M1n. , “A study oi competencies Desirable for Instruc- q r. or College General Education Courses in Physical Science." Scienc no; We. 358297-306: December 1952. 51bid. . pp. 96-7. I' it s In... . 'r l'lih>’. 30 TABLE II m RATINGS BSTAELIS- TOR THIRTY STATEMENTS OF IISTRUC‘I‘OR COMPETINCE BY 31-58 INSTRUCTORS Ol' COLLEGE mum EDUCATION COURSES IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE W8 “W 1. do research in a field of physical science 2.68 2. explain the basic facts. concepts. theories and laws of physical science inho- 12. devise and use effectively appropriate demonstrations ' of scientific principles. 1&0? 13- relate the various fields of science to each other mon- 18. construct suitable instruments for measuring student M311 1 evement . 3 ° 12 19. direct research at the graduate level in a speciali- 206. area of physical science. 1-93 23‘ ‘Pply psychological principles to the teaching of 2 . b {...-(1 scientific publications in one or more foreign Nan-sou- 1.75 2 . 7 Give students adequate instruction in only one area ' the physical sciences. 1.72” 0. 00000000000 3 SiVe adequate instruction in all areas of the physical ‘ciances. 3.66 \ " The nigiest mean rating on the total list. as 'me lowest mean rating on the total list. A pioneering study which attempted to determine the validity of “3 cf the criteria which are commonly used in the selection. reten- t 1”he and promotion of college teachers was reported by 00179"- 37 66 In this report . the author summarized the results of two unpublished doctoral dissertations which were done at the University of Texas in 1951. The two studies analysed different aspects of the same data which were collected from 250 junior colleges. . On the assmnption that a committee of administrators and faculty should be able to select one outstanding teacher from their own faculty. a list of 250 such "good” teachers was obtained on the basis of selecting one from each of that same number of colleges. The control group was selected by means of a random selection device which resulted in a sim- ilsr number of supposedly average teachers; one coming from each of the campuge. represented on the first list. Data which pertained to thirty-three aspects of academic prepar- ation, .eygntggn “pact. of community activities. and nine aspects of me°taional activities were obtained from questionnaires and transcripts fr“ .a-ch of the five-hundred teachers. Significant differences between the “good" and “control“ teachers "’9 found in only a few of these areas and where they were found their uplicfitions were not very clear. The most surprising result of this ”My would appear to be the lack of difference between these two types . 67 °f tea-chore. The list of aspects were as follows i AM; prggratign A significantly greater number of the. "good" teachers: 1. Reported attendance at public elementary schools. \- bb “.0 Clyde C. Calvert. ”Report of the Research Office. American t elation of Junior Colleges.” Junior College Journal. 26:95-107; °b°r 1955. ' 6? Ibid.. p. 96-7. 38 2. Had a broad undergraduate college training. 3. Hadvreceived college credit for a course in History of Educa- tion. A significantly greater number of the "control" teachers: 1 . Reported attendance at kindergarten. 2 . Reported the bachelor's as the highest degree earned. 3 . Had college credit for a course in Educational Administra- tion. la. Reported more than three years of experience in vocational fields not closely related to their teaching fields. No significant differences were found between the "good" and “con- tel“ teachers on the following aspects: 1 . Junior-hiyi school attendance. 2. Public or private high school graduation. 3 . Junior college attendance. ls. Sources of highest earned degrees. 5. fetal number of hours of college credit and the total in lducation courses. 6. Semester hours in maJor teaching department. 7.- 16. College credit received in a selected list of specific Education courses. 17. .. l9. lxtra-curricular activities as an undergraduate. and as a graduate student. 20. - 23. Previous teaching experience in elementary school Junior my: school. high school. and Junior college. 21:. - 25. Previous college teaching or school administrative experience. 26. Imperience in vocational fields closely related to their respective teaching fields. M “‘1 iguana A significantly greater number of the "good“ teachers: 1. Voted in the last primary or local election. "cont No significant differences were found between the "good“ and 1‘01“ teachers on the. following aspects: 1. - 3. Church attendance, service on church committees. or teaching a Sunday school class. 14. - 7. Hembership in a lodge. attendance at lodge meetings. service on a ledge committee. or holding a lodge office. 8. - 11. Membership in a service club. attendance at service club meetings. service on a service club committee. or hold- ing a service club office. 12. - 13. a similar list with respect to other types of clubs. 1h. - 16. Teaching or helping in some other way in a'volunteer group such as young peoples clubs. Scouts. Y.H.C.A.. etc. 39 ggpfessional activitieg .A significantly greater number of the “good“ teachers: 1. field an appointive office in a professional group. no significant differences were found between the "good'I and ”soap trol' teachers in the following aspects: 1. - 6. Connections with professional organisations whether through membership. attendance. presentation of papers. or serving on panels at professional meetings. 7. Participating in workshops during the past five years. 8. Number of publications in the last five years. As mentioned previously. it is surprising to find so few differ- ences between ”good“ and “average“ teachers. The lack of differences may have been due to the inability of administrators and faculties to select even one outstanding teacher from among their entire faculty. but this seems unlikely. It would seem more likely that this study further illustrates the extreme difficulty involved in any effort to predict who will become effective teachers on the basis of past academic. social. and professional performance. It certainly throws considerable doubt on the validity of some of the standard criteria that are used administra- tively in the selection and promotion of teachers. 3- mite; ......zPrineril _9_9_4.° nc m d :LLh 9292.13 and W “T int 2; Junigr Cgllege Teachers. In 1927 Haggerty68 published a report of a north Centraltassoci- ation committee that had been formed to "study the proposal to require professional training for instructors teaching the first and second years work in colleges and universities. and to ascertain the attitude of the members of the association regarding the requirement of 68 H. I. Haggerty. “The Professional Training of College Teachers.“ 21% m Ass ciati n Quarterly. 2:108-23; June 1927. p. 108. no Educational qualifications for college and university teachers.” Ques- tionnaires were distributed to teachers in eight institutions: two of these were Junior colleges. three were private colleges. and three were state colleges. The following findings were based on returns from 1&8 69 teachers : The typical teacher of freshmen and sophomores has: (1) had little professional training outside of his subject matter specialty; (2) met many educational problems in which he has had no formal training; (3) found about four-fifths of his problems still unsolved after teaching for seven years; (4) felt that in about two-thirds of his problems he could have been helped by formal course instruction. In the same study. seventy-two administrators answered question- naires. These administrators rated professional Education training as “of little importance" in selecting teachers. Deans of several graduate schools in the lgrth Central area were similarly uninterested in Educa- tion courses. Haggerty concluded the committee report by stating7o: Despite the indifference of college administrators and grad- uate schools to the claims of professional training. there is a clear recognition on the part of college instructors that such training in formal courses would be useful. The most significant research that appears to have been done in the area of professional and academic preparation was reported by Leon, ard V. toes71 in a series of articles which were published in 1948. The data on which these reports were based were gathered in l9hl from forty- eight local public institutions which were selected as representative 69 Ibid.. p. 11b 70 Ibid.. p. 120 Leonard V. Zoos. ”Junior College Teachers; Background of Ira perience.' p. “57-69. "Degrees and Graduate Residence.“ p. 77-89. ”Preparation in Education.“ p. 332-hh. “Subjects Taught and Specialised Preparation.” p. 196-209. Junior Cgllegg Jgggggl. 18:( . as above): September 19h? to May i9u8. pp e» l —‘A..A‘ #1 of the community college concept. Reports were obtained from 1&58 teach- ers. which was approximately 91 per cent of the teachers in these insti- tutions. The questionnaire to which these teachers responded dealt with72: (l) the degrees held and (2) the degreestoward which the teachers were working at the time of the inquiry; (3) the period of undergraduate resi- dence; (h) undergraduate and graduate major and minor subjects; (5) courses and semester hours in the field of Education; (6) previous ed- ucational experience; (7) the courses taught by the teachers during the two semesters of the year of report. with the predominant classification of students in each class; and (8) other duties.” The degrees toward which the teachers were working at the time of the inquiry are shown in Table 11173. As to the courses taught by the teachers during the year of the report. Koos reported that?“ “fewer than.nalf of all academic teachers in the forty-eight junior colleges were privileged to have assignments in a single subject only.” Details reported.for-three of the physical sci- 7 ence areas are included in Table IV.5. As to the combinations most frequently reported by those who teach 76 in more than one area. Zoos stated : The most frequent associates of chemistry in combination are physics. physical science (usually as a composite course). mathe- matics. and industrial or technical (engineering) subjects. For 72 Ibid.. p. 77. 231b1d.. p. 87. 7h Ibid.. p. 197. 751b1de. pe 199e 7b Ibide. pt 20].. “2 TABLE III PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF TEACHERS HOLDING THE MASTER'S AS THE hIGREST DEGREE. ACCORDING TO FURTHER DEGREES TOWARD WHICH THEY WERE WORKING. FIELDS OF STUDY OF THE FURTHER DEGREES. AND POSITIONS EOR NHICH TEACHERS WERE WORKING Degree. Field. and Position ._ Per Cent Degree toward which working (906 teachers) Pn.D. ‘26.5 Other . ‘ “.“ Total 30.9 field of the degree (280 teachers) Subject matter 7 Ifiucation 2 Other Position for which preparing (185 teachers) Junior college teaching “3 College or university teaching‘ '3? Junior college or teacher's college teaching “. High school or junior college teaching 2 high school teaching 5 Administration 6 Other 0 TABLE IV NUMBER.AND PERCENTAGES OF JUNIOR.COLLEGE INSTRUCTORS OF CERTAIN SUBJECTS TEACHING THESE SUBJECTS ONLY. AND TEACHING'THEM IN COMBINATION WITH OTHER SUBJECTS Subject ‘ I Subject named only Combined with others number per cent Number per cent Chemistry ““ 52.“ “0 “7.6 Physics 13 22.“ “5 - 77.6 Mathematics 69 “9.3 71 50-7 “3 physics the most recurrent associates are chemistry. general physi- cal science. astronomy. mathematics and industrial or technical subjects. For mathematics. they are chemistry. physics. astron- eny. industrial and technical subjects. and business. Concerning previous teaching experience. loos stated that about three-fifths ofcall the teachers reported their last previous positions to have been in high school work; for an eighth of these teachers their experience was in college or university teaching. The proportion coming from schools below the high school was about the same as from colleges and universities. In regard to Education courses that had been taken by junior college teachers of academic subjects. loss reported on twenty-seven such courses. Table V7Zas been adepted from that report and includes only those courses that appear to be of particular value to the present TABLE V PERCENTAGE or JUNIOR COLLE- TEACIEBS OF ACADEMIC SUBJECTS REPORTING HAVING HAD THE INDICATED COURSES IN EDUCATION Courses in Education Per Cent 03 ...o 0 Educational Psychology History of Education Practice Teaching Tests and Measurements Philosophy of Education General Hethods Principles of Secondary Education Principles of Teaching Introduction to Education Educational Administration Psychology of Adolescence Curriculum Construction Guidance (educational and vocational Junior College ' Junigr cellege Adminietrgtign 771nm. . pp. 33941. PNNUU mumu‘ “Seemed . 0 e O I O O O I e O I “\Okc'NOrOUOUOHV Lemony-comma: En on discussion. Commenting on these and other results of this study. Eoos stated78: Described in terms of medians. the typical academic teacher has had about two years of graduate residence...Thus the period of residence exceeds notably the minimum required for the typical degree...This conclusion and the fact that large proportions of teachers with the master's degree reported that they were working toward the doctor's and other degrees force the inference that current programs for the master's degree afford inadequate pre- paration for teaching in the junior college. In Blake's79 study of “The Problems and Training-of the Junior College Instructor.“ which was reported in l9“2. data were gathered from 1369 instructors. The principal emphasis in this survey was on the pro- blems confronted by these teachers. However. it was reported that80 "932 or approximately two-thirds of the teachers have had ten or more 1. “on the graduate level. 802 or semester hours of Education.” Alsots slightly less than two-thirds have had nine or less semester hours of Education.“ Here then two-thirds'held the master's degree. and more than one-third had studied the junior college in a separate course. Approximately four-fifths were teaching in their major field of concen- tration. As for teaching experience. Blake found that approximately half had had ten years or less in high school while slightly over half had had ten years or less in junior colleges. The problems most frequently encountered by the respondents to 78Ibid.. p. 89. 79Iainwrigit D. Blake. "The Problems and Training of the Junior College Instructor.” Unpublished Doctor's dissertation. University of Hissouri. l9“2. Pp. iv-122 80 Ibid.. p. 23. 81 Ibid.. p. 2a. 45 Blake ' s study were82: .Attempting to teach students whose high school preparation has been poor. AdJusting assignments and written work to the ability of the student. Making provision for individual differences. Integrating the work of the high school and Junior cellege. Revising the curriculum. Integrating the work of the Junior college and higher insti- tutions. Cooperating with students in building loyalty to the college. {Assisting students to learn how to study effectively. Cooperating with students in the development of their person- alities. Assisting students to learn their responsibility to society. Significant differences in the professional training of teachers identifying these as serious problems were found only in respect to such training at the graduate level. In this connection83 . ”nearly 60 per cent of the instructors who reported difficulty with these problems had no work in.professiohal Education at the graduate level. or only a min- imum.” It was also noted theta!+ “practically one-third of the instructors reporting the presence of these ten problems did not have enough hours of undergraduate Education courses to qualify under any of the standards published by the various accrediting agencies.” 82 Ibid.. p. 57. 83 Ibid.. p. 79. 8“ Ibid.. p. 80. no Blake concluded by indicating that his findings85 "clearly reveal the necessity of graduate professional work in Education.” The courses suggested were similar in title to those listed by Garrisonab. .An.American.Association of Junior Colleges study of the prepar— ation of instructors was reported in l9h3 by Pugh and Morgan87. One hundred and five junior colleges participated in the study and the find- ings included the following specific shortcomingsaas 1. Preparation is too frequently of a narrow and specialised nature. 2. Instructors have the content point of view rather than the student point of view. 3. Instructors generally lack a suitable balance of subject matter and professional training. a. Teachers do not understand the junior college. 5. Teachers fail to develop personality traits adapted to dynamic leadership of youth. 6. Teachers lack ability or knowledge to relate their teach— ing to practical overyday problems. . 7. Placement officers make recommendations Upon insufficient evidence. . 8. Teachers are too often interested in research. and not in classroom teaching. 9. Teachers tend to consider the junior college with an air of condescension. 10. Teachers lack work experience. 5Ibid.. p. 80. 86 See p. 32. 87 ‘ D. B. Pugh and R. E. Morgan. ”Shortcomings in Preparation of Instructors.“ Junior College ggggngl. 1&3405-15; May l9hh. 88 Ibid.. p. #06. #7 The following specific recommendations for the training of junior college teachers were made89: 1. They should have a sound liberal and cultural education. 2. They should have an adequate knowledge of the subject mattor field. (No definition of what constitutes an "adequate knowledge” was given by the author.) 3. They should obtain professional preparation to fit them specifically for the junior college. This should include: (a) an understanding of the philosophy. aims. functions. organisation. problems. etc.. of the junior college; (b) educational psychology and methods with particular reference to the problems of the junior college student; (c) training in guidance and counseling: and (d) apprentice teaching and observation in the junior college. in addition to the professional courses recommended by Pugh and Morgan. Delango found that junior college teachers in Illinois favored the inclusion of work in audio-visual education. H1s findings were based on.a survey which obtained questionnaire returns from 57 per cent of the 889 junior college teachers in the state in l9h9. The teachers were ask- ed to evaluate their own professional Education courses and to indicate others which they new felt would have been of value to them. His final recommendations were quite similar to those of Garrison. Pugh and Morgan. Ickert. and loos. Points not previously mentioned in this summary as 1 being stressed by other authors were9 : Inasmuch as junior college teachers ordinarily also have to teach in high school. it is recommended that they be given the same Dducation courses commonly required of candidates for sec- . ondary school teaching. with the addition of audioevisual education plus special junior college courses. The California State Department of Education conducted a survey 89 Ibid.. p. “I“. 90 F. B. Dolan. “The Preparation of Junior College Teachers.“ @193 9:11.232 mes. 22-:329-abzrebruary‘1952. 1 Ibid.. p. 333. 2 9 . 0r the of academic preparation of junior college personnel in 191+? 18815 public junior college instructors canvassed. 90 per cent held ad- vanced degrees. and 12 per cent of the total held the doctorate. Many who held the master's wereosaid to be well along toward the doctorate. As to their actual teaching. only thirty-three out of 1’452 were giving instruction outside of their major and minor fields. An excellent summary of the California junior college teacher - training programs and their shortcoming was reported in 1951 by lhmannga. The data used were drawn from an extensive survey and analysis of the pertinent literature. and the collected opinions of a group of twenty- three of the thirty-nine ”exports” to whom requests for such information were directed. Training which would meet the following objectives was proposedgu. Teacher candidates should: 1. Develop breadth 'of training and interest. 2. Have a sense of social obligation. ' 3. Develop insight into the needs and characteristics of their pupils. 14. Develop advanced proficiency in the communicative skills. 5. Consider emotional stability as a necessary personal gatl. 6. Have an interest in teaching integration. 2 . 9 II. I. Mushlits. “Academic Preparation of Junior College Person- tel." California m g; Secondg Educatiog. 22:182-5; December 1915?. 93 Gerhard D. lhmann. ”Some Criteria for the Training of Teachers 11 General Education at the Junior College Level in California.“ Ulpub' lished Doctor's dissertation. University of California. Los Angeles. 1951. Pp. 1v-32h. 91+ Ibid.. pp. 297-300 $331.... P7}....E.llr in. ..Iein- l4? . . n .L— ..J . . 4. IE... ’49 7. Know how to maintain reasonably vigorous physical health. 8. Insist on continual evaluation. by themselves and others, of their general education teaching. 9. Knowhow to work educationally with older adults. 10. Serve an internship. These recommendations were not translated directly into specific training practices. it appears to be the author's contention that such efforts in the other studies. particularly Garrison's, have resulted in a mere re-shurfling of familiar courses without particular practical bene- fit. Be apparently preferred to have training institutions deve10p their own programs aimed toward the attainment of the above-listed goals. Another'pertinent study was reported by Tapleygs. He obtained data from sixteen Junior colleges in the southern area; at that time this area contained 196 Junior or community colleges. His findings were based on data obtained from 79 per cent of the 180 teachers in a sampling of these schools. and on complete returns from twenty-eight administrap tors and a.panel of fourteen "experts.“ In his findings Tapley divided the teachers into two groups. Group.a consisted of those who had had less than twelve hours in profes- sional courses. and group 3 consisted of those who had had more than this. Group 196: (l) largely contained thee; who would dispense with all Professional courses, and (2) these teachers tended to relegate such 95]. M. Tapley, “Preparation for Teaching General Education Course. in.Junior Colleges.” Unpublished Doctor's dissertation. Uni- vereity of Chicago. 1955. Pp. xi-ZOO. 96 Ibid.. p. 138. 50 courses to the undergraduate years. Group B teachers97: (I) rarely felt that professional courses should be omitted at either the undergraduate or the graduate level: (2) favored having a significantly greater proportion of the teacher's total preparation time alloted to professional training at the graduate. rather than at the undergraduate, level; and (3) did not differ signifi- cantly with the experts or the administrators in the suggested proporb tions at either level. Tapley also endeavored to determine how valuable the various lducation courses taken by the teachers in the survey had been to them. lids differences of opinion were noted, but the most general description of the results was given in the following statement98: 1. Teachers participating in this study who report they have taken courses in a professional area recommended by the literature or accrediting standards, tend to rate such courses significantly higher than do those teachers who do not report a course in the area. 2. Administrators and experts tend to give relatively high- er value ratinge to preparation in a majority of the professional areas than do the teachers. Rankin's study, which has been previously cited on.pags 35, also made an effort to evaluate several different types of training programs for college teachers of general education courses in the physical sciences. Table VI shows the results of that evaluation. The mean ranks were com- fluted.after first assigning the number 1 to an item listed in first Place, a number value of 2 to an item ranked in second place, etc. Thus the lowest aean rank values correspond to those seen as most 97 Ibid.. p. 139. 98 Ibid.. p. 110. 51 important. TLBLI VI “IAN BAIIS ESTABLISHED FOR SEVEN 99 TYPES OF TRAINING BY.LDMINISTRATORS AND INSTEDCTORS Type of Training Mean.3ank Admin. Instr. l. Specialisation in one area of the physical sciences 5.72 5.31 2. Specialisation in one area of the physical sciences with some training in other areas of the physical sciences. 3.35 2.79 3. Training in all areas of the physical sciences without specialisation in any of the areas. 3.70 3.77 h. Training in both the physical and biological sciences without specialisation in any one area. “.28 h.28 5. Specialisation in one area of the physical sci- ences with some training in psychology and meth- ods of instruction. “.15 “.28 6. Bread training in the physical sciences and some training in psychology.and principles and methods of instruction. ' . 2.73 3.28 7. Bread training in both the physical and biologi- cal sciences and some training in psychology and principles and methods of instruction. 3.18 ‘ 3.68 harold Punks100 reported on the academic qualifications of Junior college faculties in the country in 1953. Extensive tabulations were ’r'Ported in this article. Colleges were rated as to level of faculty Prfiplration on the part of both men and women teachers. Subdivisions included four different college enrollment divisions, three types of 990 - ren 3. Rankin, ”A.Study of Co etencies Des rabls f r Instruc- tor! of College General Education Coursegpin Physical cience,9 §giencg lflucatiog, 363297-306; December 1952. 