l I h‘:“" "I” \"r/ 1 OVERDUE FINES: 25¢ per W per its» RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIALS: Place in book netum to remove charge from circulation records A PARADIGM FOR STAFF DEVELOPMENT IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE By John David Cooper A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education . Department of Administration and Curr1culum 198T Copyright l98l John D. Cooper ABSTRACT A PARADIGM FOR STAFF DEVELOPMENT IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE By John D. Cooper The growth of community colleges in the United States resulted in a large, diverse population of teachers. Two-year colleges presented a new challenge to the training of faculty faced with traditional and non-traditional students, rapid changes in technology, calls for accountability, and reduced resources resulting in limited mobility. Staff development programs were established in the late sixties and seventies to respond to the need to train and orient new faculty, assist those who needed help with classroom practices, and keep the majority abreast of new developments in their discipline and education. The purpose of this study was to find out what exists and what is important to staff development programs using a para- digm to guide the investigation. A paradigm was developed which identifies twenty-one components of a comprehensive staff develop— ment program. The components were identified in relation to content focus (personal, program and instructional, or organizational develop- ment) and seven processes: statements of purpose; planning; staffing and organization; funding; programming, rewards and incentives; and evaluation. John D. Cooper The study involved the testing of the paradigm against programs in the field and responses to a questionnaire by a population of experts. The field test involved a visit to five community colleges in the midwest which have staff development programs. The visits included interviews with people involved with staff development to determine l) if the components of the para- digm exist as part of the program, and 2) how important the inter- viewees feel the components are. The second phase of the study consisted of a questionnaire sent to a population of "experts" in the field of staff development. The colleges and experts were identified by a polling of the midwest membership of the National Council for Staff, Program, and Organizational Development. The study was designed to test the appropriateness of the paradigm's components. The components were found to be appropriate based upon criteria established prior to conducting the tests. In addition, the interviewees and experts were asked to rank the top ten components in order of their importance to implementing staff development in a community college. The findings offer a definition for staff development and the unique perspective of individual college programs. Data is pre- sented for each individual component to reflect: how and if the component was found to exist on the campuses visited; interviewee and expert responses to the questionnaire; and pertinent comments made during the field test and on the questionnaires. Recommen- dations are made for further study to consider: John D. Cooper -individual components with greater discrimination to assess their quality