100Harold H. Punks. ”Banking, Tenure and Sex of Junior College “emu..." 19.321 aging, cameo—7; Dobember 195a. 52 financial control, and nine different geographic areas. The author's statistics showed that: A larger percentage of the men on the faculties of church or private schools had doctor's d°f6f°° than was the case for men in the publicly controlled schools . laculty members in the publicly controlled junior colleges had a higher level ofIBEaining than in either of the other two types of institutions . A slightly higher percentage of the schools in the South Atlantic and Mountain divisions had faculties with training which averaged below thelagchelor's degree than was true of the schools in other divisions . The Junior colleges in the East North Central division had a higher average level of traiaing among their faculty than the schools of any other division . .An examination of the data.does not indicate that the facul- ties of Junior colleges with enrollments of more than 500 students are consistently superior to the faculties of smaller schools. however, in the Pacific division...the training of faculty members in institutions of this size was on the shale definitely superior to that of faculties in smaller schools1 5. . Table VII shows average faculty ratings for schools of various sizes as obtained by this study. The averages were obtained by allowing two points for each faculty member who held only the bachelor's degree, four points for each master's, and eight points for each staff member who held the doctorate. From the totals it can be seen that 3 per cent of the schools had an average rating below the bachelor's level, 32.o per cent averaged at that level, 57.3 per cent averaged midway between the 01 Ibid. p. 367 102 Ibid. 10 3Ibid.. p. 370 10“ Ibid. “511m. , p. 371. 53 bachelor's and master's levels, and 7.1 per cent averaged just at the master's level. TABLE VII AVERAGE EAGULTY RATINGS FOR JUNIOR COLLEGES accomnm ro sm AS mum BY 3mm W1 °° F- School Siss No. of Percentage Distribution for Each Rating . (Student Schools ! engllment) 1 g 3 “ ‘ 200 or under 128 “.7 “2.9 “m9 5.8 201 - 500 13“ 1.5 27.0 06.“ “.5 J 501 -_ 1000 112 “.8 31.0 57.1. 7.1 ' Total (number) 337 . 10 110 193 211 (per cent) 100.0 3.0 _ 32.6 57.3 7.1 ” Three other surveys of the academic and professional preparation of Junior college teachers have been reviewed, but will not be discussed in this summary because their findings were essentially the same as oth- ers that have been extensively reported on the preceding pages. The first of these was by lisrsonl'o7 who reported on a study which was completed in 1952. The second, by Mslvinloa, was reported in 1957 and dealt with 100 7 1bid., p. 371. 107 . T. 3.1(erson, "Preparation and Selection of Instructors for Community Colleges,“ Calif gmi 329m 9_ W lducatigm, 31:“96-501: December 1958. . 108 ‘ K. L. Melvin, "Instructional Practices Used in Selected Pub- lic Junior Colleges,“ Junior M M, 27:“02-5; “arch 1957- 5“ Junior colleges in Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska. The third, by Petithanlog, was reported in 1956 and dealt with terminal education in the Junior colleges in Connecticut. ' wan VIII TR! FIR GIFT OF THE IRSTRUCTORS IN PUBLIC JUNIOR COHLEGIS FOR.TRR YIARS DESIGNATED HBO RAVI THE DOCTOR'S, HAS '8 BACHELOR'S, AND NO DEGREE FOR THEIR HIGHEST DEGEI Xear and Total No. of Doctor's Master's Bachelor's No_Degree Stu__dl Instructors per cent per cent .23: cg}; Er cent - 1918 McDowell 180 2.8 39.5 “5.0 2.8 1922 Zoos 163 3.0 “7.0 “7.0 3.0 1953 Colvert and Litton “955 6.3 -67.5 20.9 5-3 1955 Colvert and Baker 6985 7.2 68.5 17.9 6.5 1955 , ram 412 9-0 27.2.4“ 919...... ____ V JUII CBS 1918 NbDowell 3“3 8.2 27.0 51.0 13.“ 1922 ' lbos 129 1.0 3“.0 60.0 5.0 1953 Colvert and Litton 1209 6.0 67.7 22.9 3.“ 1955 Colvsrt and 181 7.7 62.9 p36.7 2.7 I'This item was not listed in Colvert's summary but was reported by Tapley as previously cited on pages “9 - 50. 109Charles F. Pstitjean, ”A Study of Terminal Education in the Jun- ior Colleges in Connecticut," Unpublished Doctor's dissertation. New York University, 1956. As found in Digsggtatign Abstracts; vol. 16, part 2, p. 2067 110See footnote 111. 55» The changes that have ocurred in the highest degree levels held by Junior college teachers have been well summarized by Colvertlu. Table VIII shows clearly the trends that have deve10ped. in general this appears to be toward higher degree levels in more recent years. It also shows some tendency on the part of the private colleges to lag behind the public institutions in this respect. a. g 8mg ancerngd gtb 39.112 DgsirebintyJ; high 391199; Teghing 1;— pegigncg £9; Junior Cgllegg Instructh . Regarding the question of how appropriate high school teaching is as preliminary experience, “Katalin“2 reported the results of a survey of forty-three of the fifty-sight Junior colleges in California in 1950. Sixty-three per cent of the administrators in these institutions pre- ferred teachers with hid: school experience; 7 per cent preferred that their teachers should not have high school experience; and 30 per cent indicated they had no preference regarding this question. Those in favor of high school experience listed reasons for this preference that indicated: (1) a concern for a sympathetic attitude on the part of the teacher; (2) better teaching ability; (3) more famili- arity with modern education theory: (“) better organised classroom rou- tine; and (5) better ability to.correlate Junior college and hi9: school subject matter. lll Clyde C. Colvert, “Professional Development of Junior College Instructors,“ Junig: Mg; m, 25:“7“—78;April 1955. 112 N. I. hamlin, “Preferences of Junior College Administrators Toward High School Teaching Experience,“ Junim: mm: 9.9m. 213236—93 December 19 50. 56 Those opposed to such experience described their reasons as: (1) such teachers cannot speed up enough to teach college courses: (2) they take too long to get rid of their high school methods: and (3) they have a tendency to "become ossified and treat students as children.“ 5-..éfudiss.anssrnsdgriih.ies_iseilsbilifz_sf.innianQsllsseWTssshsr M m; in, Cglleges and Ugvgrsities, Koo-113 reported a survey of the graduate schools in the country, which was made in l9“8 in an attempt to learn what was then being offer- ed in the way of training programs for junior college teachers. The results of this study indicated that complete programs of this type were practically non-existent, although many institutions were offering one or more courses pertaining to the junior or community college. Hillwaynu reported the results of a survey of the deans of 160 Anerican graduate schools which was conducted in 1952. Replies from 12“ of them indicatednst Twenty-two rejected the idea that the preparation of effec- tive college teachers can be considered one of the essential func- tions of their graduate schools. Three described their programs as aimed exclusively at the develOpment of well trained research scholars. Forty-one of the deans (chiefly in colleges of Education) indicated that they do not regard education for research as one of the primary purposes of their schools. 113 . ' Leonard V. Koos, "Programs of Junior College Teacher Prepar- ation,“ M m m, 19:333-“6; February l9“9. J'll'u'l'yrus Hillway, ”Professional Preparation of College Teachers,” Journal 9; Teacher lducatign, 31306-7; December 1952. 115 Ibid., p. 306. 57 Ninety-six of the deans reported that their schools per- form a variety of functions in the graduate programs, depending , upon the varying needs of their students. Only two of the deans reported that their programs require prospective college teachers to complete a course or courses in the principles, methods, or problems of instruction. 6. ? Stag Concerned with Ranking, Tenure and Sex of Junior Cgllege ngtructon. 1-n a study which was conducted in 1953, based on data from ““8 116 reported that private junior colleges were Junior colleges, Punks ”1‘9 orthodox than the public institutions in regard to their use of customary ranks that are in common use in four-year colleges and univer- sitiea. In this same study the factors considered in making promotions were also evaluated. In order of importance, they were found to M117; (1) graduate training and advanced degrees; and (2) quality of teaching. Little emphasis was reportedly placed on research and publications, or on non-teaching service to the community. About half of the colleges reported that tenure was not granted t° ”mi? ataff members, while the remainder followed this practice with var-Vine minimum service requirements that ranged from one year to 3' high a twenty years. (The latter figure was required by only one college the moat common probationary period being three years.) ‘3 to sex, Punks reported that the private school teachers were divi dad, in the ratio of fifty-four men to every forty-six women, while 11° . 5 Harold D. Punks, 0p. cit., p. “80 11? Ibid.. p. “85. 58 the public institutions had seventy-three men I'or every thirty-seven WEBB e 7. A m angerned flth the Phygicg; Science Subject Matter Ngfled 32.! 21112.12; 2.: LP “cal ......sScienc Mm- 118 In a bachelor's thesis, which was completed in 1952, Williams reported the results of a brief study which endeavored to identify the 'Waical science subject matter a competent teacher of general or phy- sical science needs to know.“ Limited data were collected, at Tennessee A- and 1 . State University, from reference books,“ periodicals, text books, and emert judyents. Ninety-one science principles were identified as being 01‘ great importance in general or physical science courses. All of these were covered in courses offered at the university but approx- imately one-fifth of them were not considered treated adequately for a Pm'Pective teacher. 1t was recommended that all general and physical science teachers take a one-year course in physical science, or courses in geology. meteorology. and astronomy in order to learnthe principles which Would not otherwise be adequately covered. Summary The literature pertaining to junior college teacher training re- V sale wide areas of agreement, some areas of disagreement, and simple \\_._ 11 . Matte, 80. J. Williams, "An Analysis of the Physical Science Subject U a. competent Teacher of General or Physical Science Needs to Know, 1952 'hed Bachelor's thesis. Tennessee A. and 1. State University, ' “ found in Phillip G. Johnson, “Science Education Research Stud 1°. ' ” Scigncg Educati n, 38:36; February 195“. in ”pa . u . '1 u. 59 lack of information concerning still other areas. Both the authorities in the field and factual data obtained in research studies appear to be in general. agreement regarding the following aspects of this problem. 1. Area; 9; Aggegment. There is gggeement regrding the fact that junior and senior college teachers differ _i_z_1_ a number 2;; respects. a. Senior college teachers have only those students who are training as specialists or are there for purposes of general education, "11119 Junior college teachers frequently have both of these types of stu~ 9011“. “d terminal-vocational students whose backgrounds, motives, and interest. differ markedly from the former types. 13. Junior college teachers are considered consumers of research which is, - at least in part, produced by the senior college professor. c. Teachers in the two-year institutions frequently carry heav- 191‘ Iv9&»¢.':1‘11ng loads than do those in four-year colleges and universities. (1. Junior college teachers are generally supervised to the ex- tent of actual claggroom observation while this practice is virtually "m“ 1n the senior Institution. 9- It is common practice to require state or regional certifi- c “tion or junior college teachers but this is not done in the senior inflti tution.. f - The ideal minimum degree level for junior college teachers is s °°n a. the master's while their senior colleague! are “Put“ t° hold the doctorate. 3. Professional Education courses are frequently required in the v .I. 11' I ‘i 'w 60 preparation of junior college teachers while the four-year college teach- er is not subject to this requirement. Courses in either history or philosophy of Education, the junior or community college, educational psychology, testing and measurement, and general methods are most fre- Qusntly mentioned on lists of such courses that seem desirable. The app i__s_ Egemgnt reggrd ipg certa_____i__na asppect 9; _a_ junior college W M_ and professional training. 3. His master's degree should be obtained in his academic subject area but he should not be a narrow specialist. 13. Most writers in the field favor the requirement of some work in Education courses and some practice teaching. It should not be in- ferred from this that there is agreement regarding how much work is needed in Education courses, what courses constitute the most important training. how much practice teaching, or where and how this practice teaching experience should be obtained. re i__s_ m psgrdipg pprta ip attributgpt has I hdpp; Mun 4112.12! miles: t«when». 1|». Many writers have suggested various lists of the attributes which would be possessed by college teachers in general. flost of these “pply eqmly well to the junior college situation. Lists suggested by 119 2 2 22 Odom . Geyerl 0. 311.3} 1, and Rankinl are typical of the attributes \ 119 See p. 33. 20 See p. 33. 121 ' See p. 3“. 122 See p. 36. w-‘r. II I/ uh I. llll urn\n...lfll 101...: L. 61 considered to be of particular importance. 2. _ALegg pg Dimeemgnt. mnwmm r 3211M m- Uhile the general consensus favors the master's degree as a mini- mum, there are many schools which accept teachers in academic subjects With only the bachelor's. A general trend toward the possession of high-- or degree. has been noted, but there is considerable disagreement as to whether this should be extended to the doctoral level. some favor the 3d. D. while others would prefer only a master's. A two-year. graduate degree such as the University of Florida's Ed.3. (Specialist in Education) amien-s to be a possible solution to the controversy. _There _i_g digagreement :egarding the actual cgntg‘nt d ggtent 9;; W cgurses that shggld pg ggguired. . 2 a. Documentary evidence such as Ostlie'sl 3 has shown that junior college ,tegchers appear to have a greater need to learn how to teach than they 11an for gubject matter competence. However, other evidence suggests “Miderabie dissatisfaction with the courses that nave typically been Offered by departments of Education. Some writers favor as little M ten semester hours in professional courses at the undergraduate level "hi“ Others favor twenty or more at the graduate level. Courses in “”1111- tmtion, audio-visual education. psychology 0f “01°3cen”. th’ _ Junior 91‘ community college, curriculum construction, and guidance (educational or vocational) have 30% 89110511? b0“ ”1"“ by junior coll °g° teachers. These courses are strongly favored by '0“ "1hr“ \‘\— 123 See p. 35. 62 *1]. except the one involving a study of the junior college itself are Vcassionally omitted by others who list desired sequences of this type. b. Practice teaching is generally considered desirable but the amount that should be acquired, the educational level at which it should be performed, and the type of supervision exercised during this exper- ience are all subject to considerable variation in actual practice and in ltatemente of what should obtain. The most common preference appears to be for a teaching internship at a junior college but many prefer the common practice of obtaining this aspect of training in a high school. In W cases the requirement for such teaching is waived for those who have had practically unsupervised teaching experience as a graduate as- sistant . mnwmmwnm Wigwam. Pronous high school teaching experience is favored by some "“110" While others feel that instructors with this type of experience d° a” nice good junior college teachers. It would seem that this ques— tion would. be of minor concern if more teacher candidates could be.encou— “3“ t0 train Ipocii’ically for junior college teaching- 13118 would be much more likely to obtain if more, and better, teacher training programs VOI'O ‘7‘1 l‘bl . . 3' 5% a gich then 1; _a_ M g; Igformation. W upgcific tr_aining ngedgg by M ggllegg Msical science Th. training needed by junior college teachers in general, by those who ~ ’ thch general education courses, and by those in biolosicfl 03 §Qiences have been investigated, but a similar study concerning physical Vcience teachers has not been found. Subjgct 9.1.523 cgntent mg n phygical gciencg $29.22;!- Two studies have dealt briefly with this question. Garrison reported on the total number of semester hours needed in each of a number of subject matter are-412“. Physical science teachers were reported to need approximately forty semester hours, but no breakdown into specific courses was recommended. Only one studylzs. and this was only a bachel- or's thesis, has dealt with the specific content needed by these teachers. W mrk enerisnce. Uri tors have frequently urged that junior college teachers should have sufficient practical experience of a non-academic nature to enable them t0 better visualize their students' future needs and to relate ”‘91" tOG-ching more directly to these needs. Little documentary evidence "Ending the practicability and actual value of such experience appears to exist . \Tzzr— see p. 32. 125 see p. 58. CHAPTER III QUESTIONNAIRE TECHNIQUES AND FINDINGS I Questionnaire Techniques The most feasible and practical means of securing data bearing on the problem presented in Chapter I appeared to be the use of question- haires. Two principal kinds of information were needed. The first of these concerned the kinds of preparation that have been obtained by those who are now doing the actual physical science teaching in junior colleges of the type being considered. To obtain this information, a “Question- naire for Teachers“ (see appendix 0.1) was prepared. In addition to this status information it was desired. to know what would be the most desir- able pattern of professional preparation for these teachers. To obtain this information, not only tne teachers, but also the administrators who are most intimately concerned with the appointment, supervision, and promotion of these teachers were consulted. In addition to these two sources, information on this. second point was sought from a group of the nation's outstanding leaders in the field of junior college education. This ”panel of experts" was composed of the forty-nine man named by Dr. 5- V. Hertorana, of the U. 3. Office of Education, in response tb a 1‘B'msst for. a list of these outstanding authorities. (See appendix D-l) Thu". 811 three groups were asked to make recommendations concerning “1° Professional preparation they would consider most appropriate for pro'Pective junior college physical science teachers. Concerning their own background, the teachers were asked to list 65 their years of teaching experience: present position; academic background in majors, minors, Education courses, practice teaching, foreign languages, and research; and some details regarding levels, supervision, and value of their practice teaching experience. They were also asked to list the subject areas and the grade levels in which they were qualified and those in which they were expected to teach. A.description and evaluation of their nonpacademic work experiences were also requested. tall three groups of respondents were asked to make recommendations regarding the desired numbers of credits in academic majors and minors, Education courses, practice teaching, foreign languages, humanities, social sciences, and research. Recommendations regarding a list of nine Specific types of Education courses were also requested. Practice teach- ing was evaluated in reference to whether it should be required and, if so, at what levels. Other questions involved the number of areas pros- pective teachers should plan to teach, the desirability of requiring some non-academic work experience, and finally the most appropriate degree levels for these teachers. A final question in each instrument asked for comment regarding any phases of traning which had not been covered in the preceding sections. The questionnaires were designed by the author, submitted to a seminar group of graduate students, redesigned and submitted to a com- mittee of faculty members, and reproduced in quantity after incorpora- tion of final changes suggested by this committee. They were then mailed ‘0 19hvjunior colleges, and to the panel of experts. The sample was selected in accordance with the following criteriat - 1 l. The college was listed in the 1956 Junior college Directory. 1Jesse P. Bogus and Zora Bitter, "Junior College Directory,” £3.13: College Journal, 26:281-307; January 1956. . . Illlr lit-Ill I. ‘1 tab 2. The program orierings of the college were such as to be of interest to this study as described on page 5 under "definitions." 3. The college had at least two hundred students. (Certain exceptions to this requirement were made in states where most of the Junior colleges were very small, and in Michigan where it was deemed desirable to include all or the community colleges in the state.) b. Every other one of the colleges meeting the above require- ments was then chosen from the alphabetical listing in the Directory. (Exceptions to this requirement were made in Michigan, as noted above, and in California. Sixty-six Junior colleges were listed in the latter state and it was felt that every fourth college on the alphabetical list would constitute an adequate sample.) The original mailing, which was made on March 20, 1957, was in the form of a packet sent to each of the 19h colleges. This packet contained: (1) A letter to the administrative officer (see appendix B—l) requesting his participation in the study by completing the questionnaire directed to him, and by distributing the enclosed cepies of the teacher question- naire to the appropriate members of his staff; 'appropriats' being defin- ed as any teacher whose principal (i.e. more than half-time) duty was in the teaching of one or more of the physical sciences. (2) One copy of the "Questionnaire for Administrators." (3) Enough copies of the teacher Questionnaire for each physical science teacher. The number sent was based on the assumption that there would be one physical science teacher for every twenty run-time staff members as reported in the Directory. Additional copies were subsequently supplied to a number of institutions “DOD Bequest. In all, #26 teacher questionnaires were mailed. (h) Stamp— ed, Golf-addressed envelopes for the return of each questionnaire. The 6? questionnaires for experts, and an accompanying letter were mailed at the same time (see appendices D2 and 13-3). on May 6, 1957, follow—up letters (see appendices 3-3, M, 0-2, and M) were mailed to all who had not responded at that time. 1n this letter, June 25th was indicated as a final deadline after which returns would not be included-in the analysis. 11 Questionnaire Returns The data on which these findings are based were obtained from 186 Junior college physical science teachers, 10“ Junior college admin- istrators, and 38 outstanding leaders in the field of Junior college education. The distribution of colleges from which these data were obtained and the percentages in the various categories are shown in Table II. TABLE I! DISTRIBUTION OF INSTITUTIONS COVER!) IN THE SURVEY Epe of Number of colleges Plumber of per cent Institution to which questionnaires Colleges responding k were mailed rgspgndig collggeg Private . 58 314' 5807 Small Public 7? 1&5 58.15 Hedimn Public 1&3 _ 29 67-7 Large m . lg 16 100.0 All Colleges 19“ d 12" 7 63.8 k ‘ 66 The 12a cooperating colleges were located in thirty-seven states. :se answers were received from colleges in connecticut, Deleware, Louisi- ans, Hontsna, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South.Dakota, Vermont, and west Virginia. The public junior college movement has not been well developed in any of these states, although there are a few private institutions in each. The method of distributing the teacher questionnaires made it impossible to tell how many of the #26 instruments of that kind were actually received by individual teachers. Packets of questionnaires were sent to the chief administrative officer, or to the department heads in certain large institutions. In the case of schools from which no re- sponse was obtained from either teachers or administrators, it is not kmcwnxwhether the teachers ever received the questionnaires. Table 1 shows the teacher returns based only on the numbers sent and received from the 12“ cooperating colleges. when: x INDIVIDUIL RETURNS RECEIVED FROM TEACHERS AND,ADKIRISTRATORS Type Teacher Questionnaires Administrator Questionnairgs e Sent Received Per Cent Sent Received Per Cent Private he 30 65.5 58 28 “8.3 Small Public 60 no 75.? 77 39 50.? Medium: Public 100 52 52-0 #3 24 55-3 Large - Pub, lie iog J8 53 .2 lb 1; leLLZ Total- 315 186 59.0 191+ ion 53.? 69 Although the percentage of returns is dissapointingly low in most categories, it should be noted that responses were obtained from all of the large colleges as shown in Table II. Also, 81 per cent of the administrators in these same colleges returned usable questionnaires. Since the final recommendations are in essential agreement with this particular group of respondents, it appears likely that opinions express- ed by the respondents in the other categories are representative of those groups. It is, however, impossible to Justify statements regarding sig- nificant differences that appear to exist between certain grotqns when the data are obtained from such a limited portion of the original sample. for this reason statistical measures of such differences have not gener- ally been reported. III Previous Teaching Experience The teachers covered by this survey exhibited a wide range of previous teaching experience as shown in Appendix! which is summarised in Table II. Looking first at their high school teaching experience, it is evident that a majority in all groups have spent several years teaching at this level. The large public colleges show the smallest percentage reporting this kind of experience and the smllest median number of years. . This is probably due to two facts: (1) The large public colleges in this survey are principally'located in California, Illinois, fl1chigan, and Texas. In these states the Junior colleges are well develOped and well know, and the teachers are somewhat more likely to have prepared direct- ly for Junior college teaching. (2) The smaller Junior colleges 70 TABLE 11 NUMBER OF YEARS OF PREVIOUS TEACHING EXPERIENCE IN HIGH SCHOOLS, JUNIOR COLLEGES, AND SENIOR COLLEGES AS REPORTED RI 185 TEACHERS Tgachegg 3gpggtigg Qgpggiepgg Type of Type of Median Number ngghe; lgpgrience Number Per Cent of years Private High ‘ College School 19 63.3 8.6 Junior 3 College 30 100.0 h.8 Senior College ' igz 40.0 3.8 Small High Public School 37 80.” 6.2 College Junior , College “6 100.0 7.5 Senior College 12 26.6 3.9 Medium High Public School 36 69.2 6.3 College Junior College 52 100.0 9.5 Senior ‘ College 21. no .14 3 .L Large High Public School 31 53.“ “.3 Colleg ‘ Junior College 5? . 100.0 8.2 Senior _ . College 22 37.9 .3.2 All High Teachers School 123 66.5 6.1 Junior College , 185 100.0 7.8 Senior College 627 36.2 3.7 71 frequently share facilities with local high schools. Teachers in insti- tutions of this type frequently teach at both levels and thus accumulate {high school experience while teaching in a Junior college, but this is less likely to occur in the larger institutions. Table II also shows that the teachers in the private colleges reported a median of about five years of Junior college teaching exper- ience while those in the public institutions reported higher medians that ranged.from about eight to ten years. Only slightly over one-third of the teachers reported any exper- ience at the senior college level. .Although the data do not show this, it is suspected.that much or this was teaching done as graduate assis- tants while working toward advanced degrees. It should finally be noted that the overall median of approximate— ly eight years of Junior college experience on the part of the teacher respondents in this survey should have made them well aware of the needs. and shortcomings of such teachers, and should be convincing evidence that their recommendations are worthy of consideration. IV Number Of Teaching.Areas One of the hypotheses of this study was that Junior college teach- ers should be prepared to teach in two or more of the physical sciences. This was based on the known fact that many of the Junior colleges are small institutions in which it is not practical to employ a full-time teacher even for each of the three maJor branches of physical science (physics, chemistry, and mathematics). In testing this hypothesis the teachers were asked to name each 72 or the physical science areas in which they felt qualified to teach, each in which they were eXpected to teach in their present position, and the grade levels at which they did this teaching. They were also asked to recommend the number of areas in which a prospective teacher should be prepared if he were to teach at a school of the size of their own present institution. The responses to each of these questions are summarhsed in Table 111. It shows that only approximately to per cent of all teachers are privileged to give instruction in only a single area. Thus, approximate- ly b0 per cent teach in two or more, and about half of these give instruc- tion in more than two areas. This situation depends, however, on the type of school being considered. A complete distribution of responses to this question is shown in Appendian. It indicates that only 50 per cent of the teachers in the large and medium colleges are expected to teach in two or more areas, while about 75 per cent or those in the private and small public institutions are thus burdened. The number of areas in which the teachers considered themselves qualified is encouragingly large; the median is approximately four areas, and includes only twelve who claim a single area, while twenty-six listed six or more areas. Since these teachers most frequently give instruction in two or more areas, it is not surprising to find that they generally recommend more than one area of preparation for prospective teachers. Table 1111 shows the recommendations given by teachers, administrators, and experts. It shows very small percentages that favor preparation in only one area, while two areas are favored by a majority of the respondents in all cate- gories. An examination of Appendices I and.J shows that this is the ,1.‘ a» {iii-Hui! a. “Held-II, . iv.— TABLE XII NUJIL'BER OF TEACHING AREAS IN WHICH TEACHERS ARE iiUALIFIED AND EXPECTED TO TEACH Number All Tam of Qualified Expected Area;— Number Per Cent Number Per C_egt 1 12 6.6 67 39-9 2 2? 115.8 53 31.5 3 32 17.6 29 17.3 a ‘ 33 18.1 10 5.9 5 52 28.6 o 3.o e or more 2o 3115.1 2 1.8 Totals 182 198 flan Number of Areas fig 41.8 TABLE XIII NUMBER OF TEACHING AREAS FOB PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS AS MCOWED BY TEACHERS, ADMINISTRATORS, AND METS Nufiber Reegmmcadaiiaas_hl of Teachers Administrators Experts 52$ No. Per Cent 9. Per Cent No, Per Cent 1 28 15.6 5 5.1 l 2.9 2 . 98 5h.9 66 66.7 19 515.3 3 3o 20.0 21 21.2 10 28.6 h 11 0.1 b . 6.1 1+ 11.4 5 5 2.8 1 1.0 1 2.9 _L A 2 1.1 L gm 0 - h.9_____ tale 8 99 35 Nedian 191.122.2222; 2-2 Zé 21" 7“ general pattern in all types of schools covered in this survey. .Although it is true that training in at least two areas is generha ally favored, it should be observed that twenty-eight, or 15.6 per cent, of the teachers favored only a single area. comments from this group generally insisted that attempting to teach in more than one area would result in instruction being given without adequate preparation. Those in the large maJority who favored more than one area gave two reasons for this distribution of effort: (1) It is a practical necessity in many of the colleges, (2) It results in better integration of the physical sci- ences as they are taught. V Training in the Subject Matter Specialties 1. §ubjggt Matter Training ggpgrted 21,2eachers. One of the most important aspects of this study is concerned with the subJsct matter training that would be most appropriate for Junior college physical science teachers. For this reason the teachers were first asked to list the semester hours they obtained in their major! and minors at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. They were subse- Quontly asked to make recommendations regarding the number of semester hours that would be most appropriate for prospective teachers in their ‘ 'ubdect matter specialties. The distribution of reported semester hours in the major fields is shown in Table XIV. The medians for each group of teachers show a slight trend toward more intensive training on the part of the teachers in the public institutions, particularly in the largest of these. The differences between the teachers in the various sizes of public colleges ”is . It Ala 3.3!: 75 TABLE XIV DISTRIBUTION OF REPORTED SEMESTER HOURS IN THE MAJOR SUBJECT FIELD Number of Number of Tmhers Semester Private Small Medium Large All 3.11:1 Public Public Public Teachers I UNDERGRADUATE LEVEL 10-21} 3 3 5 2 13 25-30 12 16 16 9 53 31-36 3 3 8 6 20 37-42 '4 13 9 10 36 '43-’48 2 1 2 5 10 u9.5u 0 5 2 5 12 55—162 9 ' 2 j __1_01 11 Number reporting 21! 1+3 1+7 “7 161 No. of teachers in survey 30 1+6 52 58 186 Per Cent Re- porting 80.0 93.5 90.4 81.1 86.5 11.11” a gag; 2818 35.5 2.1» no; 1311-18.? GRADUATE 1mm. 0-15 LP 12 5 9 30 16-25 11 8 16 12 1.7 26-35 2 10 11 11 3“ 36—139 1+ 11 9 . l; 39 30. reporting 21 1+1 1&1 1+7 150 No. of teachers in survey 30 46 52 58 186 f Reporting 70.0 89.2 78.8 81.0 80.7 Hedian Number f 18 26 2 2 47.8 fl 76 are generally small and probably not significant at the graduate level. However, there is an indication that the teachers in the medium sized institutions have had less subJect matter training than those in either the smaller or large colleges. Perhaps the best indication of the broadness of the training of these teachers has already been given in the section that reported the total numbers of areas in which they considered themselves qualified to teach. However, another measure of this aspect of their preparation is available from the reported credit hours in minor fields of study. Table IV shows the mean number of minors per teacher, and the median number of credits per minor, at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. It shows no important differences between the various types of teachers at either level of study. .Although the range in number of undergraduate minors is from one to five, the number most commonly reported was two. At this level the median number of credits per teacher ranges only from seventeen to eighteen in all categories. TABLE IV REPORTED ACADEMIC TRAINING IN SUBJECT MATTER MINORS Type‘ Mean Number of Minors hedian Number of Credits of Per Teacher Per Hinor nggheg undergraduate Graduate Undergraduate Graduate Small Public 2.0 1.3 17.9 8.3 Medium Public 2.0 1.3 16.6 10.5 Large Public 1.8 1.4 17.8 9-9 All ngghere 1.9 g11u V;Z.7 9.3 At the graduate level the number of minors is more frequently .1flis, 77 one than two,'but the median falls near the half-way point between these two values in all teacher categories. ‘The median number of credit hours reported varies only from approximately eight to nearly eleven. The actual distribution of credit ranged from fifty-two teachers having from one to six credits, fifty-four in the range from seven to twelve, and forty- nine who reported more than twelve credits. 1A more complete distribution of these responses is shown in Appendix G. In summarising the findings regarding subject matter training, it is evident that the typical Junior college physical science teacher, who responded to this survey, has had: (1) an undergraduate major with total credits ranging from twenty-nine to forty hours; (2) a graduate maJor with total credits ranging from nineteen to twenty-eight; (3) two under- graduate minors of from seventeen to eighteen credits each; and (4) one or two graduate minors of from eight to eleven credits each. 2- WM tmw. .All three types of respondents made recommendations regarding the desired numbers of semester hours in mador and minor fields. Since the averages recommended by each type of teacher were all within the narrow range from thirty to thirtybtwo, these responses are summarised in.a single column, including all teachers, in Table XVI. For the same reason administrator responses are grouped together in this table, which also shows the recommendations made by the experts. Not only do the teachers agree as to the median numbers of hours recommended, but the administrators and experts are also shown to be in almost exact accord with each other and the teachers regarding the desire ability of a thirty-credit undergraduate maJor. It should be noted, however, that these medians represent a.balancing process which partially 78 conceals the true nature of the recommendations. Thus, although thirty was the most popular number, the recommended training ranged from twelve to sixty credits, with thirty-six and twentyafour credit-hour recommenda- tions being second and third respectively in order of popularity with respondents in all categories. TABLE XVI BECOMNDED SEMESTER HOURS IN THE UNDERGRADUATE MAJOR Number of Hours Number;of Responses _ '_ ReCQmmendg Teachers AdminigtgaW“ 12-22 9 3 1 23-29 37 18 9 30 #1 #2 14 31-35 9 5 l 36 40 28 7 over 36 26 4 2 Totals 162 100 34 No._in survey 186 109 38 Per Cent Responding 87.2 - 96.0 89.5 @321 N04 91' M 30.1; 30.2 30.0 Regarding the graduate major, Table XVII shows the distribution 01 recommendations made by all respondents. It shows close agreement at the median or twenty semester hours on the part of the teachers and admin- istrators and a distinctly lower level of sixteen hours being favored by the experts. In this the median is not a good indication of the whole picture. The distribution is quite. flat in the range from twelve to 79 TABLE XVII RECOMENDED SEMESTER HOURS IN THE GRADUATE MAJOR Number of Hours Numbez 9f Bespgnsgs gecommended Teachegpg Administrators Egpgrts 6.12 112 16 in 13-18 27 22 12 19-215 us 34 7 25-30 20 14 3 31-69 17 19 J Totals 151 96 36 No. in Survey 186 104 38 Per Cent Responding 81.2 92.3 94.8 Hedigg Numbgr gf Hourg_w_ 20.3 20.0 15:97— twenty-four credits (a majority of the respondents in the six-twelve range are at its upper limit). Also a substantial portion of both the the teachers and administrators recommend more than twentyafour hours. Thus, it would seem that the recommendation for these two should include at least the range from twelve to twenty-four semester hours. The exp perts tend to favor somewhat lower totals and the most appropriate range to quote for them would seem to be from twelve to twenty credits. It will be noted in part seven of this chapter that this lower level of recommended subJect matter training on their part is partially balanced 9? generally higher total credits in Education courses. The desired training in minor subJect matter areas is summarised in.Table XVIII. here again there appears to be substantial agreement .3038 all three types of respondents. .About twenty hours in each 80 TABLE XVIII RECOMMENDED SEMESTER HOURS IR MINOR AREAS Teachers Mgltratgrs Experts UNDERGRADUATE No. Responding to Question 158 93 314 Per Cent Responding 81+.8 89A 89. 5 Median Number of Hours per Minor 20.14 21.0 19.8 GRADUATE 'Ho. Responding to Question 116 77 33 Per Cent Responding 62.3 7h.l 10.” Hedian Number of Hours per mingr $9.0 10.14 9.7 .— undergraduate minor is noted, while ten would be required by the typical respondent at the graduate level. It is interesting to note that this level of twentyhours in each minor is very close to the median of eigh- teen credits per minor which was reported in the academic training of the teachers in this survey. Appendix 1 lists the complete distribution of recommended credits in each undergraduate minor. It shows that the range of desired totals extends from ten to sixty, with significant numbers of all respondents favoring each of the totals twenty, eighteen, thirty, and twenty-four in that order of popularity. Thus, it would seem that the final recommenda- tion should include the entire range from eighteen to thirty semester hours per minor. 8 The question of how many undergraduate minors should be taken .- . .IvllI‘l-IIII.IIJ.‘. .ll 81 was not answered by a very large percentage of the respondents. Hcwever, such data as are available are summarised in Table 111. It indicates that the most frequent number was two, except for the experts who were evenly divided between those who favored a single minor and those who would have two. mm XIX RECOMMENDED NUMBER 01' UNDERGRADUATE MINORS Teachers Administrators Experts number in Survey . 186 10” 38 Number answering 115 5b 30 Per Cent 81.8 51.8 79.8 “933 Number of Miners ;;,9 132 1.5 Since this question was not well covered by direct responses, it should be observed that other data bear on this point. Two was the most frequently recommended number of teaching areas, as mentioned in Part three of this chapter. However, the median was at an intermediate level between two and three and tnus indicated that many.favored three or more areas. This immediately indicates that two minors are needed, at least by those who would be prepared to teach in three fields. .at the graduate level other data will show, in part ten or this chapter, that the question or a second minor depends on the degree level to be attained. A,thirty-credit master's program, which includes a twenty- credit maJor and cne‘ten—credit minor, obviously does not have reem for a second miner. Ir these teachers pursue an additional year of graduate iork, it is apparent that at least a third of the time in that year should 82 be devoted to the develOpment of a second minor. VI Training in Foreign Languages, Social Sciences, and the amenities The teachers in this survey were not questioned regarding their background in the humanities or the social sciences. They were asked, however, to list the total credits obtained in foreign languages. Table I! summarises the results obtained from this question. An inspec- tion of the percentages reporting this training reveals that it is more comonly found among the teachers at the large public institutions than at either the private or small public colleges. About three-quarters of all the teachers reported some training in foreign languages with an average credit of 15.1; semester hours. The larger numbers at the larger wan roman memos canons arrow 32‘ means Type of Number Mean Number of m Remrtigg Per Cent Credit-flours Private 20 66.7 15.6 Sun Public - 27 58.6 16.? Medium Public 145 86.5 14.0 I“first: Public 1:9 814.1; 15.8 53 335112;: 1h; 35.9: 15.“ g °°11°ges probably reflect the higher degree levels found among these teachers (see part eight of this chapter) and university requirements for this training on the part of advanced degree candidates. 83 The foreign language recommendations by each group of teachers are summarized in Table XXI. These data reveal the fact that about two- thirds of all teachers favored some training in foreign languages. How» ever, this overall figure is elevated considerably by the private col- leges where 80 per cent of the teachers favored this kind of preparation. Although a majority of the public college teachers favored foreign lan- guage training, it is perhaps significant that fewer voted for this as- pect of education than had had it themselves. Just the opposite trend is noted among the private college teachers. This difference is quite possibly due to the traditionally more conservative programs offered at the private institutions where college parallel work is most frequently the program of major emphasis. TABLE III FOREIGN LANGUAGE TRAINING‘AS RECOMMENDED RY TEACHERS ‘IEEEEEI alszsziae: 222.222; ogzggit Hoggg____n_ Private 2n 80.0 11.0 Small Public 26 56.5 _11.0 Medium Public 31 59.6 19.5 Large Public 39 67.3 10.6 We 1.2.9: 6‘65 $12...— Table XIII, which summarises administrator reaction to this Question, appears to confirm the higher interest in foreign language training at the private institutions. Seventybone per cent of the ad- ministratore favor an average of twelve semester hours. It is also evident that this aspect of education is decidedly less popular among 8’4 TABLE XXI I FOREIGN LANGUAGE TRAINING AS RECOMMENDED B! ADHINIS‘I‘BA'I‘ORS AND EXPERTS W Mean Number of Favorigg Per Cent Credit Hour! ADMINISTRATORB Private 20 71.14 12.0 Small Public , 19 b8.? 11.14 Hedium Public 12 50.0 12.2 Large Public ' 9 69.2 12.6 All Administrators 60 57.7 11.6 . mm £1 Iggrtg l3 314.; ' 8.8 the experts; only 314 per cent of them recommended any work in this area and the mean of their recommendations is somewhat lower than those favor- ed by the administrators and the teachers. As shown in Table XXIII. preparation in the humanities and social sciences was uniformly favored by large majorities of each type of res-7 pendent. Thus. eighty to ninety per cent of all respondents favored ap- Proximately four or five three-credit courses in the humanities. and three or four courses in‘the social sciences. The question of whether any of this work should be done at the graduate level was also asked. Seventeen out of 186 teachers indicated that they were in favor of some graduate work in the humanities; eleven favored some work at this level in the social sciences. Twenty-six of the 10’4 administrators recommended graduate work in the humanities; eleven of the thirty-eight eXperts agreed with this minority group of 35 TABLE xxm RECOMMENDED TRAINING IN THE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES Humanities - Recommendations Teacher; Administrators Eggperts Number making recommendations 1% 95 35 fer Cent 78.5 91.3 92.1 ME 119, of Semester Hours _12.0 filji 3134.1 Social Science Recommendations Number making recommendations 11+9 A 92 35 Per Cent 80.1 88.5 92.1 Mg No, 91' Semester Hours 9.15 42.9 11.9 administrators. Similarly in the social sciences, twenty-two adminis- trators and seven experts recommended graduate work. Thus, it is abun- dantly evident that the overwhelming maJority of all respondents felt that the work in these areas, as summarized in Table XXIII, should be done at the undergraduate level. VII Training in Education Courses Undoubtedly the most controversial questions answered. particularly by the teachers in this survey, were those that dealt with Education courses. The fact that considerable disagreement exists regarding the desirability, and the extent, of such training is well documented in the literature. This disagreement was confirmed by a small but vociferous minority or the teachers who indicated disfavor of Education course! “1th varying degrees of vigor and emotion. One respondent wrote the 86 word “bull" in large heavy letters across the question concerning detail-- ed courses in Education; others filled in the recommended semester hour spaces with unusually large and heavily printed seroes. Hardly typical of all teachers, but nevertheless illustrative of the attitude expressed by this group, is the following quotation taken from one of the teacher questionnaires. The most general comment concerning preparation for teaching among our faculty (in science courses) is a deep contempt for most of the Education courses we were compelled to take to get our teaching credentials. The utter waste of so mam courses in Ed- ucation. warming over and re-serving the same historical trivia in a different coursal Unfortunately even the mystic sesquipe- dalian nomenclature of Education cannot coupletely disguise such duplication. How much better it would be to condense the useful facts and give them to us Ijust one; and with a direct and force- ful approach. Scientists do not worship at the musty archives of educational history as educators do. We would rather be at our work, doing an effective Job of instructing youth, than meditating on lofty thoughts while we kiss the toe bone of some long departed patron saint of education. In spite of the attitude indicated in this quotation, the author or these remarks recommended a total of twelve hours in Education courses and twelve additional hours in practice teaching. As has been previously indicated, many states require certification for Junior college teachers. Host of these certification statutes re- quire a. certain amount of training in Education courses. Thus, it is not surprising to find that most of the teachers reported this type of training. Table XXIV summarises the data obtained on this point. This table shows considerable overlapping between graduate and undergrad-““6 work. Thus, for private college teachers, twenty-one reported some. tmning in Education courses; nineteen of these reported work at the ml‘191‘8‘l'atiuate level, while only fourteen had some, or all of it, at the an. III. 1'" ' 8? graduate level. TABLE XXIV RIPORTED TRAINING IN EDUCATION COURSES Type of Training Total No. Hedian No. of T_e__achg_i; Level! Rgpgrtigg Per Cent Semgster Hours Private Undergraduate 19 63.3 16.1 Graduate 1'4 246.? 16.5 Total at Both Levels 21 - 70.0 19.5 Small Undergraduate 39 80.8 18.3 Public Graduate 28 60 .8 18 .5 Total at Both Levels ’43 93-5 27-3 Medium Undergraduate 1+0 76.8 10.3 Public Graduate 33 63.4 17.3 Total at Both Levels #7 90A 23.6 Large Undergraduate 3 5 60 . '3 13 . 9 Public Graduate 1&2 72.3 17.3 Total at Both Levels 53 19.3 21.0 All Undergraduate izu 66.7 16.0 Teachers Graduate 117 62.9 17.6 Total at V Both Levels 164 88.2 23.5 An examination of the percentages of teachers reporting work in Imutation courses shows a tendency for fewer of the private college teach- ers to report any training of this type; seventy per cent of them did 88 have such a background, but the corresponding percentages in the public institutions are in the low nineties. Similarly, the median number of hours reported is slightly lower among the private college teachers. This is quite possibly a part of the trend, noted when considering for- eign language preparation, toward more teaching of traditional college parallel courses in these institutions. One additional observation is pertinent to the data in Table XXIV. It concerns the level at which Education courses were taken by the teach- ers. Thus. 117 of the 161+ teachers reporting such training had at least part of it at the graduate level. Since 121+ of them reported undergrad- uate Education courses. it is evident that the difference between this number and the 16“ who reported this training represents a large minor- ity of forty teachers who had all of their Education courses at the graduate level. Similarly, the difference between 1614 and 117 reveals that forty-seven of the respondents reported all of this training at the undergraduate level. The balance. or seventy-seven teachers, reported Part of this experience at both levels. The median total credits that should be accumulated by teachers did not differ significantly among the various types of teachers and Odminiatrators. Therefore, they are summarized as single groups in Table XXV. These data indicate considerable difference of opinion among individual respondents as to the extent of training considered desirable in this area. The range of credits which are favored by many respondents covers several popular numbers such as twelve, fifteen. twenty-one. and thirty. The conclusions that can be drawn from these data are: (l) signi- ficant1y large percentages of all respondents favor the inclusion of some 89 TABLE m DISTRIBUTION 01‘ RECOMMENDED TOTAL CREDIT IN EDUCATION COURSES EXCLUDING PRACTICE TEACHING Range of Number of Number of Number of Mt Teachers @inistrators Marts 1-6 17 7 0 7-12 30 9 u 13-18 21 19 11 l9-2l-t 3'] 24 12 25.30 18 23 6 M a a u Totals 132 91 3? . Per Cent Recommending 71.0 87.5 9'?-’~t di N of Cr dits 2 .6 20 6 training in Education courses, (2) there is little agreement regarding how much of this training is desired; popularly recommended totals vary from twelve to thirty credits, (3) the experts are nearly unanimous in their recommendation of work in this area, while some of the administra— tors do not favor it, and only 71 per cent of the teachers see it as de- sirabla. . After learning that the respondents generally favor the inclusion 01' some work in Education courses, it is appropriate to consider which a'lwcts of this field of study are considered most desirable for Junior “11060 physical science teachers. Accordingly, they were asked to indi- cate the number of semester hours they considered most appropriate in each of the nine courses listed in Table nvx. Majorities, ranging from 60 t0 90 per cent of the administrators and experts, favor one three- 90 credit course in each of these subjects except Junior college administra- tion. The teachers are somewhat less enthusiastic about all of these courses. Testing, measurement, and evaluation is recommended by more Twin: RECOMMENDED TRAINING IN SPECIFIC IDWATION COURSES Recommendations Made By 186 101+ 38 Type Imhgn Adminigtratggs Eggzts of Per Median Per Median Per Median Cent No. of Cent No. of Cent No. of Cgurge Hop}; Hour; Hours Curriculum Construction 148.9 3.1 58.7 3.1 71.2 3.1 Guidance and Counseling 62.9 3.1 82.? 3.2 89.3 3.1 History and Philosophy of . Ed. (General) 514.8 3.1 63.3 2.9 60.6 3.0 History and Philosophy of The Junior College 55.1} 2.8 78.8 2.9 86.8 2.8 Junior College Administration 30.6 2.7 27.8 2.9 29-0 2.3 Psychology (General) 68.8 3.3 85.6 3.3 73.7 3.1 Psychology of ‘ the Late Adolescent 55.1; 3.0 70.2 3.0 76.3 3.0 Technique. of Teaching 65.6 3.2 78.8 3.2 7h.3 3.3 Testing, Measure. m and Evaluation 1 0 2 8 .6 2 8 .2 .1 teachers than any other course and a clear maJority also favor three- credit courses in general psychology, techniques of teaching, and ran I .‘ll.‘1r.ilallil.. .' A 91 guidance and counseling. Teacher opinion is quite evenly divided regard- ing all others except junior college administration, where the consensus appears to agree with the administrators and experts in opposition to this type of course for prospective teachers. Conclusions from these data appear to agree with those obtained from the question regarding total credits in.Education courses. There it was observed that the recommended totals ranged from twelve to thirty. Here, there are five three-credit courses which stand out as being gen- erally more popular among all respondents. Thus, if one were to take only fifteen credits in this area, a program which would fit their reco- mmendations would include three each in the following: (1) guidance and counseling, (2) history and philosophy of the junior college, (3) general psychology, (h) techniques of teaching, and (5) testing, measurement, and evaluation. In order of their favor by respondents to this survey, add- itional work, up to twenty-four credits, might tell be of value in these areas: (I) psychology of the late adolescent, (2) curriculum construction , amd (3) history and philosoPhy of education. Course work in Junior col- lege administration was favored by only about 30 per cent of all responé- dents. If more than twenty-four hours of credit were to be taken it would Probably be desirable to take additional courses in such fields as gui- dance and counseling, psychology, and techniques of teaching, rather than in administration. Table XXVI also reveals some differences between the three groups OI respondents. In general a greater proportion of the experts favored O‘ch of these courses than did either the teachers or the administrators althougn the latter tended tecgrce with the experts more than did the teachers, A1”. it is noted that while guidance and counseling would 92 rank first with the experts, general psychology is more pepular with the administrators, and testing, measurement, and evaluation are favored by the largest group of teachers. VIII Training in Research The extent of the research experience which is desirable for Junior college teachers has received some attention in the literature and it is generally considered to be of little value to these teachers. However, some authorities favor the ultimate acquisition of the doctoral degree and this implies considerable research experience. Others have pointed out that extensive research experience tends to cultivate taste. and interests that are not compatible with Junior college teaching. In this study the teachers were asked to report on the extent of their own research experience and to make recommendations for prospective teachers in their fields. Their reported experience is summarised in Table XXVII. As might be expected, it shows that very few of the teachers reported any research in Education. on the other hand, it shows a. sur— prisingly low percentage who report research experience in their subject matter fields; surprising in the light of the fact that over 90 per cent Of these teachers had acquired at least a master's degree. Small differ- ences in the percentages of those who reported this experience in the various groups suggest that somewhat more research has been done by tea- chers at the large public institutions. This follows the general pattern 0f higher levels of preparation at these colleges which has been previ- ously noted. 93 TABLE XXVII RESEARCH EXPERIENCE REPORTED BY TEACHERS Type and Research in Research in Subjegt Matter Figld Education Number of Per Cent Kean No. Per Cent Mean No. Teachers Teachers of Teachers of Reporting Semester Reporting Semester fixpgzigngg Hour; Experigggg Hours 30 Private College Teachers 50.0 8.1 13.3 3.2 be small Public College Teachers h5.6 8.3 26.1 5.3 52 Medium Public College Teachers 51.9 10.7 9.6 5.0 58 Large Public College Teachers 62.0 13.9 10.3 18.1 186 Teachers 53,2 111,0 V;9.5 7.8 The research experience which was recommended by all respondents is summarized in Table XXVIII. It indicates clear agreement between teachers and administrators as to the desirability of prospective teachers doing some research in their subject matter field. About six credits, or a normal amount for a master's thesis, is recommended. A greater pro- portion of the experts favored some research experience in the subject field and the extent of the experience recommended is slightly, but not Significantly, lower than that proposed by the other groups. The sharp— est contrast in these data occurs between the experts and the respondents actually located at junior colleges in respect to research in Education. To this‘question #0 per cent of the experts said, “Yes, they should have some experience," while only 20 per cent of the other two groups were 91+ of this opinion. TAM mm RECOMMENDED TRAINING IN RESEARCH TYPO and Research in the Research in figsical Sciences Education lumber of Per Cent Mean Per Cent Mean Respondents Respondents No. of Respondents No. of vorin 5 hrs. Favorin Sam Hrs. 186 Teachers 67.2 6.3 18.8 3.h 101+ Administrators 68.3 6.0 22.1 11.5 :8 lgert' dbig: “L5 Jasi “.1 The general conclusion from these data appears to be that about six credits in research in the subject matter field is recommended by all groups of respondents. IX Practice Teaching One of the hypotheses advanced for this study was that junior _ college physical science teachers should have some practice teaching, and that it should occur in a junior college rather than in a high school as is the more common practice. ‘ In order to first determine whether practice teaching is consider- ed valuable by the teachers themsleves, they were asked to describe their own experience as to its value to them, and then' to make recommendations as to whether it should be required of prospective instructors. Table 1111 summarises the responses obtained from these questions. It shows that about 93 per cent of those who rated their own experience as “very valuable“. said “Yes“ to the question, "Should practice teaching be 95 required?I Although only fifteen, out of 120 who reported some practice,- teaching, rated it as "of very little value," approximately half of them favored the requirement of this experience. One-third of the teachers with no such experience were undecided about the desirability of requir- ing it. However, the overall response shows that two-thirds of all teachers in the survey would require practice teaching for prospective I instructors. TABLE m1 PRACTICE TEACHING RECOMMENDATIONS BY 186 TEACHERS ACCORDING TO THE VALUE OF THEIR OWN EXPERIENCE Ratings Given to Their Own _fl’gfl_ “No" “Undecided" Instance n. i m. i . . [in i 293,9] “Very Valuable“ ssh 93.2 1 1.7 3 5.2 58 '01" Some Value” 39 83 .0 3 6.1+ 5 10. 6 it? "01' Very Little Value" 7 106.7 7 “-6.7 1 6.6 15 Had No Practice m 25 37.9 l3 28.8 _23 33.3 66 T9 tale 125 67.; 30 16,1 31 i_g,z 186 ~ Since it is evident, from Table 1112, that those who had a "very valuable'' practice teaching experience favor its requirement much more strongly than others in the survey, an attempt was made to ascertain whe- ther this value was not strongly affected by the degree of supervision exercised over the teaching intern during this phase of his training. Table In compares the value ratings given by teachers to the degree of supervision exercised during their own internship. The figures shown u— 96 suggest that some positive correlation exists between these two. A chi square test of significant differences, shown in Appendix I. reveals that the differences between those rating their own experience as "very valuable,“ and those in the other two groups combined, are highly sig- nifi cant . rmm TED VALUI Ol‘ PRACTICE TEACHING AS RIPORTID RY TRADERS ACCORDING TO TH] DIM Ol‘ SUPERVISION WISE DURING THEIR OVN PRACTICE TEACHING ‘— Ratings Given to Their on W Practice Considerable loderate Very Little Teaching No . f to . f lo . f To tal mnencg ' 'Very Valuable' 32 55.2 21 36.2 5 8.6 58 “Of Some Value“ 11‘ 29.8 23 158.9 10 21.3 ’47 "01‘ Very Little A ' ’ Value" 2 13.3 ‘6 no.0 7 \ #6.? 15 Totals #8 50 22 120 s since the chi square test shows that these differences are sig- nificant at the l per cent level of confidence, a coefficient of correla- tion was also calculated. Using the formula for a contingency coeffic- ient, as shown in Appendix K , this correlation was found to be .32. This indicates a definite, but low, positive correlation between these tn aspects of practice teaching. nO'Ving established that the respondents in this survey favor the 97 requirement of practice teaching, and that this experience should proba- bly be closely supervised, it next seems apprOpriate to inquire as to the type of institution in which this phase of training should be carried out, The literature indicates that most junior college teachers come from a background of high school teaching and have had practice teaching in that kind of a school. TABLE xm PRACTICE TEACHING LOCATIONS REPORTED RY TEACHERS Practice Teaching Location Type of high Junior Senior H. S. H. S. No. P.T. Teacher School College College and and Location iny Only Only J. CL S, C, Remrted Total Private Number 16 0 5 0 0 9 30 Per ant 53.3 010 16.2 010 M 3o.q $0.0 Smell Public I. Number 25 l 3 0 l 16 116 2 Mt 54.3 .2 ”“645". 9,0 231 334,8 109,9 Medium Public Number 2? 1 5 l 1 17 ’ 52 W 1.0 1:1 1.1 .3217 19.9.9..- Lal‘ge Public Number 28 2 2 1 o 25 58 331.2911: z+9.3 3.1+ , 3.14 1.7 0.L 1+2,2 -9 109.9 ‘11 Teachers Number 96 h 15 2 2 67 186 WA 2.1 9&1 1.1 1.1 36.9 19011 "Includes one whose practice teaching was in elementary school The teachers in this survey were asked at what educational level they had had their practice teaching, if at all. Table mu shows that this experiencg was obtained in the high school by an overwhelming majo+~ rity of tho” who reported 11; at an; Thus, about 52 per cent reported 98 at this level, 36 per cent reported none, and only 2.1 per cent had had this practice at the educational level where they are new teaching. This tabulation also indicates that, for those who had it at the junior college level, the reports came from the public institutions. It also indicates that practice teaching is less commonly reported by large public college teachers than by those in the smaller, or private, col- leges. While most of the reported practice teaching was done in high sch— ools, it is significant to note, in Table XXIII, that only 9.3 per cent of the teachers recommend this as the most appropriate level. The big- gest single group of teachers favored the choice labelled “high school or junior college." However, 20 per cent favored the junior college as their first choice. At present very few junior colleges, outside of one or two in California, have made agreements with universities whereby it is possible for teacher candidates to obtain practice teaching at the junior college level. It is possible that knowledge of this situation may have influenced many of those who voted in favor of the ”high school or junior college" choice. A complete distribution of these recommenda— tions as given by teachers at each type of institution is given in Appendix L . Table XXIII also shows the recommendations regarding this same question as given by administrators and experts. Here it is seen that the ”junior college" is the most highly favored choice, with the experts favoring it more strongly than other group. To summarise the practice teaching response, it appears that all groups of respondents recommend its requirement, and that they favor either the junior college or the the high school as the educational level at which this experience should be obtained. 99 TABLE XXII I RECOMMENDED PRACTICE TEACHING LOCATIONS r r— Tflhggg Aginigtratgrs Esperts Recommended W NoI Per Cent No, Peg Cent No. 291; ngt high School 8 9.3 6 5.8 l 2.6 Junior College 38 20.3 ‘41 39.1} 19 50.0 Senior College 3 ' 1.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 High School or Junior College l+9 26.14 31 29.8 8 21.0 Junior College or Senior College 19 10.2 10 9.6 5 13.2 High School, Junior College, or Son. 001. 23 12.1} 9 8.7 2 5.3 H151 School and Junior College 3 1.6 1+ 3.8 0 0.0 No Recgmmendation to 23.2 3 2.9 J 1.9 Tgtals 86 100 0 104 100.0 38 Jl_9_Q_,_9__ 1 Degree Levels The junior college literature contains frequent references to the degree levels which are most appropriate for teachers at this educational level. The most commonly required degree is the master's, but some institutions operate with staffs whose average level of training is con- siderably below this. Some of the better known authorities have urged the ultimate acquisition of doctoral degrees by these teachers, while others have indicated that this is definitely undesirable. This study has attempted to learn what degree level should be recommended for 100 Junior college physical science teachers. It was hypothesised that training at an intermediate level, approxh imately equal to a master's degree plus thirty semester hours of credit, would be found.best. .Lccordingly, the teachers were asked first to re- port their highest earned degrees and to list the graduate credits earn-/ ed. The results obtained are shown in Table XIXIII. which is based on data from the 169 teachers who gave sufficiently complete information TABLE XXIII! DEGREE LEVELS REPORTED BY 169 TEACHERS. Type of highest Earned Degree Bachelor's Masters Master': Doctor's Teacher Plusifio Primate Number 5 9 7 5 Per Cent 19.2 3h.6 26.9 19.2 Small Public Number 7 25 ll 0 Per Cent 16.3 58.1 25.6 0.0 ‘iedium Public Number h 20 19 4 Per Cent 8.5 h2.6 “0.“ 8.5 Large Public Number 1 21 15 16 Per Cent 1.9 39.6 28.3 30.2 All Teachers number 1? 75 52 25 Per Cent 10.0 nu.u 30.8 lu.8 *The seventeen responding teachers, whose degree levels are not in- cluded in the table, did not list their total graduate credits. All of them reported that they held the master's degree. *‘This includes all who reported totals or 50 or more graduate credits. 101 to make it possible to tabulate those at the intermediate levels. it is evident that 90 per cent have obtained at least a master's degree. The table also shows that nearly half, actually 105.6 per cent, have had con- siderable graduate work beyond the master's level. Looking at the dif- forent types of schools. it is evident that lower levels of training are reported by both the private and small public institutions than by these at the larger colleges. Also it is noted that a greater proportion of the private college teachers report bachelor's degrees than do those in the public schools. However, a compensating factor is evident in that they also show a greater proportion of doctor's degrees than are shown by the small and medium public colleges. If one includes those who failed to give details regarding their total graduate credit, and lists only the highest degree actually report— ed. this distribution takes the form shown in Table 1111'. run run 31-? new menu mom 3! 186 means W Degrees Imber Reporting Per Cent Bachelor's l? 9.1 Naster's 1M 77.“ Doctor'. 25 13.5 __~9._;___________L* m 86 if 129.2, The degree levels recommended by the respondents in this survey ‘1" Ihown in Tables m7 and XXXVI. The first of these contains a break- 4°“ 01 the recommendations by the teachers according to the type of 102 institution in which they are located. It is noted that the only im- portant difference lies in the fact that the large public college teach- ere more frequently favor the 'master's plus 30.” while all other groups would require only a master’s degree. Taken altogether. the teachers do not seem particularly enthusiastic about the intermediate degree level which was hypothesised as most desirable: only about 315 per cent voted in its favor. run an DICE]! LIVILS IICOIOIIIDID 3! 186 manna Type Degree Levels Deco-mended of Master's. Do or ' t 's r' a :- Private labor 1 18 7 4 0 W1 M 13.; 3.2—... hell Public labor 1 28 13 0 It W M M— Iledium Public lumber 0 29 lb 3 6 w - 55.; 26.9 5a..__1_1_.5____ Large Public lumber 0 » 23 29 3 3 Pgr 935 0.9 39.6 M 5.2 412 All Teachers lumber 2 . 98 63 10 13 W 53.4 33.5; in“ 729...... In Table mm it is evident that this same degree level is much more popular with the other two types of respondents than it is with the teachers. has. about 52 per cent of the administrators favor the inter- sediate level, and 71 per cent of the experts would require a two-year graduate program. 103 um mu DIM LIVILS woman 3! LDHIIISTBATOBS AID “TS ...—_a_. ...—...— Type of D a ee ve s Re amended Respondent HasterTs Bacghr's flashy! £19; 39 939mg. Private College Administrators lumber 1 9 l5 3 m: Pg; gggt ‘ 31.2 32.2 53.9 19¢ 3 3.11 Public College } Administrators Number 0 ledium Public college i Administrators lumber 0 7 1“ 3 .....ZILQIIIL WA ~— Large Public College Administrators Number 0 5 7 1 2:; Cat M_ 38.5 53:8 7.2 All Mministraters lumber l #1 5b 8 Pg; get 1.2 39.4 51.9 2.7 All prerts lumber O 8 . 27 3 Pg; C_e_n_L 9,9 21,9 '21,; 2.9 XI Ion-Academic Uork prerience Practical work experience in business, industry, and wherever their students may be employed has frequently been recommended for Junior college teachers. Several advantages. and certain important disadvan- tages. seem to accompany this kind of background for physical science teachers. The teachers in this survey were asked to list the work experiences \hich they felt had been of significant value to them as teachers. They were also asked to list similar experiences. if any, which they felt had 101+ been of little or no value to them in this connection. Table XIIVII summarises the reported work experiences in terms of the numbers who reported it and the mean number of months reported. TADIJ mvn RIPORTID lOl-ACADIIIIC VCR! maniacs Type and lumber Roan Huber of Reporting Per lumber of 2229.21 M 22!.“ “i__nths Privat. College (30) 22 73.3 32.8 Small Public (96) 32 . 69.6 151.7 ledium Public (52) 29 . 55.? no.0 Mic—.12) “9 _Q'h‘i 53.; M $1.86) 132 79.9 ' 'fiJ Ihe most important conclusion obtainable from this table is that the IlaJority. in each category of teachers. have had a considerable amount ' of such experience. Thus. the average for all teachers is nearly four ”are. It should be observed that this average is based on reported figures W“ ranged from three months to a hifi of 2&2 months. However. there W 011? one person reporting over two-hundred months and very few in the NC. from one-hundred to two-hundred. The nest couon figures reported “3" in the vicinity of the reported averages. The kinds of work report- '4 "need through various types of naval and military service. summer 4”” POrmanent appointments for one or more years in business. industrial. “4 “Ourch organisations. and regular operation of self-owned business- " on ‘ part-time basis. I . he large amount of this experience is somewhat affected by the fact ht ”n. of it was obtained in military service. However. only 105 forty of the 132. who reported such experiences. listed military service averaging twenty-five months. in answering this question. The types of experience reported included many that obviously contributed to practical knowledge in the physical sciences. Among those listed were; ordnance service involving research in the chemistry of explosives, establishing schools in lurepe for families of any personnel, radar instructor. communications officer, and electronics officer. In a free-response question, the teachers were asked to give some of the reasons why they considered this nowadeaic work experience to be of value to them as teachers. All of the reasons given appeared te fall within the general meaning of one or more of the eleven statements contained in Table mm. This table also shows the number of times each reason was observed among the 132 teachers who reported such work experience. It shows that almost half of tnem considered this work to have contributed meet to their knowledge of practical applications of their subject fields, while another large group saw it as having added te their general knowledge of their subject matter fields. Although the statements given fitted most directly into the above-— mentioned eleven categories. a little reflection makes it apparent that there is considerable overlapping among these statements. They could be all smarised under the following three statements: 1. Such experience adds depth. objectivity. and an improved bal- ance of emphasis to one's teaching by increasing his knowledge of his subject field and its practical applications. (This includes reasons 1. 2. 7. and 8.) 2. Through its contribution to a better understanding of human relations. such experience improves one's general maturity level. and 106 aids in the ability to counsel students. and in obtaining rapport with them. (This includes reasons 3. 5. and 6.) um mm more war IOHCADIHIC '03! IXPIBIIICI “8 OP VALUI AS 01m 132 moms 1| Reason Huber of Tina 19th 1. 2. 3. 5. b. 7. 9. 10. 11. Contributed to a knowledge of practical applications of the physical sciences and provided useful illustra- tions for classroom teaching. _ 62 Contributed to knowledge of subject matter. 51 Improved ability in counseling students. 29 Contributed to a better understanding of the skills. knowledge, and abilities required in business and industry. 2“ Increasedability to obtain student respect and rapport while supervising their work. ‘ 21 Increased general maturity level. 16 Provided a better balanced perspective as to the rela- tive value of subject matter and its practical applica- tions. 15 Added depth to teaching 13 “proved ability to evaluate student progress ' 2 prerience of giving instruction while in military or naval service inspired them to take up teaching as a career. 2 Provided numerous “contacts" which are of great value in assisting students with vocational placement. 1 3. Throudi a first-hand acquaintance with actual knowledge, skills, “‘4 “Militias needed for success in business and industry, one should be better able to advise students regarding their vocational plans, and to 107 evaluate their progress while acquiring the knowledge, skills, etc. that they will need. (This includes reasons It and 9.) The last two of the eleven reasons were not frequently mentioned ‘and are not thought to have very wide application to this question of whether non-academic work experience has real value for junior college teachers. . non-academic work experiences. other than short-term or minor jobs. which had been obtained. but which were considered of no value. were asked for because it was assumed that some might report certain jobs to be of high value. while others considered the same type of work to be valueless. Such did not turn out. to be the case. Pew reported any work’ that was considered or no value to tnem as teachers. In fact. several commented that they didn't consider this to be possible. Those who did report such work were twenty-five in number and listed primarily laboring and clerical tasks. One surprising exceptionto this observation as a teacher whoflisted six months service as an analytical chemist. and thirty months as a research chemist, under the heading of non-academic work experience which he considered of no value to him as a junior college physical science teacher. . From all of the above considerations. it seems that the teachers in this survey have generally had considerable non-academic work exper- ' ience which they regard as having been of significant value to them in their teaching. They were also .asked to state whether they would favor the requirement of some such experience'in the training of prospective teachers. The’answers were counted according to those who would require it. those who would recommend it, those who were indifferent, and those opposed. The results are shown in Table mix. *t shows substantial 108 agreement between each of the groups to the effect that this should not be required but should be recommended. Those who opposed this suggest- ion gave reasons that centered around two main points. These were: (1) There is already a critical shortage of teachers in this field and setting up any additional requirement of this nature is too likely to discourage promising prospects from entering this field of teaching. (2) Current salary levels in business and industry are generally higher than those in education. and a good many teachers might decide to stay with companies for whom they originally intended to work only temporarily. TABLE m1! BICOHMENDATIONS RIGARDIIG TH! REQUIWT OF HON-ACADEMIC VORK EXPERIENCE m B_e madgt Muir: ficonmend Indiffgmt m“; Type of a 111 Teachers lumber 29 Per Cent 15.6 Administrators lumber 11 Per Cent 10.6 Experts Number 5 Per Cent 13.2 99 53-2 71 68. 2 26 68.1} 26 ' 32 in.a 17.2 14 8 13.5 7.2 ‘t 3 10.5 7.9 In summary. it appears that non-academic work experience has gener- ally been obtained by the junior‘college physical science teachers in this survey. They considered it to be of significant value to them as teachers, and would recomend. but not require it. for prospective teachers. 109 III liiscellaneous Recommendations The final question on each of the three questionnaires was: “Is there any phase of training for prospective junior college physical science teachers, that has not been mentioned in this questionnaire, wish you feel should be stressed?“ A detailed summary of the teachers' cements elicited by this question is found in Appendix ll-l. It should first be noted that most of the teachers made no comment. or those that did, twenty-three took this opportunity to criticise, some with extreme severity, almost everything about colleges and departments of lducation. The alleged lack of substance and repetitive nature of lducation courses were mentioned most frequently. Others criticised professors of Educa- ion for being "the poorest teachers I ever had' or for not “practicing what they preach.“ Numerous constructive suggestions were made in this section. Of particular value would seem to be the following: (a) Physical Science teachers should have special training in the techniques of using demonstration apparatus. I (b) They should have some training in the use, care, maintenance, and improvising of laboratory and audio-visual equipment. (c) They need course work that attempts to integrate the physical sciences. (d) They need to study the functions of various types of committees that teachers serve on. (a) They should have careful supervision by a good teacher for at least two years. ' . comments elicited from administrators are summarised in Appendix 14-2, and those from the experts in Appendix M-3. Administrators' and prerts' 110 comments tended to reinforce some of those made by the teachers, parb ticularly those items (a) and (b) above. Once again there is some comment that higher emphasis should be placed on subject matter train- ing than on lducation courses. It is particularly significant that one of the exports, a nationally known professor of higher education, cautions against the danger of requiring too many Education courses. 0f the many other comments that were made, those that express a need for interest in people, broad rather than narrow training, ability in handling general education courses, and a.spirit of community servico appear to be the most significant. XIII Hichigan Teachers In Michigan the two-year, post-high school institutions, of the type being discussed in this survey, are offically designated as community colleges. Questionnaires were sent to all seventeen of these institutions in the state and responses were received from fifteen of them. .As nearly as can be estimated from these responses, there are fifty-three physical science teachers in these fifteen colleges. Thirty-three, or 62.3 per cent, of then returned questionnaires. Also, thirteen, or 76.9 per cent, of the administrators completed the questionnaire. light of the public colleges are small, five are medium, and one is a large institution, and there is one private college. However, the teacher returns were distributed as follows: nine from small public colleges, twenty from medium, and three from large institutions. There was one from a private college. lamina; y.’ \ ..vqh. rs}; J) . in: .1... 1.1.]. (Ill‘ 4!!! 111 An analysis of the data obtained from these teachers did not, in general, reveal many important differencesbetween them and the means and medians found for all teachers in the survey. For this reason only certain areas are being reported. Results in areas not specifically mentioned were found to agree closely with the other groups in the survey. A greater proportion of the Inchipn teachers reported work in Iducation courses than was generally true. Thus, thirty-two, or 96.9 per cent, of than reported credit in this kind of training while only 85 per cent of all teachers indicated a background in lducation. This difference is probably due to the legal requirements in these areas in this state, whereas many respondents to the survey are in states where these requirements do not exist. The mean number of hours reported was approximately thirty for all groups including the Michigan teachere. Practice teaching in high schools was reported by 78 per cent of the local teachers while only 53.8 per cent of all teachers indicated this experience. none of the Hichigan teachere reported practice teach- ing experience in a junior or community. college. Table XL shows the degree levels reported by the in-state teach- ers. From this table it is evident that only about 27 per cent have had substantial work beyond the master's level. Comparing this with the data on each type of school, as sham in Table 111111, it is evident that this measure of total preparation is considerably lower in this state than is the case for all other groups except the small public colleges. In this same connection, only 69.7 per cent of the local teachers reported work in graduate majors. Table 11? .110" m1», gm. compares 112 TABLE IL DEGREE LIVES mam BY 33 MICHIGAN mm: Hiéggt Dgass lagged Bachelor's Master's Master's .Doctor's M Huber 3 21 9 0 Per Cent 9.1 63.7 27.2 0.0 _— "Bhis includes all who reported 50 or more graduate credits. Iavorably with the private college teachers, 70 per cent of whom report- sd work in this area. However, 81 per cent of all teachers reported substantial graduate credit here. Also, the degree levels recommended by the Michigan teachers appear generally lower than the comparable figures for other groups. Table 11.: shows the in-state results. run: n: 13le “m3 3300mm BY 32 “1031“! MOMS Bachelor's Master's Master's Docter'. Plus 29 Huber O 21 10 1 Per Cent 0.0 65.7 31.2 3.1 a comparison of these figures with those in i'able mu shows that about two-thirds of the local teachers favor the master's as the most appmpriate level, while only a... one-half of :11 teachers favor- ed levels as low as this. i'he Michigan teachers' recommendations agree nor. closely with those made by the private and small college instructors 113 in this case. In general it appears that the Michigan teachers differ from the other groups in one important respect, that being the matter of degree levels as Just discussed above. In all other respects they agree close- 1y with the averages for all teachers in the survey. Bu-Iary The findings obtained in this study show that: l. The teachers covered in the survey have generally had a sub- stantial number of years of teaching experience in Junior colleges: a' median of eight years was reported at this level, and about two-thirds or them have also had high school experience. 2. Over 90 per cent of the teachers are qualified in more than one of the physical science areas, and about 60 per cent of them are expected to give instruction in two or more areas. As might be expected, this number of areas is larger for teachers in small colleges than for those in the larger institutions. However, the teachers in the large colleges are frequently expected to teach in at least two areas. Two is the most commonly recommended number of areas for prospective teachers. 3. The “typical" teacher reported an undergraduate major of from twenty-nine te forty credits, a graduate main of from nineteen te twen- ty eiynt credits, two undergraduate minors of from seventeen to eighteen credits, and one or two graduate minors of from eight to eleven credits each. The recenended undergraduate work includes a major with from tmty-four to thirty-six credits and two minors of about twenty hours each. Graduate work would consist of about twenty credits in a maJor subject matter i'ield, and additional work in one or two minors of about 11b. ten credits each. 1+. Three-fourths of the teachers reported foreign language train- ing which averaged to fifteen semester hours per teacher. About two- mrds of the teachers, slightly over half of the administrators, and only about one-third of the experts recomended foreign language train- ing for prospective teachers. About eleven credits were favored by the two groups of respondents, while those experts who favored it indicated that about nine hours would be sufficient. Twelve to fifteen credits in the humanities were generally favored by all respondents, and from nine te twelve hours were recommended in the social sciences. 5. About two-thirds of the teachers reported medians of approx- imately fifteen semester hours in undergraduate work in lducation courses. Nearly as my had also had graduate work in this area, with medians ranging from sixteen to eighteen hours. Over two-thirds of the teachers, nearly 90 per cent of the administrators, and virtually all of the ex- perts favored the acquisition of from seventeen to twenty credits in this area by prospective teachers. These credits should apparently be distributed among all of the nine specific Iducation courses listed in Table XVIII with the exception of “Junior College Administration' which was favored by only small percentages in each group. 6. Only about one-half of the teachers reported any work in sub- Ject matter research. flost of this was at the master's level, but enoud: doctor's degrees were reported te bring the average to eleven semester hours. About fifteen per cent reported some research in Education. How- ever, subject matter research, amounting to about six credits, was reco— mmended by large majorities in all grows. Research in lducation was favored by only 20 per cent of the teachers and administrators, and ‘fil'..:.vllu..»l..n Ia.’ r: c . J 115 1&0 per cent of the exports. 7. A majority of the teachers reported practice teaching exper- ience: practically all of it was done in hi¢ schools, and it was gen- erally rated as either 'very valuable“ or 'of some value! The degree of supervision exercised over it appears to have some positive correla- tion with the value of the experience. About three-fourths of the teach- ers, and well over 90 per cent of all in each of the other two grows of respondents, recommended that practice teaching be required of prospec- tive teachers. My favored the junior college as the most appropriate location for this training, but equally large numbers recommended that it be either a hid: school or a junior college. 8. line per cent of the teachers reported the bachelor's as the highest degree, while 13.5 per cent hold the doctorate. Thus, over three-fourths are at the master's level, and somewhat over a third of these have had approximately one additional year of graduate work. The recommended minimum degree is the master's in the subject matter field, while nearly lI-O per cent of the teachers favor considerable work beyond this level. significantly larger proportions of the ether two grows favor an additional year, or more, beyond the master's degree for pros- pective teachers. 9. Most of the teachers reported considerable non-academic work experience which they considered to be of real value to them as physical . science teachers. Majorities in all grows recommend, but would not require, the acquisition of some experience of this kind for prospective teachers. 10. Humorous miscellaneous comments are reported. Among the more important would «on to be those that: (a) criticise content and 116 requirements in Education courses, (b) suggest training in the use, maintenance, and improvisation of laboratory and demonstration apparatus. and (d) suggest the need for an interest in people and a spirit of communi- ty service. 11. Analysis of the data received from teachers in the state of llichigan reveals that in general they are very much like all teachers responding to this survey. However, in one important respect they ap— pear to be somewhat less well trained than those in the other grows. Thus, the degree levels reported by the in-etate teachers are lower than is generally the case except for those inthe small public colleges. Their reconendations in this area follow their own lewor levels of preparation and are typically lower than those urged by the entire group. 117 cm IV IMMT IONS AND “COMMATIONS in a number of respects the data obtained in this study show close agreement with the training patterns which have generally been re- commended by authorities in the field and by those who have reported re- search in this area. There is also disagreement in one or two areas and it is believed that new information has been obtained in others. The discussion in this chapter includes the following aspects of the problem: (l) academic training in the subject matter specialties, (2) social sci- ences, humanities, and foreign languages, ’(3) professional Education cours- es, (lt) research. (5) practice teaching, (a) degree levels desired, (7) non-academic work experience, and (8) a recomonded program for the pro- paration of junior college teachers of physical science. I Academic Training in the Subject Matter Specialties an inspection of Table 1111 reveals that only about 7 per cent of the teachers consider themselves qualified to teach in only one of the physical science subject areas, while about 15 per cent claim qualification in two areas. The remainder, which is ever 75 per cent of them, claim . three .or more areas and the largest single grow estimated that they were 2 prepared to teach in five areas. However, the data in Table IV suggest lSss p. 73 See p. 7b 118 very strongly that the teachers were somewhat generous in estimating the 1mmber of areas in which they are qualified to teach. This table shows that they generally reported undergraduate work in two minor areas and graduate work in either one or two. Thus, it would appear that they are not generally qualified to teach in more than three areas. As for the number in which they actually teach, it is evident that most of them give instruction in either one or two areasa, but nearly one-third of them are expected to teach in three or'aore. 1t is also noted that majorities of each of the three groups of respondents recommended training in two or'more areas for'prospoctive teachers“. The fact that these same respondents also recommended un- dergraduate work in a.major and two minorss suggests the possibility of the need for training in three areas. Thus, it would appear that a prospective teacher should be prepared in at least two of the major sub- divisions of physical science, and that there is a considerable likeli- hood of his being called upon to teach in three. The depth of training needed by these teachers is suggested by the reccmmended total credits in majors and minors as shown in Tables 1V16. {17117,‘andMXVlIIB. The medians on all of these show general agreement regarding the need for a thirty-credit undergraduate majorgta twenty- U See p. 73- See p. 73. See pp. 78 and 81. See p. 78 See P. 79 See p. 80 :- (DVO‘V! 119 credit graduate major. 'two undergraduate minors of twenty credits each, and either one or two graduate minors of about ten credits each. I: the prospective teacher plans to give instruction in two areas, the above-outlined program. with a single minor at the graduate level. would probably prepare him adequately in his teaching subjects. To teach in three areas he would need a second graduate minor. 11" he were to obtain this he would obviously need about forty graduate credits in subject matter fields. II Social Sciences. Humanities, and Foreign Languages ‘l'he totals recouended in the social sciences and humanities ap- pear to warrant little further coment9. Physical science teachers need some work in these areas as a necessary part of their general education. The recommended totals of 12—15 hours in the humanities and 9—12 hours in social science may appear small for a broad liberal education of the kind needed by junior. college teachers. but they undoubtedly represent practical limits that cannot be violated without sacrificing other, and even more vital, course requirements. Foreign language training was recommended by about two-thirds of the teachers. only a little over one-half of the administrators, and by about one-third of “the experts“. In this connection, it is noted that the teachers were recommending something that they had probably been re— quired to study themselves. Perhaps there is some significance in the 98ee p. 85. 120 fact that 76 per cent of the teachers reported training in this field and only 65 per cent recommended it. Its value is evidently doubted by a large majority of the experts and nearly half of the administrators. Based on this conflicting evidence and on this writer's opinion, it is recommended that, if taken at all, foreign language training should be acquired during the early undergraduate years. It is further recom- mended, primarily because of its doubtful value in the eyes of the out- standing authorities in this field, that it should not be a pro-requisite for the subject matter master's degree that junior college physical sci- ence teachers are expected to obtain. 11! Professional Iducation Courses Although the teachers indicated considerable discontent with the quality and content of the lducation courses they had taken. 71 per cent of them still considered training in this area to be desirable, at least to the extent of about eighteen semester hoursn. Both the administrators and experts favored slightly higier totals in this field. The reason for the continued criticism of lducation courses de- serves some comment. In this survey, as has been previously noted“. the criticisms most frequently made were those that had to do with the so-called repetitive nature of Education courses, and their lack of stimulating content. Undoubtedly some of this criticism is based on mis- conceptions and narrow-minded thinking on the part of those who see themselves primarily as specialists in a subject matter field and 11 12 Bee pp. 86 and 109 See p. 89 121 secondarily as teachers. However, the frequency of this criticism, com- bined with the absence of similar comment with regard to other fields of academic training, suggests that part of it is probably valid. It is the author's opinion that much of this criticism stems from the apparent fact that mastery of the subject matter content in a typical lducation course is considerably easier than is a similar mas- tery of the content in a course in any of the physical sciences. If this is true, it suggests that more content could be added to the typi- cal lducation course without altering the credit value assigned to it. However, true or not, it should be evident that the ease with which a subject can be understood does not necessarily have an important bear- ing on its value. Thus, even the teacher shoes sharp criticism is quot- ed on page 86 recognised the need for this work by recommending consi- derable credit in Education courses for prospective teachers. It should further be noted that the physical science "specialist“ who criticiseslducation courses for lack of content is probably fail- ing to recognise the difference in objectives between his field and that of lducation. Physical science is an old and well-established field in which content mastery should undoubtedly be a primary objective in most of the course work. [Iducation is a newer and more nebulous field of knowledge, i.e. it involves attempts to learn how the human mind func- tions, how personalities develop. and how teachers and professors can most effectively educate ever better minds and personalities. The answers to these questions are being sought but are not yet known. The science of lducation has not yet been, and may well never be, reduced to the \simple mathematical statements of fact that characterise the physi- cal sciences. ‘Phus, although a huge proliferation of information 122 has been amassed in Education, a knowledge of all of its details is not generally a valid objective of the Education student. His professors are trying to train teachers, and in doing so they are more interested in developing teacher attitudes and interests commensurate with a Christian-democratic philosophy of service to his fellow man (particu- larly his students) than they are in content mastery. Uhile it is undoubtedly true that Education courses frequently fail to attain these objectives, it is also true that measuring progress toward their accoaplishment is so difficult that the Education professor frequently falls back on measurement of content mastery as a basis for assigning grades. In the light of the above considerations it is the opinion of. this author that: (1) Professors of Education should use every possible precaution to avoid repetition of previously mastered content in their courses. (2) They should take similar precautions against avnrding high grades for more content mtery in courses where this should not be a primary objective. (3) Evaluation procedures should be evolved to permit measure- ment of progress toward the actual objectives in Iducation courses. Turning to the totals that were reported and those that were recom- mended in this survey, there is no doubt that majorities in all groups favored the inclusion of from eighteen to twenty hours in lducation. The recommendations varied considerably as to the level at which this training should be obtained. Table n11 ’ shows a brealndown of the recommended totals at both the graduate and undergraduate levels. Here it is seen that only about one-third of the teachers, over one-half of .brs ||.Iv|4n 123 the administrators, and over 90 per cent of the experts favor the imp clusion of some graduate work in.lducation TABLE ILII RICOHMIHDID LIVILS JOB EDUCATIOI COURSES Tgachgrs ggginistratggg ggpgrts UNDERGRADUATE lumber of respondents 125 85 3“ Per Cent 67.2 81.7 89.3 Wits 12.2 15.52.— GBADUITI number of respondents 58 58 35 Per Cent 31.2 55.8 92.1 Average Number of Semester Hours 9.3 ‘9.7 7.9 Turning to Table 111713 one finds that nearly two-thirds of the teachers reported graduate work in this field in their own training. The reason that many of them.re1egate this work.to the undergraduate level is probably tied up with the suspected ease of mastery and a feel- ing that this is an area which is not worthy of graduate study. How- ever, in view of the previous discussion of Educational objectives, it seems entirely appropriate to this writer to require some of this work at both levels. Table XLII shows that the administrators, and particur larly the experts, agree with this plan. The reasons that appear 1 3See p. 87 121+ pertinent are: (1) Education courses are needed by prospective teachers at the undergraduate level for the purpose of developing, early in their careers, a “teacher“ rather than a "specialist“ attitude. (2) They are needed at the graduate level in order to take advantage of the increased maturity of the student at this point in his career. Also it is believ—- ed that some of this work would be of greatest value if postponed until some actual teaching experience had been acquired. As to the actual courses that should be taken, the list previous- ly citedlh appears to cover the necessary areas. No data pertaining to the level at which each of these courses should be taken were gathered. |l'he final recommendationts place philosophy of lducation, guidance and counseling, and curriculum construction at the graduate level because of the author's opinion that the maturity and practice teaching exper- ience of the graduate student are needed if the full value of these courses is to be realised. 17 Research It as hypothesised that not more than a small amount of training in research is needed by junior college physical science teachers. The recommendations made by all grows in this survey appear to support this hypothesis. Thus, two-thirds of the teachers and administrators, and nearly 90 per cent of the experts, favored from five to six credits in this aspect of graduate training. Since this fits in well with the 1+ 1 See p. 90 158“ p. 132 125 usual master's degree it appears to be a reasonable recommendation. It is significant also to note that, whatever graduate training these respon- dents do favor at levels beyond the master's, it is clearly not in re- search. v Practice Teaching An effort me made in this study to determine: (1) How any of the teachers in this field had practice teaching in their own experience? One hundred and twenty , or on per cent, re- ported that they nadlb. (2) that value did these teachers see in their own practice teach- ing experience? Fifty-eight, or “9.7 per cent, of those who had it rated it as “very valuable.” Forty-seven, or 39.5 per cent, rated it as llof some value." The other fifteen, or 12.6 per cent, rated it as "of very little value17.' (3) What effect did the degree of supervision exercised during this experience have on its value to the teaching intern? As previously reported“, a positive, but rather low, correlation was found to exist between these two aspects of the question. (1+) At what educational level did the teachers do their practice teaching, and at what level is it recommended, if at all, by all respon- dents? In general they reported at as done in high schools and recom- “as. p. 96 17 See p. 96 188» p. 96 126 mended that it be done either there or in a junior college”. it is suspected that if teaching internships were readily available in junior colleges, a larger proportion might have favored this as the recommended level. That such internships are not awailable at present is attested to by the fact that only 2.1 per cent of the reporting teachers had their practice teaching at this level. In spite of this, 20 per cent of them I.- recommended that it should be done in a junior college. and an additional I 26 per cent checked the choice marked ”junior college or high school.‘ It is also noted that although 51.6 per cent of the teachers, who had practice teaching, had it in high schools, only “.3 per cent recommended this as the single most desirable choice. The “junior college” was the most popular choice on this question with each of the other two groups. All of the above considerations make it evident that a carefully supervised practice teaching experience in a junior college should be recommended for prospective teachers. VI Degree Levels The data on degree levels reported by the teachers, and recommend- ed by all grows, generally support the hypothesis that approximately one year of graduate work beyond the master's level should be accomplished by prospective junior college physical science teachers. 1'his was gen- 20 orally recommended by both the administrators and experts . and is 198» pp. 97 and 99. 20 See p. 103 127 stated in spite of the low numbers of teachersZI, who favored the inter- mediate level, for three reasons; (1) The administrators are more like- ly to determine the type of teacher who is appointed, and they favor the hdgher level. (2) The teachers themselves have, for some reason, generw ally reported higher levels of graduate training than they are here recommending. C3) If one followed all of the other recommendations, he would inevitably accumulate considerably more than the usual require- ment of thirty credits for a master's degree. Thus, the most appro- priate training is seen as including twenty credits in a graduate major, two ten-credit graduate minors, and about ten credits at this level in Education courses. This totals to fifty credits and thus comes much closer to two years of graduate work than it does to a single year. VII lonqlcademic Work Experience Little additional comment seems needed regarding the fact that a considerable amount of nonpacademic work experience was reported by the responding teachers, and that they considered it to be of real value to them as teachers. Similarly there was substantial agreement that this should be recommended for, but definitely not required of, prospective teachers. a.note of warning was sounded by a few in each group who feared that teachers might be lost to the profession while acquiring such experience. This would undoubtedly happen in isolated cases, but it is felt that, if such experiences are obtained during summer 'vacation" periods after beginning service as a teacher, this danger would not be 21See p. 102 uir 128 serious, and the values accruing from this kind of experience would far outweigh such occasional losses. VI! A Recommended Program for the Preparation of ‘ Junior College Teachers of Physical Science The training program which is recommended in this section is based primarily on the recommendations made by 186 Junior college physi- cal science teachers, 10h Junior college administrators, and thirty-eight of the outstanding leaders in this field today. Due consideration has also been given to authoritative opinion and research studies as found in the Junior college literature. It is recommended that students who plan to become physical sci- ence teachers in Junior colleges should acquire the following academic and professional training: 1. 1h; Unggggraduatg m a. Sgbject 91.0.12. This should consist of a major in either chem-r istry, mathematics, or physics with not less than twenty-four, and pre- ferably thirty to thirty-six, semester hours of credit. b. Subjggt m. There should be two such minor fields of emphasis with not less than twenty credits in each. Beoause of its pre- requisite value in all of the physical sciences, it is recommended that, if mathematics is not a major, it will be one of the minors. The second minor could be in a single physical science or composed of a selection of three or four one-year courses in each of several of the sciences. c. Education courses. If the student plans to teach in a state which has specific credential requirements in this area, these should ‘- btfl'-‘ 129 obviously be consulted in planning the program. Otherwise the program should include from twelve to fifteen hours in course work which covers the most important aspects of: (1) history of education, (2) history and philosophy of the Junior college, (3) psychology, particularly as applied to the late adolescent, (4) techniques of teaching, and (5) test- ing, measurement, and evaluation. The course in teaching methods, or techniques, should not be a theory course. It should be taught either 7 -'__n by, or in collaboration with, an expert teacher of some lower-division course in one of the physical sciences at the university. It should require considerable practical work on the part of the students in such things as planning assignments, the use of demonstration apparatus in- cluding audio-visual equipment, and the preparation and delivery of at least partial “lectures“ on suitable topics in the subject field, and should also include some observation of instruction in this field'in a Junior college. d. m m gthumaniti I- Prom nine to twelve credits should. be elected in each of these areas. ' e. llggtiggg. The program outlined above will result in the acquisition of from ninety to one hundred credits. General university requirements in basic subjects, physical education, and military or naval science my consume the balance of a bachelor‘s degree program of ' from 120 to 130 credits. If they do not, the student should determine whether the university at which he intends to take his master's degree requires a reading knowledge of a foreigi language as a pro-requisite for that degree in his field. If this is the case, it is recommended that . he take from six to twelve credits in either German or French during his undergraduate years rather than postponing such work to the time when 130 a graduate degree is being sought. In order to gain a better perspective of the sciences. as a whole it would be desirable to elect some work in biological scienceand, to improve his effectiveness as a teacher, he should also elect some course work in speech, and audio-visual education. 2- 23.9. ____.sGr-duat mars-... a. M 2.12!- This should consist of from fifteen to twenty credits in the physical science area of the student's greatest interest. It should include either a master's thesis in this field or g course work specifically designed to develop appreciation of the value of and knowledge of the methods used in research. It is also noted at this point that the emphasis in this program should be different from that for the usual graduate student who plans to go on to the doctoral level and possible university teaching or industrial research activities. It is recommended that some of the courses which are selected should be such as will: (1) give the prospective teacher a more thorough under- standing of scientific principles as they relate to industry and business than usually obtains in research-oriented graduate courses in the physi- cal sciences, and indicate to him ways and means of applying these to practical job situations; (2) develop the prospective teacher's manipu- lative skill, in order that he may give effective demonstrations and become effective in directing laboratory instruction; and (3) by means of occasional field trips, point out the relationships between principles and their application to production problems at the semi-professional level. While courses which recognise these as primary objectives are probably not available at .most universities, it is believed that this study has suggested a need for this kind of practical orientation 131 on the part of teachers in these areas. Thus, it is recommended that a university that would train junior college teachers of physical science should establish one or two such courses at the graduate level, either as interdisciplinary offerings or in each of the major physical science areas. b. £139; 5mg. Two minors of approximately ten credits each should be acquired. At least one of these should consist of graduate work which is countable toward a subject matter master's degree. The second minor would probably be deferred until the degree had been con- ferred. At this point, since a doctor's degree is not being recommended, the student should be free to choose undergraduate work in a minor area designed to develop a third teaching field, if he had not already acquir- ed a second minor in a single subject area at this level. 0. 11351423 Mpg. During the first term following the con- ferral of the master's degree the candidate should spend from eight to fifteen weeks as a teaching intern in a junior college. This should be done under the direct supervision of an experienced junior college teach- er. Until such time as some two-year graduate degree may become popu- larly accepted, the question of university credit for this internship does not seem too important. However, the program should be formalised under the control of the university and should probably carry from nine to twelve credits. At the completion of his internship, the candidate might return to the university for the balance of the second y... of graduate work that he should ultimately acquire, or remain as a full-time instructor at the junior college for the remainder of the year. If the latter plan is followed, he could well complete his graduate work during summer -' t) '1 132 sessions at the university. d. ‘Egpggtigg.gggggggg These should include from six to twelve graduate credits in the fields of philosophy of education, curriculum construction, and guidance and counseling. Concluding Statement The program that is here recommended represents a minimum that appears desirable for the initial preparation of a well-qualified jump ior college physical science teacher. In addition to the formal course work described in this program, it is strongly recommended that such teachers acquire some nonpacademic work experience in locations where practical applications of the physical sciences are being put to use. This work should be performed during summers when teachers are free of instructional duties, but should not become an annual financial neces- sity, nor should it be done at the expense of ocassional attendance at university summer sessions for “refresher“ courses. f If this program were followed by prospective junior college teachers of physical science, it is believed that they would be adequate- ly trained in both breadth and depth within their teaching fields, in general education, and in professional training suitable for this field of higher education. 133 BIBLIOGRAPHY 30018 Bloc-n. Theodore 0.. and 000w. line-011 11.. The W 2:. 29.11.25: . Aaerican Council on lducation Studies, Series I, r- Volume 11:. Washington: American Council on lducation, 1950. 186 p. Bogus, Jesse P., am My; 99.111521}. 1219. Fourth ldition. Washington: American Council on lducation, 1956. xi — 5816 p. Bogue, Jesse P.. The W 2211.!“- lew fork: Redraw-Hill, 1950. xxi - 390 p. 7 “1"”: cl". 0., and 3011. Arnold A., |Qualifications of Junior Col- loco Teachers, Administrators and Board “embers.“ American As- ggciation 11; Junigr m m m, Volume ll, Tum- ber 2. Austin: American Association of Junior Colleges, 1951. 55 p- moknort. John L. The 29.4.“ n 2:. is: m is W 2am- lew York: Harper and Brothers, 1956. 201: p. lells, Walter 0., Angciatg'! m g Graduation Pm tics! in .1219; Cglleggg, Washington: American Association of Junior Colleges, Bells, Walter 0., 1.113; mm Gollggg. rss Iork: noughton win-1n 0s.. 1931. xxvii - 833 p. ‘ Good, Garter 7., and Scates, Douglas 1.. 593.93%; 933 gqqqagqh. low York: Appleton-Century-Orofts, Inc., 195 . xx - 920 p. Henry, Nelson 3., Editor, _T_h_g mmm. Chicago: Univer- sity of Chicago Press, 1956. .2“ 1' ”Education £93: “_a_—rim 22222222.; A m a: the menus @mmigsign pg Highs; 1lidugatign. Volume I. lstablishing the Goals, vii - 103 p.; Volume II, Squalising and Expanding Individual Opportunity, vii - 69 p.; Volume III, Organising Higher Educa- tion, v - 71+ p.; Volume IV, Staffing Higher Education, vii - 63 p.; Volume V. financing Higher Idueation, vii - 68 p.; Volume VI. Resource Data, vii - 57 P. Washington: U. 8. Government Printing 01:13.. 19u7e Rollin, Irnest V., m mm mm, . Washington: American Council on Iducation, 191:5. xii - 20 p. 131+ Justmam, Joseph, and Mais, Walter H., Cgllege Teachipg: 1_t_s Prggtigg 93g Pgtential. New York: harper and Brothers, 1956. vii - 20‘! p. Keller. trod J.. Iditor. 1m 9.911159. W- Report of a Conference held at Chicago, Illinois, December 7 - 9, 1950, Sponsored by the American Council on Education and U.S. Office of lducation. In herican Council on Education Studies, Series I. ‘0. “8e Reed, A. Y., _ng l'ffggt‘i v; & IneffgctivgflgLLg— i__eacher. New York: The American Book Co., 1935. xiv - 3 Reynolds, James W.,"Preparation Needed for Faculty Members in Junior Colleges,'| W, Institutg 33;; Administrative Ofg'icggs Li; m lducatigg; 12%. Volume 18, pp. Bil—ho. Edited by John Dale Russell. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 19%. Riley, John W., Jr., et a]... Th9 Student Eggs. g_t_ .34! Tang . New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1950. xi - loo p. Sexson, John A., and Harbeson, John W., The LewAm riang C.g;legg New York: Harper and Brothers. 19%. xviii - 312 p. Smith, Huston, _T_h.g m 91111ng ucatign. low York: Harper and Brothers, 1955. xix - 218 p. Voollner, Robert C. , and Wood, M. Aurilla, neguirements__ for Certification 3; Teachers, Counse____l_.___ors, Librarians, Administrators: _f___or lemen- tan Schools,Seconda_:1 Schools, an__g_ Junior Colleges:—12§o-§zs Twenty-First Edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, ARTICLES Anderson, Harold A., I'The Preparation of College Teachers,“ 321519.951 ...—_ldmtion Mariam £52m. negate; my 1951. Baller, W. 1., and Worcester, 0. A., ."3upervised Teaching for Doctoral Students,” :19qu p_f_ Em lducatign, 25083-14; October 1951!. Blegen, meodore C., ‘ 'rerment in Graduate Education,“ National Egg; £122 Wm £92.21. 39:685-6: Deco-bar 1950- Blegen, Theodore C., “The Graduate School and the lducation of College Teachers,“ '_T_h_g Educatign £392.29: 29:12-25; January 19%. Bogus, Jesse P., and Ritter, Zora, “Junior College Directory," Junior College Jourgg, 26:281-307; January 1956. Bogus. Jesse P., and Waterman, Joanne, “Junior College Directory,” J n- 13 221125: 19221. 273273.304; January 1957. 135 Bousfisld, W. A., “Student Ratings of Qualities Considered Desirable in College Professors,“ 191195;], ng S c at , 513253-56: 305111317 19%. Breed, r. s., "A Guide for College Teaching," School and; Society, 2b:82-?; July 1926 Buschel, J. A‘., ”Desirable Backgrounds for Community College Teachers," Junie: Cgllegg figurnal, 19:117-18; November 19148. Ruliington, R. 3., 'Teachers and Teaching Procedures in College Gener- . al lducation Science Courses," Science Rgucatiog, 35:92-106; March 1951. E Clark, Selby 0., “Eighty Institutions Produce Doctors," Phi Delta 3}: m, 35087-89: June 1951:. """“ E 001"er Clyde 0., ”Ideal Junior College Instructor," Junior Cgllege 1; m. 25:502-7: May 1952. E Calvert, Clyde 0., “Professional Development of Junior College Instruc- tors,“ Junior 931133; J urnal, 25:1:714-78; April 1955. Colvert, Clyde C., ”Report of the Research Office, American Association of Junior Colleges,“ gm; £91135; Jgurnal, 26:95-107; October 1955- Colvert, Clyde 0., and Bright, H. F., ”Research Problems Preferred by Junior College Administrators,” Junior College Journal, 20:350-54; February 1950. Davis, J. 3., “Administrative and Supervisory Practices for Improving Instruction III," Junie; mug: m. 188365-73: March 19%- Dolan, P. 3., ”The Preparation of Junior College Teachers,“ Junior 2911.259 Ml. 22:329-36: Febmry 1952. Donovan, T. P., "Problems of the Instructor in the Junior College," 112.942; 9.911%: ...—Journal. 22xh9u-7: lav 1952. Duryea, r. 1).. Jr., "A Graduate Major in College Teaching," Schggl and Sogietz, 7o:1o7.8; September 1952. lckert, Ruth 1., "A New Design for the Training of College Teachers,” £221.22 2am: Joana-1. 18:25-33: September 19'”. Eckert, Ruth 1., ”Some Neglected Aspects in the Preparation of College Teachers," Th; Jgurnal 2;; “952ml Educatign, 3:137-1415; January .1909. Eells, Walter 6., ”The Junior College,“ Rnczclgpedia of Educational Rgsgg , Walter 3. Monroe, Editor, pp. bBO—Bh. New York: McMillan Co.. 1950. xxv - 1520 p. 136 French, Sidney J., ”Educating the College Teacher of Science," 2h; Journal 3; m Education. 3:87-97: January 1949. Garrison, Lloyd A., “Preparation of Junior College Instructors," J - .19.: 211;,“ m1. 12:135-u1; November 19th. Garrison, Lloyd A., I'Preparation of Junior College Instructors," _J_u_n_— 1.9.! 9.212% Jgurnal, 12:20h-9; December 19%. Geyer, D. In, “Qualities Desired in College,“ £293]. and 5201011. o3:27o-71; April 19%. G'ilger, G. A., ”Should Instructors Have Work Rxperienceh" Junior 291L931 Jgurnal, 13:192-7; December 1942. Goette, u. #1., and Roy, H. 1... "Ten Year Survey of Scholastic Aptitude of Junior college Students,“ Junigr 291.1“; M. 21:3-3: September 1950. Iliad” ”afim'fll’ hi 1': Gordon, T. 3., “Realistic Training for Junior College Service,” Cali- 19.1232: m 93; Seggndag Education, 21+:h80-2; December 191419. Gray, John 3., "Administrative and Supervisory Practices for Improving Instruction II," Junior £212.28! m, 18:238-ho3 January 19158. Gruenberg, Benjamin, "Dilemmas of the Science Teacher.“ Scieggg Educa- 119a. 33:288; October, 1919. -—-—- Guthrie, 3.3.. “haluation of hculty Service,“ mistin g; 3.3;" Ameri- W .91; W Mellon. 31:255-623Jmmy 19%. Haggerty, I. 3., “The Professional Training of College Teachers,” Milena-s1 WWI-t r . 22108-23: June 1927. Hamlin, N. 3., ”Preferences of Junior college Administrators Toward High School Teaching Experience," £119.12: 29.1.1181 ggurnal, 21:236-9: December 1950. Hawkins, T. J .. “Junior college Teachers, some Unique characteristics,” Janis: 9.9.1195: 12219.1. 25:298-302: January 1955. Henderson, 1.. N., "Internship in Junior College Teaching.“ Juniog 9.9.1113: m. 27088-95: March 1957. Hillwey, Tyrus, 'Professional Preparation of College Teachers,“ M 9.1; 293.119.: W. 38306-7: December 1952. . 301118. lmat V.. “Preparation of Teachers for Terminal Curricula," 129.119.! cgllegg m, 11:555-7: Hay 19M. Boughton, Donald 3., "A Ph.D. for Junior college Teachers in the Soc- ial Sciences and the Humanities," M 2911151 m, 23:225-28; December 1952. - 137 Ingalls, R. A., ”Problems of Staffing the Community College," Nation- 21 Association 9; Sgcgndan Scle Principal! Mletin, 37893401: April 1953- Koos, Leonard V., “Junior College Teachers Cooperations,“ Junig; 921.1128! Jgurgg, 19099-411; March 1949. loos, Leonard V., iiJunior College Teachers: Background of Rxperience,” (pp. “57-69), “Degrees and Graduate Residence,“ (pp. 77-89), “Preparation in Education,“ (pp. 332—114), "Subjects Taught and Specialised Preparation,“ (pp. 196-209), Junior cgllege m, 18: (pp. as above); September 191+? to May 198. loos, Leonard V., “Preparation for Community College Teaching,“ figur- g m Educatiog, 21 :309-17; June 1950. Ioos, Leonard V., I'Programs of Junior College Teacher Preparation," £219.: 9.91112: Enamel. 1933334“); l'obmrr 191+9. loos, Leonard V., “Programs of Junior college Teacher Preparation Imperative," gunig; 9.91125: m. 18xu23-2u; April 1918. lartorana, S. V., "Washington's Teacher lducation Plan Related to Preparation of Community College Instructors," Jgigr £911“; m, 22:125-29; November 1951. Melvin, H. L., "Instructional Practices Used in Selected Public Junior Colleges,“ 312319.! Collggg 312111—333.- 27zu02-5: Harch 1957. Nerson, T. 3., “Preparation and Selection of Instructors for Community Colleges,“ ggifggia m of; Segndag Educatign, 31:1:96-501: December 1956. lushlits, ll. 3., “Academic Preparation of Junior College Personnel,“ m Jgurngi 93: W Rdmtigg,” 22:h92-5; December 191W. . Novak, R. J., “And as for Industrial Experience,” Sciegcg W, 213221-33 October 195“. Odom, S. L., "An Objective Determination of the Qualities of a Good College Teacher,” m Jgurg]i 9; Rdggatign, 21:109-16; September 1916. Payne, Pernandus, I'Teaching Science at the College Level.“ flletin 91 £21. Amggican Assggiatigg g Qgiversity £52m, . 36:“97-510; Fall 1950. Pike, A. H.. and Fields, R. R., "Community College Problems," Tflhgr's 99.11252 m d. 513528-36: W 1950. Price, Hugh 0., I'Can Junior Colleges Achieve Superior Teaching‘lfl' M“ i.e.: 9.9.1135: 17.9.2121. MOB-h: October 1953. a 1‘1“" Elm—.— 'M-d‘ " r; 138 Pugh, D. B., and Morgan, 3. D., "Shortcomings in Preparation of Instruc- tors," Junior; 9211159. Jgurpg, Hobos-15; May 19%. Punks, Harold D., "Academic Qualifications of Junior College Faculties," Juni____o_r 22.31.1118! {93:99, 23:366-79: larch 1953. Punks, Harold D., "Ranking, Tenure, and Sex of Junior College Faculties," mm. 62:“80-7: Nov-bar 195“. Rankin, Oren R., "A Study of Competencies Desirable for Instructors of College General Education Courses in Physical Science," r: My; 1422511929 36:297-306: December 1952. ' Rauch, Walter D., "Instructor Bating Sheets," gunigr 29311.28... M awn-ho; Apr-11 1952. Reeder, I. 11., "Quarrel Between Professors of Academic Subjects and Professors of Education; An Analysis," Dullgtin 9_f_ 3h; American Assgciation 93; Univgrgity Profgsgrs, 37:506-21; September 1951. I r " ' : Reeves, 1‘. W., "How to Improve Instruction in Junior collsges," magma. 3:69-75: April 1929. Hammers, H. 5., "Qualities College Students Desire in College Instruc- tors," MQQ Sggietz, 30:232; August 1929. Reynolds, James V., "Administrative and Supervisory Practices for In- proving Instruction I," Junie; Collggg Jg urn“; 18:181-90; December 1914?. Rislov, Sigurd, "The Community College," M M, Volume 199, Number finch—7; June 1957. Rodgers, Robert, "Planning the In-Servics Training Program," Junie; 2211151 £12221. 23:185-9C: December 1950. Russo, S., "Qualifications of the Junior college Paculty," m fil- 13‘! m, 8:193-‘4; January 1938. "Science Teaching at the Junior College Level," Pgrtz-Sigth Yearbggk- a; £13 Natigggl M 3.22 311 St 9;; Educatigg, Part I, Idited by Nelson B. Henry, pp. 22 . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1915?. xii - 306 p. . Smith, A. A., "What is Good TeachingI, ' M 5;; mm ucatigns 15 :216-18- Aprn 19%. Smith, H. L., "Better Education of College Teachers; Junior College," lam Wm mar r . 23091-6: April 19'”- Starrack, J. A., "Student Rating of Instructors," gm 3; Highgr Eucatign, 5:88-90: February 19314. 139 Tapley, Earl W., "General Education and the Training of Junior College Teachers," M m. 61‘8191-63 ‘pfll 1956- Trabus, Marion R., "Characteristics of College Teachers Desired by College Presidents," m 9; m m, 2:133-38; January 1951. Trabue, Marion R., "What Traits Should Junior College Teachers Possess?" Junigr 9.91115: m, 21:1h0-h2; November 1950. Traphagen, A. L., "Student Teaching in Junior College," MI. Cgllegg Jgurnal, 23:147-9; November 1952. Umstattd, J. P., ”Course on College Teaching." 11ml 9.: 3.1522: 24.: gatign, 25:76-81; February 1951». ' Unruh, A. "Special Training Needed for Teachers in Junior Colleges or Community Colleges," M, 713139-16; November 1950. "Where to Go for Junior College Teacher Preparation," Junior College 1%. 18:WF—5: Aprn 191:8. ' " Weed, William R. , "Professional Personnel for Connunity Colleges," Mai 99.1.1252 mm. 29513.22: law 1950. m1- “TRIALS Blake, Wainwright D., "The Problems and Training ef the Junior College Instructor," Unpublished Doctor's dissertation. University of Missouri, 1912. iv - 122 p. Rhmann, Gerhard 1., "Come Criteria for the Training of Teachers in Gen- eral Education at Junior College Level in California," Unpub- lished Doctor's dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles, 1951. iv - 32h p. ‘ ‘ rrasier, Ralph P., "The Competencies and Patterns of Training Desirable for Instructors of Biological Science Courses in Generalqlduca- tion Programs," Unpublished Doctor's dissertation. University of Illinois, 1956. As found in Dissertation Abstracts, Velums 16, Number 6, p. 108o. Ann Arbor: University Nicref’ilms, 1950. Garrison, Lloyd A., "Junier College Teachers: Their Academic and Pro- fessional Rducation," Unpublished Docter's dissertatien. Yale UMVCflity. 19Me V "' 173 pa 1‘40 Hagie, Daryl G. , "A Comparative Study of Junior College Students with Students in Lower Divisions of Colleges Having only Undergraduate Programs," Unpublished Doctor's dissertation. State College of Washington, 1955. As found in Dingztatign Abgtggts, Volume 15, Part 2, p. 2438. Ann Arbor: University “icrofilms, 1955. Kidd, Rex C. , "The Imprevement of the Pre—Service Rducation of Under- graduate College Teachers," Unpublished Doctor's dissertation. University of Florida, 1951. As found in Henderson, L. N. . "Internship in Junior College Teaching," M W m, 27:388—95; March 1957. Ostlie, Selmer, "The Selection and Retention of Junior College Teach- ers,'l Uzmublished Doctor's dissertation. University of Southern California, 1951. xxxiii - 602 p. - . Petitjean, Charles P. , "A Study of Terminal Education in The Junior Colleges in Connecticut," Unpublished Doctor's dissertation. New York University, 1956. As found in D tat n Abgtggtg, Volume 16, Part 2, p. 2067. Ann Arbor: University icrofilms, 1956. Redemsky, Louis W., "The lducational and Vecational Plans of Senior ‘ High School Students with Special Reference to the Occupational Pattern of the Community, the Occupations of High School Graduates, and the Terminal Curriculum of the Junior College," Unpublished Doctor's dissertation. Michigan State College, 1952. xxiv - 330 p. Tapley, Barl W., "Preparation for Teaching General Rducation Courses in Junior Colleges," Unpublished Doctor's dissertation. University 01' Chi”. 1955s 11 - 200 De "A Two-Year Graduate Degree," University of Texas, June 1951. (mimeo.) uilliams, C. J., "An Analysis of the Physical Science Subject Matter a Competent Teacher of General or Physical Science Needs to Know," Unpublished Bachelor's thesis. Tennessee A. and I. State Univer- sity, 1952. As found in Johnson, Phillip 0., "Science Rducation Research Studies." 3.9.1222: 39.11.09.192. 38836: February 195“. APPENDIX A JUNIOR COLLEGES COMBATING 1&1 College and Location Nquivalent Pull-time 1529.111...— PRIVATR COLLIGRS Snead College, Boas, Alabama 13 ll'ort Smith Conunity College, Fort Smith, Arkansas 18 Little Rock Junior College, Little Rock, Arkansas 30 Jacksonville University, Jacksonville, l'lorida 26 Graceland College, Lamoni, Iowa 31 Northwestern Junior College, Orange City, Iowa 22 Waldorf College, Forest City, Iowa 21 Ricks College, Rsxburg, Idaho 1+6 Vincennes University, Vincennes, Indiana 19 Donnelly College, Kansas City, Kansas 12 Sacred Heart College, Wichita, Kansas 27 Campbellsville College, Campbellsville. lentucky 19 Caney Junior College, Pippa Passes, Kentucky 10 Westbrook Junior College, Portland, Maine 27 University of Baltimore Junior College, Baltimore, Maryland 16 Pine Manor Junior College, Wellesley, Hassachusstts 29 Spring Arbor Junior College, Spring Arbor, Michigan 10 81:61:11 College, Hancock, Nichigmn 13 Christian College, Columbia, Nissouri 35 Southwest Baptist College, Bolivar, Missouri 21+ Colby Junior College, New London, New Hampshire #4 1le Iquivalent College and Location Full-tine JILL-egg...— Bennett Junior College, Ilillbrook, New York 38 Paul Smith's College of Arts and Sciences, Paul Smith's, LY. 19 Centenary College for Wonen, Hackettstown, New Jersey #7 Cupbell College, Buie's Creek, North Carolina 35 Iaouieburg College, Louisburg, North Carolina 18 Peace College, Raleigh, North Carolina 16 Sinclair College, Dayton, Ohio 20 Johnstown Center, University or Pittsburgh, Johnstown, Penn. 31 Ieystone Junior College. LaPlune, Pennsylvania 18 Wyonissing Polytechnic Institute, Wyonissing, Pennsylvania 7 Freed-Bardenan College,.Henderson, Tennessee 20 Concordia College, Ililwaukee, Wisconsin 20 SMALL PUBLIC COLLEGES San Luis Obiepo Junior College, San Luis Obiepo, California 1‘} mt College, Taft, Cglirornia ‘ 2b Lenar Junior College, Lanar, Colorado 8 Chipola Junior College, Marianna, Florida 2? Georgia Southwestern College, Anericue, Georgia 18 Middle Georgia College, Cochran, Georgia 18 South Georgia College, Douglas, Georgia 18 llgin Community College, ngin, Illinois 21 Lyons Township Junior College, LaGrsnge, Illinois In Holine Cosmunity College, Molina, Illinois ~ 18 Norton Junior College, Chicago, Illinois 29 Ll... 1G3 College and Location glutalmezt 339211;: Boone Junior College, Boone, Iowa 6 Centerville Community College, Centerville, Iowa 7 Mason City Junior College. Mason City, Iowa 17 Arkansas City Junior College, Arkansas City, Kansas 15 Chanute Junior College, cMinute, Kansas 15 Dodge City College, Dodge City, Kansas 15 ll Dorado Junior College, ll Doredo, lansas l3 Hutchinson Junior College, Hutchinson, Kansas 23 Kansas City Kansas Junior College, Kansas City, Kansas ' 20 Ashland Junior College, Ashland, Kentucky 9 Alpena Con-unity College, Alpena, Michigan 15 Battle Creek Community College, Battle Creek, Michigan 5 Community College and Technical Institute, Benton Harbor, Mich.17 Gogebic Coamunity College, Ironwood, Michigan 9 Worthwestern Michigan College, Traverse City, Michigan 15 Port Huron Junior College, Port Huron, Michigan 23 South Maoonb Comunity College, Van Dyke, Michigan 16 Baltimore Junior College, Baltimore, Maryland 30 Montgomery Junior College, Takoma Park, Maryland 27 Holyoke Junior College, Bolyoke, Massachusetts lb Austin Junior College, Austin, Minnesota 134 Brainerd Junior College, Brainerd, Minnesota 10 Hibbing Junior College, Hibbing, Minnesota _ '22 Worthington Junior College, Worthington, Minnesota \0 Pearl River Junior College, Poplarville, uiesissippi 19 1141+ Iquivalent College and Location Fall-time - 1m... Joplin Junior College, Joplin, Missouri , . 29 Fairbury Junior College, l‘airbury, Nebraelm 12 Scottsblui’i’ College, Scottsblui'f, Nebraska 18 Asheville-Biltmore College, Asheville, North Carolina 15 Connors State Agricultural College, Warner, Oklahoma 20 Murray State Agricultural College, Tishomingo, Oklahoma 23 Navarro Junior College, Corsicana, Texas 23 Carbon College, Price, Utah 19 Northern Wyoming community College, Sheridan, Wyoming 16 mxm PUBLIC commons Phoenix College, Phoenix, Arizona 59 College of the Sequoias, Visalia, California ' bO Hartwell College, Salinas, California #5 Yuba College, Marysville, California 140 Pueblo Junior College, Pueblo, Colorado 70 Armstrong College of Savannah, Savannah, Georgia 35 Pensacola Junior College, Pensacola, norida ' ~ 50 Boise Junior College, Boise, Idaho A 50 Chicago City Junior College (Crane Branch), Chicago, Illinois 34 Bay City Junior College, Bay City, Michigan 1&1 Flint Junior College, flint, Michigan 70 Grand Rapids Junior College, Grand Rapids, Michigan 56 Jackson Junior College, Jackson, Michigan 33 ms Iquivalent College and Location lull-time r.culty Muskegon Community College, Muskegon, Michigan 32 Rochester Junior College, Rochester, Minnesota 51+ Meridian Municipal Junior College, Meridian, Mississippi 50 Northeast Mississippi Junior College, Booneville. Mississippi 33 Junior College of Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri 66 Orange Community College, Middletown, New York 5h North Dakota State Schoool of Science, Wahpeton, North Dakota 5“ 1m Caneron State Agricultural College, Lawton, Oklahoma Pan American College, Bdinburg, Texas . 52 San Antonio College, San Antonio, ‘Iexas I 90 Iexas Southmost College, Brownsville, Ismas ' 38 University of Isnuessee (Martin Branch), Martin, Tennessee 52 Clark College, Vancouver, Washington A on Grays Harbor College, Aberdeen, Washington 38 Milwaukee Institute of Technolog, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 32 Casper College, Casper, Wyoming '42 LAKE PUBLIC COLLIMS Bakersfield College, Bakersfield, California 113 East Los Angeles Junior College, Los Angeles, California 1&2 ll Canine College, El Camino, California 159 Long Beach City College, Long Beach, California 3 256 Los Angeles Valley College, Van Buys, California 135 Mount San Antonio Junior College, Pomona, California 118 Orange Coast College, Costa Mesa, California 105 ... _— 114-6 lquivalent College and Location Pull-time faculty San Bernadino Valley College, San Bernadino, California 96 Santa Rosa Junior College, sants Rosa, California 91+ Chicago City Junior College (Wright Branch), Chicago, 111. 185 Henry Bord Community College, Dearborn, Michigan 103 r.— lew York City Community College of Applied Arts and Sciences, Brooklyn, New York 192 Arlington State College, Arlington, Texas 116 Del Mar College, Corpus Christi, Texas 97 Weber College, Ogden, Utah 106 :44 Norfolk Division, College of William and Mary, lorfolk, Va. 101 W lit? APPENDIX B-l LITTER TO ADMINISTRATORS Dear Dr. : Undoubtedly you are well aware of the current shortage of physi- cal science teachers who are adequately prepared to teach in the Junior college. .Our universities are beginning to initiate programs which includesome training specifically aimed at the Junior college teaching field, but there is substantial disagreement and lack of knowledge as to what these programs should include. Ifigl .s The enclosed questionnaires are part of a research proJect, con- ducted under the auspices of the Department of Teacher Dducation, College of Education, Michigan State University. This project is an attempt to learn what would constitute the most appropriate professional prepara- tion for Junior college plursical science teachers. _ , A survey of outstanding leaders in Junior college education in various universities, state departments of public instruction and the U. 8. Office of lducation is also being conducted, but it is felt that two of the most important sources of information on this question are the Junior college administrators and teachers. hue we are asking your cooperation in distributing the questionnaires to the appropriate asmbers of your staff. We would like the “Questionnaire for Administra- tors' to be completed by the person most intimately concerned with the supervision, promotion, and hiring of physical science teachers at your institution. We would also like to have a copy of the “Questionnaire for 'i'eachers" distributed to each member of the staff who is principally (i.e., more than half-time) involved in the teaching of one or more of the physical sciences. If additional copies of this questionnaire are needed, they will be supplied upon request. We one outside of those who are immediately concerned with the research will have access to the questionnaires. Neither participating institutions nor individuals will be identified in the findings. Bach respondent who requests it will receive a digest of the final report. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely. 1. Scott Iinerson . ‘1‘“ I APPIIIDIX 3-2 1148 QUESTIC‘NI‘JAIRE FOP. I‘DiiINISTRATORS 1. Name 2. Title of present position 3. Name and location of employing institution b. Number of teachers on the staff who are principally, (i.e., more than half- time) involved in the teaching of one or more of the physical sciences. 5. In your opinion, what would be the most appropriate degree level for prospec- tive junior college physical science teachers? a) Bachelor's c) Master's plus about 30 semester hours b) Master's d) Doctor's 5. Please indicate your views as to the approximate number of semester hours of college credit which would be most apprOpriate for prOSpective junior college physical science teachers in each of the following subject areas. (The num- bers listed with the subjects show the range of credit which is commonly required in undergraduate teacher education programs designed for secondary school physical science teachers.) ApprOXo NOe Of Semester Hrs. in each Subject Undergrad Graduate a)Subjectmajor (2h-36)s e e e e e e e e e e e e e s b) Subject minors (15 - 36) Indicate how many minors e s e e e e e e e e c) Education courses (except practice teaching) (20 - 30) . . . . . . d) Practice teaching (0 - 12) . . . . 9) Foreign languages (0 - 15) . . . . f) Courses in the humanities (6 - 18) . g) Courses in the social sciences (6 - 12 h) Research in the physical sciences (O - 3) 1) Research in education (0 - 3). . . . . . . 3') Other (please specify) 7. If you feel that it would be desirable to require practice teaching in the training of these teachers, do you think it would be best if this teaching were done in: a) A high school C!) either (a) or (b) b) A junior college e) either (b) or (c) c) A senior college f) any of the three Please irfii l m :rosrec icllurlng t' Curricu Cuidanc fistory Fistcry Junior Psychol :; Psyciiol . o v ; h .ECCCLC O“ 0» LL ._, '9 ‘0 O 4———F"_’VVVV N iEStifl{ :\ c ' utier ...-..— M u _ - a I_‘E:S e check $ LEAQE I D _1; j «2 . £3 £1. ) “I... c C *4 m :3 :3 o (D E: (0 8. 9. 10. M9 Please indicate how many semester hours you.would consider most appropriate for prospective junior college physical science teacher in each of the following types of education courses. Courses No. of Sen. Hrs. a) Curriculum construction . . . . . . . . . . . b) C‘Uidance and counseling 0 o o o o o o o o o o c) History and philOSOphy of education (general) d) History and phiIOSOphy of the junior college e) Junior college administration . . . . f) Psychology (general) . . . . . . . 5) Psychology of the late adolescent . . . . . h) Techniques of teaching. . . . . . . . . . . . i) Testing, measureient, and ;enera1 evaluation j) Other (please SPeCifl') a o o o c o o o o o o Please indicate in how many subject matter areas, e.2., physics, mathematics, chemistry, general science, etc., you think a physical science teacher can reasonably be expected to be qualified if he desires to teach in a junior college of the size of your institution. Comment Please check each of the {rade levels at which a typical physical science teacher is expected to teach at your institution. 9th 10th 11th 12th 13 lb Ha WOuld you comment briefly as to the type and extent of the teaching assistance that is given to beginning instructors at your institution. For example: does your institution hold pre-registration orientation sessions; assign new staff members to senior members for advice and counsel on teach- ing problems; schedule regular teaching seminars; etc.? .1.Ifyou thi as to the 150 12.Uhat is your Opinion regarding the desirability of requiring some non- academic work eXperience in the training of prospective junior college physical science teachers? 13.13 you think that such work experience should be required, would you comment as to the most appropriate type and duration. j _ . Uh Is there any phase of training for prOSpective junior college physical science teachers, that has not been mentioned in this questionnaire, wfldch you feel should be stressed? 15' D0 you.wish to have a summary of the final report on this project? Yes No 151 APPENDIX 3—3 FOLLOW-UP nrm TO ADMINISTRATOR Dear Dr. : Hey I first express my appreciation for the pronptness with which you conpleted and returned the questionnaire concerning the professional preparation of Junior college physical science teachers. Your comments and suggestions were most helpful. The teachers on your staff who are named below have also been lost cooperative in that they have returned carefully completed ques- tionnedres. 1'0 date I have not. however._hnd any response tron the other members of your star“: for when questionnaires were origin- ally provided. I would appreciate it very such if the enclosed note to the teachers who have not yet responded could be distributed to those teach- ers e Additional copies of the questionnaires are still available if needed but are not included in this letter on the assumption that those who discarded the first copy would probably do likewise with the second. Thank you again for your assistance. Sincerely . I. Scott Iinerson Teachers fren when responses have been received were; 152 APPENDIX 3- 1+ FOLLOl-UP “Tm 1'0 ADMIN! 91319038 Dear Dr. : Questionnaires concerning the professional preparation of Junior college physical science teachers were nailed to gproxiaately two hun- dred Junior colleges on larch 18. A naJority of those institutions have responded with very helprul comments and suggestions. However. accord- ing to my records, I have not as yet received any returns t'roa your college. 11' the findings of this study are not to be biased in favor of the viewpoints expressed by those nest interested in surveys conducted by colleges 01' Education they should be based on responses obtained iron as large a proportion of the original sanple as it is possible to obtain. ‘ To date the responses shew considerable diversity of opinion. I an rather surprised to find that a large najority of these who have re- turned the questionnaire appear to favor considerable wlrk in Education courses while a snall ninority tool that this is largely unnecessary. The question of whether this is truly representative of the opinion held by the majority or Junior college adainistrators and teachers cannot be reliably answered on the basis of the returns received thus far. 31‘ you cannot rind the tine. or are not willing. to answer all or the questions would you please complete as mach of the questionnaire as possible. Also. I would appreciate it very nuch if the enclosed note to the teachers who have not yet responded could be distributed to these teachers. Returns received after June 15th cannot be included in the report. Thank you, X. Scott Kinerson ”1 _a_-I ‘ Y APPENDIX C - 1 ' 153 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TEACHERS This questionnaire is part of a research project. conducted under the auspices of the Department of Teacher Education, College of Education, Michigan State University. This project is an attempt to learn what would constitute the most appropriate professional preparation for Junior cellege physical science teachers. The success of this study is entirely dependent on the will- ingness of the respondents to supply the desired information and to contribute their ideas and opinions based on their individual know- ledge and experience. In order to insure the respondent that his mowers will remain confidential and anonymous, on individual stamped envelope has been provided for the return of each question- naire. No one outside of those immediately concerned with the re- search will have access to the questionnaire, and neither partici- pating institutions nor individuals will be identified in the find- ings. Each respondent who requests it will receive a summary of the final report. Thank you for your cooperation. K. Scott Kinersen l20lt-G University Village East Lansing, Michigan 1. Name 2. Title of present position 3. Total number of years of teaching experience in: a) Jr. cellege__ b) High school__ 0) Senior college— 4. Name and location of employing institution. _ 5. Which of the following types of programs are available to students at this institution? 8) Two-year tenninal program leading toward an Associate in Arts, or Associate in Science Degree, or equivalent two-year program in general education. b) Two-year, or shorter, programs with principal emphasis on vo cat ional training. 0) Two-year program in college parallel work. I d) College credit adult education program. e) Program of counseling and guidance available to all post-high school youth of the community. 2 6. Describe your academic preparation by completing the appropriate parts of the following tabulation. to show whether semester or quarter hours of credit are being 7. reported . ) Fields of Study Majors Minors Education courses (exce t practice teaching Practice teaching Foreign languages Research In subject matter field In education Undo Semester Hrs. or Quarter H” e uate (Check the top of each coltm Graduate Semes er rs ._ or Quarter Hrs. __ .‘9 :9. 1 If your training included any practice teaching, indicate the type '1: and extent by filling in the appropriate spaces below. column make an (0) if the time during practice teaching was mos spent in observation of other teachers, a (T) if it was mostly spent in actuaI teachinl divided between observa‘Eio Approximate number of: and a (D) if the time was about evenly n and actual teaching. Days Hours per per Type of School Months week day Junior high Senior high Junior college Senior college mct‘m H90 Faint: :9 oc In the last} tly in WS" a: a? a '8 35E§$52 ;;. Degrees received 13.3 ._B.A. _Date Institution M.S ._M .A ._D ate Institution Ed .D ._Ph .D ._Date Institution 9. While practice teaching, did you have: Considerable supervision? b A moderate amount or supervision? Very little supervision? >. How do you feel about the value of your practice teaching experience? a) Very valuable__ b) or some value_ c) or very little value_ 1. Would you cement briefly as to why your practice teaching was of the value checked above and as to how it might have been altered to be of more value. . Do you think that prospective junior college physical science teachers should be required to include some practice teaching in their training? Yes No Undecided .' If your answer to No. 12 was yes, do you think it would be best if this teaching were done: Either éa gor rib; Either b c a In a high school b In a junior college_____ Any of the three c In a senior college-_— . In how many of the following subject matter areas are you Qualified to teach, and in how many of these areas are you ex- Pected to teach in your present position? Also please indicate the grade levels at which you teach each of these subjects. Qualified upected Subject matter area to teach to teach Chemistry General science Mathematics Physical science Physics Others__f Hill!!! 323? Hill!!! HIHIH 6 1 21. Please indicate how many semester hours you would consider most appropriate for prospective junior college physical science teachers in each of the following types of education courses. Courses No. of Sam. Hrs. Curriculum construction . . . . . . . . . . . Guidance and counseling . . . . . . . History and philosophy of education (general) History and philosophy of the jtmior college. Junior college administration . . . . Psychology (general). . . . . . . . . Psychology of the late adolescent . . Techniques of teaching. . . . . . . . Testin , measurement and general evalu Other please specify). . . . . . . . \HNHHH tion “PUGHGDG 0'9 22. In your opinion, what would be the most appropriate degree level for prospective junior college physical science teachers? a Bachelor's c; Master' 3 plus about 30 semester hours, b Master's d Doctor' s ....- ., 23. Is there any phase of training for prospective junior c01168°8 physical science teachers, that has not been mentioned in this questionnaire, which you feel should be stressed? 4 act) 24. Do you wish to have a summary of the final report on this pro J >>>>>> 151+ APPENDIXc-Z HOT! 1‘0 TEACHERS W0 HAVE HOT 131' RETURNED THE QIIBSTIONMIRI COBCMINC m PROFESSIONAL PREPABATIOH OI JUNIOR COLLEGE PHYSICAL SCIENCE TEACHERS Approximately one-third of the four hundred teachers to when these questionnaires were directed in March have responded with.very helpful suggestions. 1: the findings of this study are not to be biased in favor of the viewpoints expressed by those most interested in surveys conducted by colleges of Education they should be based on responses obtained from as large a.proportion of the original sample as it is possible to obtain. To date the responses show considerable diversity of opinion and I am.wondering if they truly represent the viewpoint of the naJority of physical science teachers in.junior colleges. A.reliable answer to this question cannot be based on the number of returns received thus far. If you.have not found time to complete the questionnaire may I suggest that it should not take over twenty or thirty minutes to check off your answers to the questions. 11' you cannot find the time, or are not willing, to answer all of the questions would you.p1ease complete as much of the Questionnaire as possible. Returns received after June 15th cannot be included in the report. Thank you, E. Scott Kinerson Dr. Dr. Dr. Mr. Dr. Dr. Ir. Hr. Dr. Dr. Mr. Dre Dr. Dr. Dr. 155 APPEEDIX D- 1 LIST OF OUTSTANDING AUTHORITIES IN m IIILD OF JUNIOR COLLIG! IDUCA‘IIOI Henry G. Badger, Educationaliet, Research and Statistical Services Branch, United States Office of Education, Washington 25. D.C. Roosevelt Dasler, Professor of Education. George Peabody College for Teachers, Nashville h, Tennessee. C. U. Deese, Dean, Technical Extension Division, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana. Uard 1‘. Black, Assistant Superintendent of Public Instruction, Springfield, Illinois. William A. Black. Professor of Education, State Teachers College. Pittsburgh, Kansas. Jesse P. Bogus. Executive Secretary, American Association of Junior Colleges, 1785 Massachusetts Ave., [W., Washington 6, D. C. Loren D. Brown. Acting Director, Department of School and Community Services, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma. Albert L. hirgard, Assistant to the Superintendent, Office of the State Department of Public Instruction, Springfield, Illinois. Herle 3. Campbell. In Charge, Division of Center Administration, The Pennsylvania State University. State College, Pennsylvania. C. C. Calvert, Professor of Junior College Dducation.‘ University of Texas, Austin 12, Texas. Hilliam H. Conley. Assistant to the President. Marquette University. Hilwaukee 3, Uisconsin. Ferris 1!. Crawford, Chief, Higher lducation, State Department of Public Instruction, Lansing 2, Kichigan. William A. Crawford, Professor of Iducation, State College of bash- ington. Pullman, Washington. Earl R. Douglass, Director of the College of Education, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado. Ralph Fields. Professor of Education. Teachers College. Columbia University, Dew York 27, New York. I. K. Fretwell, Jr.. Assistant Commissioner for Higher Education, New York State Department of Education. Albany. New York. Hr. Mr. Dr. Dr. Mr. Mr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Hr. Dr. Dr, Dr. Dr, Dr, 15o 3. 3. Graeber, Supervisor of Junior Colleges, State Department of Public Instruction, Des Hoines 19, Iowa. V. N. Hanley, Director of the freshman-Sophomore Center System, The University of Wisconsin, Madison 6, Wisconsin. Algo D. Henderson, Professor of Higher Education, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Leon Henderson, Professor of Education, University of l’lorida, Gainesville, Florida. 1'. lloyd Herr, Director, Certification and College Accreditation, State Department of Public, Instruction, Topeka, Kansas. 3. L. Hill, Supervisor of Junior Colleges, State Department of Educa- tion, Jackson, Hississippi. L. L. Jarvie, Dmecutive Dean, Community College and Technical Insti- tute, State University of Dew York, Albany 1, Dew York. 3. Lamar Johnson, Professor of Signer lducation, Los Angeles Branch, University of California, Los Angeles 21+, calii’ornia. Robert J. Keller, Professor of Education, University of H1nnesota, llinneapolis 1“, Minnesota. Homer Xenpfer, Director, lational Home Study Council, lhzo New York Avenue, U. W., Washington 5. D. C. Robert I. Iinsinger, Consultant for Junior Colleges, latienal League for Nursing, 2 Park Avenue, New York 16, Dew York. William Kepley. Consultant for Junior Colleges, Iaos Angeles City Junior Colleges, Los Angeles, C.lifornia. ' I. A. Lichty, Professor of Education, Illinois State Normal Univer-- sity, Normal, Illinois. Frank 3. Lindsay, Chief , Bureau of Secondary Dducation, State De- partment of Dducation, Sacramento 1“, California. Leland L. Hedsker, Consultant, Research Project in Higher Education, Haviland Hall, Berkeley it, California. Roy B. Hinnis, Director, Adult and Junior College Education, Depart- ment of Education, Denver 2, Colorado. D. Grant Morrison, Director of Junior Colleges, Office of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Olympia, Washington. 3. W. Husgraves, Executive Director, Texas Council of Public Junior Colleges, Texas Education Agency, Austin, Tens. Dr. Dr. Mr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr, Dr. Dr. Dr. 15? Alfred C. Nelson, Dean, University of Denver, Denver 2, Colorado Hugh W. Norman, Dean, Division of Adult Education and Public Services, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana. Hugh C. Price, Consultant for Junior Colleges, lam-em of Secondary Dducation, Department of Education, Sacramento 11+, California. Harold Reese, Supervisor, Business Management, State Teachers Colleges, State Department of Education, 2 West Redwood Street, Baltimore 1, Maryland. James W. Reynolds, Professer of Junior College lducation, University of Texas, Austin 12, Texas. John Dale Russell, Chancellor and Executive Secretary, Board of Dducational Finance, Box 1616, Santa re, New Mexico. Galen Baylor, Professor of Secondary ldmtion, Teachers College 317, University of lebraslca, Lincoln 8, Nebraska. Salter I. Sindlinger, Assistant Professor of Higher lducation, School of Education, University of Hichigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Max smith, Assistant to the Vice President, Kichigan State University, last Lansing, Michigan. Dari M. Tapley, Director of Special Services, University of Chatta- nooga, Chattanooga 3, Tennessee. Robert S. Troutman, Junior College Consultant, County of Les Angeles Schools, 808 lorth Spring Street, Los Angeles 12, California. James L. Wattenbarger, Director, Conunity College Council, State Department of lducation, Tallahassee, l‘lorida. Dimer It. Weltsin, Director of Junior Colleges, Department of lduca- tion, 301 State Office Building, St. Paul 1, Minnesota. William R. Wood, Academic Vice President, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada. Raymond J. Young, Associate Professor of Dducation, College of Id- ucation, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois. 158 APPIIDIX D ~24 1204-0 university Village Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan is you are well aware, many colleges and universities are either initiating or expanding program offerings that are speci- fically aimed at the junior college teaching field, and also there i is considerable disagreement and col: of knowledge as to what these training programs should include. In an effort to investigate one se of this problem I have undertaken a research pro eot under s s ices of the Department of Teacher Education Co lege of lduost on, Michigan State University. This project is en sttem to detemine what would constitute the most appropriate profess anal preparation for junior college physical science teachers. A questionnaire survey is bein conducted among approximately two hmdred administrators and abou five hundred physical science teachers in a sampling of the junior colleges in the ocmtry. The value of this project would be greatly enhanced by the inions and viupoints of a number of the outstanding leaders in e field of junior college education and coordination. The n- , closed uestionnaire is bein sent to each of the men named by Dr. s. . Martcrsns of the .3. Office of Education, in response to a request for a list of these leaders. It is hoped that you will consider the roblem worthy of your attention ad that you will ve the pro eot e benefit of your wide experience and howledse junior co lege education. , its individual will be ucted or identified in the find unless specific permission s subsequently requested and gran ed. Thais you for your assistance. Sincerely . x. Ioctt Iinerscn l. 2. 3. h. . mu 1) - 3 159 QUESTIONNAmB ON THE PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION of JUNIOR COLLEGE PHYSICAL SCIENCE TEACHERS Name Title of present position Please indicate your views as to the approximate number of semester hours of college credit which would be most appropriate for prospective junior college physical science teachers in each of the following sub- ject areas. (The numbers listed with the subjects show the range of credit which is commonly required in undergraduate teacher education programs designed for secondary school physical science teachers.) Approx. No. of Sam. Hours in each Subject I Undergrad Graduate a) subject major (2h - 36). . . b) Subject minors (15 - 36) . . (Indicate how many minors) c) Education courses (20 - 30) (Except practice teaching) . d) Practice teaching (0 - 15) . . e) Foreign languages (0 - 12) . . . . f) Courses in the humanities (6 18) . g) Courses in the social sciences (6 - 12). . h) Research in the physical sciences (O - 3). 1) Research in education (0 - 3). . . . . . . 3) Other (please specify) 0 O O O O O O O O I IIIIIII I I I IIIIIII I I Please indicate how many semester hours you would consider most appropriate for prospective junior college physical science teachers in each of the following types 01 education courses. Courses No. of Sen. Hrs. a) Curriculum construction . . . . . . . . . . . b) Guidance and counseling . . . . . . . . . . c) History and philosophy of education (general) d) History and philOSOphy of the junior college. 6) Junior college administration . . . f) Psychology (general) . . . . . . . . . g) Psychology of the late adolescent . . . . h) Techniques of teaching. . . . . . . . . . . . 1) Testing, measurement, and general evaluation 3) Other (please specify) S. 7. 8. 160 In your opinion, what would be the most appropriate degree level for prospective junior college physical science teachers? a) Bachelor's c) Master's plus about 30 semester hours b) Master's d) Doctor's Comment If you feel that it would be desirable to require practice teaching in the training of these teachers, do you think it would be best if this teaching were done in: a) a high school d) either (a) or (b) b) a junior college 6) either (b) or (c) c) a senior college f) any of the three In how many subject matter areas, e.g., physics, chemistry, mathematics, general science, etc., do you think a physical science teacher can reasonably be expected to be qualified? Comment ‘What is your Opinion regarding the desirability of requiring some non- academic work experience in the training of prospective junior college physical science teachers? 161 9. If you feel that such work experience should be required, would you comment as to the most apprOpriate type and duration? 10. Is there any phase of training for prospective junior college physical science teachers, that has not been mentioned in this questionnaire, which you.feel should be stresses? 11. Do you wish to have a summary of the final report on this project? Yes No 102 mu D - h m0? LETTER 1'0 WB‘ Dear Dr. 3 Copies of the attached letter and questionnaire were mailed to you.on.flarch 18. A majority of the outstanding leaders mentioned in the letter have returned the questionnaire with very helpful comments and suggestions. However, the project would be of much great- er value if all who were originally named by Dr. Kartorans would give the study the benefit of their experience and knowledge in this field. If your response is not already in the mail it is hoped that you will soon find the time to complete the questionnaire. hunt you, I. Scott Iinerson 163 . m. .3 fin «d «I: ”4le o «A flu «not 6.6. ....m sluilnllflfluldom a .on 9.3.: «fin 8H “.3 méh 2: in 3.3 OS «.3 0.8 o3 3.8 0.3 03 «.9 832.33 . magma: ameo ask 3 m3 «3 Nu R an 8 mm on «a a: an «a on S agenda. 33.3.“ ..I lea ace-ma a an m o W a o 2 a o o a In W N qlufl: p N m: an a 3 n o 3 «a a m o o _ m o 8...: 3 n: on n S n a n o a 3 ma N m a 2:0 an mm as an ma mm as .HN an m «a «H a an m mum 9 i: 3 n m m o a o u m a m o N 3.: - no a .0; .06 6.x: .o.m J; _a_.“ 11o a 41» Jan. .0; .04. «min 10.1» 4104. «min euenoeea genosea euenoeea enonoeea euenoeea eueSoo awednoo amazon eweaaoo coder—em 24 33.5 .33 335 883. 32:.— 396 3.5.8 In. an: no nee-pa .wo henna! no nee-an no heals: no «spam Boa “me an 23 ad. Bongo dogma and .5360 Manna... ..Bomon moan um “Bag 05504: gang .3 ma ho g I Hug lb“ m.a a n.m N m.oa o m.na m a.am an 0.0 o a.“ n m.H H H.ma m 3.0N 3H m.na m n.mN ma o.ma Ha N.aa on m.ma m a.N H H.= N a.N a m.NN an «.3: NN a.a N 0.0 o H.HH m N.o n «.mN ma o.nN NH o.aN Ha a.ma a m.aa o o.ma on 0.0 o o.o o m.o n a.NN on N.mm 0N n.N a n.a N n.m a N.nN o” m.an ma :.Ha m a.mm an o.mN Ha :.Ha m m.o n o.o o n.n a n.n a o.ON a n.no ma o.o o o.n a 0.0 o o.mN m N.o= an a.n a H.3N a m.na : o.mn Ha a.oN o ameo non uses men «moo sen aseo sen amen men men Isms hen Isms men can: hem Isms hen Isms .hmmmwmanumul. numquunqnmmn. _numuuuummauu_ ququmlqnmmmu _qummuuanwu « a M an o.aa m a.om «N m.o a m.aN Na m.ma NN m.m n =.aa m o.mN Ha m.o n 000 0 000 NH OF“ 2.3 33.388 Anny aosoodun Amnv soaunaaod anemone» eweaaoo odaasm awash Amav a.au.aaooom 3.: .3225. 33 c3275 enenoeen ewenaoo 33.5 .53.: A39Yeaoaao8m E: 13.98 33 . c.3330 enenoeeu eucaaoc oNHnnm Haas» Acnv cease-sooem Aqu eaaooaun Amuv ueauaaada Enos...» eweadoo endeaum ameo hem Isms .Jmnmunmmql mouaaemv emu wanker-me «enema near enmevmoneem anumoanu npaaonmuomm.mon_annmnxzoonm naa..moana on anyonmun .moaaa on annuaaaoc.nu< «manna-a moan: nu uanm<.onnmoaaa no mumxpu h.”Nanumm4 165 N.N N.N a.~ N.N flu nachos-coca NJ m4 m4 N.N H.N e339:— Hé a... a... o... N.« 3315 is an! flag on. ailmuflmllue a .34 euoaaoo eweaaoo ewefluoo emednoo 335 .33 3.22 .53.: 335 Sin .282." mg 33043. no as an“: 1a N 9N m do .3 0.8 on min mm 0.3 8 3m: 132383 N; n in 0 mA 2 95 «N ....R mm min 3 Sad 13.3.— 9: ON o.mN Na 12 mm 0.: Nn or: aN 0.0 NH ANN: “.3375 3333 .34 on neg ...-uh men ...—ma son 1:3: men 15: neg Ilsa hem Ilsa moaneemd egos no Hue cease era eeeae .33 seeks e93» usage or» send 23 on» wager-me «ensue 5n. cache 3333 No nepsoz unseeded-em 30.983303 h Nag 166 APPENDIX (} RIPORRID PIIRARATION I! MINOR.LREAB Euibgr gr Miggro Rspgrtod bx ngghggg Credit Per Hinor Private Small Medium Large .All ._1 Public Public Public ngghorn UIDERGEADUAII 0—6 0 h 0 2 6 7-12 13 9 22 11 55 13—18 In 22 36 33 105 17b2h 1b 25 18 20 77 25-30 2 18 12 12 flh over 30 3 h 5 6 18 Total Minor! 46 82 93 8“ 305 number of roachort 23 #1 h? #6 157 Bnporting . Moan Number of ”inorl - Per Teacher . 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.9 Median Credits Per m 19.8—17.9 1h..§____11..&___J.z..7_ ' GRADUATI 0-6 lb. 1h 9 15 52 7-12 9 12 18 15 5h 13-18 5 5 8 12 30 19.21. 1 o 5 3 9 25-30 2 h 0 1 7 over 30 O O 2 1 3 Total mm 31 35' 1:2 h? 155 Number of Teacher. quorting 19 26 32 3k 111 Mean lumber of flinorn Per Teacher, 1.6 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.“ Median Credits Per . Minor 7.5 . 8.3. 10.5 9.9 9.3 lb? APPENDIX 1! DISTRIBUTIOI OF RECOMMENDED SEMESTEB.HOURS IN THE GBADU‘II MAJOR manorfimo Boconmendod b 8 9 1o 12 111 15 16 18 20 22 2:. 25 26 28 3o 32 an 36 38 no us 50 _L mun Pucmt Amuflu Question Iodiun lumber 01mm: lumber of Number of Number of Teacher: Administrators Expert. g .... M .H H . UOHOUHNO »1 rd A: MHNNflNO H m owouomwouoowuwom raccoooouooomoumpuowuoww PPNUOVOU H lfl \O O‘ U 0‘ 81.2 92.3 9“.8 20.3 , 20.0 15.8 168 .LPPERDIXI I DISTRIBUTION OF RECOMMENDED TOTAL SEMESTER HOURS IN URDERGRADUITR "INORS Number of Credit: Number of Number of lumber of Recommended Teacher: Adminietratore Expert: 10 2 O 0 12 0 2 1 1h 0 O 0 15 11 8 1 16 5 h 2 18 19 10 10 20 #6 22 9 22 2 1 O 24 16 12 h 25 10 8 2- 26 1 1 O 28 3 1 0 3O 18 16 h 32 2 0 0 3h 0 0 O 36 10 h 1 38 O 0 0 no u 3 O #2 1 0 0 #5 5 1 0 50 1 0 O 52 1 O 0 60 31 O 0 To tale 158 93 3“ Per Cent Answering Question 8h.8 89.“ 89.5 Median Number or Route 20.“ 21.0 19.8 v 169 APPENDIX J DISTRIBUTION 01' RECOMMENDED TOTAL SEMESTER HOURS IN THE GRADUATE MINOR Number of Credits number of Number of Number of Recommended Teachers Administrators Experts 3 h 1 1 it h 1 1 5 13 1 1 6 13 8 7 8 8 6 3 9 3 0 2 10 27 23 7 12 19 1’4 6 11+ 0 2 0 15 9 7 3 16 1 1 O 18 2 h 1 20 lb 3 0 22 0 0 0 2h 1 2 O 26 0 0 O 28 1 O O 30 u 2 1 36 1 2 0 '40 1 O 0 59 :;L_ 0 9 Totals 116 77 33 Per Cent Answering Question 62.3 714.1 86.6 Hedisn Rumber of Hours 10.0 10.1% 9.7 APPENDIX X 170 CHI flUARl TEST FOR SIGIIFICART DIMCIS W Dim OF SUPERVISION AND VAL“ OF PRACTICE EACRING J Degggg gr Supervision Rating! ‘ Vhlue Ratings “Considerable” 'floderete' "Very Little” Totals 10 i In 1' to :1 to ”Very Valuable“ 32 23.2 21 215.2 5 9.7 53 '0! Some” end '01' Very Littlo 16 216.8 29 25.8 17 11.5 62 Yelue' Totals “8 SO 22 120 2.3:. .. 133.3 , x e 2 '2 X 133.3 - 120 = 13-3 o3"/::;EE;; :: \/’1§,3 : R + 120 + 13.3 For n = 2, r<.o1 COIHIC IRRT Ol' COWIOR .32 PRACTICE TEACRIRO'LOCATIONS AS RECOHMENDED BY 186 TEACHERS APTERDIX L 171 Recommended Small Medium Large All Location Private Public Public Public Teachers no. f Re. 1 lo. f Re. i Ho. % High School 1 3.3 2 4.3 2 3.8 3 5.2 8 4.3 Junior College 4 13.3 3 6.5 14 26.9 17 29.3 38 20.3 Senior College 0 0.0 1 2.2 2 3.8 0 0.0 3 1.6 . High School or.Junior College 5 16.7 24 52.2 9' 17.3 11 19.0 49 26.4 Junior Col- lege or Sen- ior College 5 16.7 4 8.7 5 9.6 5 8.6 19 10.2 High School, Junior College, or Senior College 14 46.7 2 4.3 5 9.6 2 3.4 23 12.4 High School .ggg’Junior College 0 0.0 2 4.3 1 1.9 0 0.0 3 1.6 No Recommend— ' etion l 3.3 8 17.4 14 26.9 20 34.5 43 23.2 Total! 30 16.1 46 24.8 52 27.9 58 31.2 186 100.0 172 APPENDIX I - 1 SUMMARY OF CIRERAL CW8 BY moms (Numbers following each statement indicate the number of times each cement as noted.) 1. c*eneral criticism or Education courses. These cements cri- ticised courses for lack of con tent, repetitivenese, and lack of stimula— tion. One teacher described these as courses designed for “the mentally retarded and mathematically incompetent.“ (17) 2. comments regarding order of importance. These teachers in- sisted that subject matter courses should come first and teaching methods second. (6) 3. They should take a course, or courses. in the technique of demonstration. and in creating experiments and demonstrations that will more closely relate subject matter to student experiences. (3) 4. They should be trained in the use and maintenance of audio- visual equipment. (3) 5. They need training in the care and maintenance of laboratory apparatus. (2) 6. One minor must be mathematics. (2) 7. During their graduate study period they should attend monthly seminars in which W Junior college teachers discuss pmtical. not 'etherial' textbook problems. (1) ( 8. They should tabs refresher courses at least every three years. 1) 9. They should take courses in all the physical sciences includ- ing geology, astronomy. and meteorology as well as physics, chemistry, and mathematics. (1) 10. Teachers should concentrate on a single field. Courses in “physical science” should then be taught by committees or specialists. (l) 11. hphasise the importance or individual laboratory work. (1) 12. They need training in hobby. play activities, and club sort. (1) 13. They need course work that attempts to integrate the physi- cal sciences. (l) . 173 14. They need to study the function of the various types of committees that teachers must serve on. (1) 15. They should have two years of carefully supervised teaching experience while on their first teaching appointment. This should be followed with two years of part-time duty as a counselor. (1) lo. Careful supervision by a good teacher for at least two years. (1) l7. A.five-year engineering degree at the bachelor's level seen as desirable training for these teachers. (1) 18. Take field trips to local industries. (1) 19. We need to stop the fight between the science people and the Education people. and turn out people who have something to teach and then know how to teach what they teach. (1) 20. Good teachers are born, not made. (1) 21. There is only one way to learn to teach; that is to stand in the classroom and teach. (1) 22. Have fewer*lducation courses so as not to bar university teachers. who are otherwise V011 qualified, from this teaching field. (1) 23. They need training in the use of non-technical scientific literature. (1)5 ' 24. The I'mechanics" of good teaching need more attention. (1) 25. The courses recommended included the following: a. Philosophy pertaining to the role of physical science in today's «8r18.(1) b. Applications of mathematics in physical sciences (l) c. The Problems of Philosophy. (1) d. History of Philosophy. (1) e. History of Chemistry. (1) f. History of Science. (1) 174 APPENDIX 14 - 2 SUMMARY 01' m COMMENTS MADE BY ADHINISTRATORS (Embers following each statement indicate the number of times each comment was noted.) 1. They need training in the use and maintenance of laboratory equipment. (3) v 2. One of the first things I look for in the junior college physical science teacher is interest in young people, and primarily in- terest in teaching as opposed to research. (3) 3. They need training in the use of audio-visual equipment. (2) 4. More emphasis should be placed on subject matter than on Education courses. 2) 5. They should keep up with advances in their subject matter fields through refresher courses, summer seminars, etc. (2) 6. They need training in demonstration techniques. (1) 7. what he (the junior college teacher) knows about subject matter will be only a part of what it takes to make him successful in junior college. He needs to be a good group worker because of his neces- sary participation in extra-curricular activities. (2) 8. Our physical science teachers are completely helpless in the presence of the idea of a general education course in the physical sciences. They either don't know what one is talking about, or don't believe in attempting it, or believe but don't know how to attack the problem. The physical science teacher for the junior college ought not to get out of graduate school, at the least. without being favorably oriented toward this idea. and without some notion of how to attack the problem. (2) 9. They need training in machine shop work, particularly the physics teacher. (1) 10. I think a teaching degree above the master's level, without the time being spent in a thegig, or gut-half 2f _i_t_ _i_n_ Education, is a must if at all possible. There is enough research in a good master's thesis to give a person experience. The broad background which he needs in P. S. should be the goal, not research. (1) 11. Our experience seems to indicate that many courses in Educa- tion contribute very little to making a successful teacher. (1) 12. Moresubject matter training in field teacher wishes to teach and less of the Education courses such as required by teaCher's colleges. (1) 175 13. Develop scientific method of thinking. (1) 14. Perhaps the techniques of teaching need more attention than they now receive, especially with reference to junior college classes. 15. I would like to see junior college teachers have a course in ”human relations." (1) 16. Stress more general liberal education and less methodology.(l) 17. Until junior colleges provide facilities for research, at least of a limited nature, it is going to be difficult to interest young people in the field. (1) 18. I am very glad to see some interest being shown, by at least one university, in preparing instructors for junior college work. (1) 19., If something could be done to develop personality and a good command of English, much would be done to improve teaching. (1) 178 APPENDIX M - 3 SUMMARY OF GENERAL COMMENTS MADE BY EXPERTS 1. Teachers should be well grounded in the fundamentals of a continuous public relations program, not the B—B program (budgets and bonds) but the planned program of continuous community cooperation in the CCC program. 2. They need to know.how to work with colleagues, administrative superiors, and students. 3. .An opportunity for an instructor to interview employers of physical science majors regarding the strengths and weaknesses of their employees should be afforded. 4. .A follow-up project on recent graduates, both in transfer institutions and on the job, should broaden the instructor's understand. ing of his objectives. ‘ 5. Both physics and chemistry teachers (particularly the latter) need real training in laboratory supervision and methods, ordering, storing, cleaning, preparing, inventorying equipment, preparing solutions, safety procedures, etc. ’ 6. Watch danger of requiring too many courses in.Education. I say this as a professor of higher education. Some are highly desirable and can bearequired. Additional courses can be recommended but not required. It's essential that the student be thoroughly grounded in his teaching subject. 7. Special attention to college general education.programs: adult education programs in order to broaden the vision and the service or the "specialist“ in a.physical science. 8. The literal arts areas outside the sciences should be of a comprehensive nature rather than segments of e.departmental nature. 9. Emphasis should be place on the curriculum for training Mm“ u "11 u when mean- 10. There should be some work which will help them understand the purposes of general education. 11. Let's not set a structure which will lead to certification requirements.. ‘ would prefer to see a single course covering objectives, curriculum construction, teaching techniques. and student evaluation (4 -6 credits). I would also like to see them have one course in the history and philosophy of the junior college. 177 12. 1 would like to stress the philosophy of the communitya centered, community college education, and the semester of internship in a community college under a faculty member who wasn't only a master teacher in his subject matter field, but also a.master understander and trainer of the teaching processes. 13. They need a background in the contributions of physical science to general education, and they should have work in the philosOphy and history of science. 14. Military service before he starts teaching. 15. They should have a strong major in one of the specific fields, e.g., chemistry, physics, mathematics, etc., in contrast to a weak major in several fields. ‘tl...||yl 1'. w. an. .- 1 "In 4 . _ ' “ " ‘" TS ' ‘4. .1 ~43 I: . ..' I“. f t”: H he '81: 3’ 1 X. 78" IE Li 2 L9 8853 29 58 A U 3W _. 11mg 0,:- 81.8 1:1,! ,. l in. 4’ V'- 3 .- " J..- —--I ‘ "I. . I .“ ~-t:.:'::3 V tame " ' 1's I I". I-‘ 1 fl ‘ .../1 f‘ ’1 A: ’FA‘L A ~— "'*"‘ £1 "Ar’v‘wflu— — . _‘~e ,. p. .. 1. "- rum“ v‘ ”9*“ '3 £382 W (...-.. —e-“-—~ x ' I» 4". v | .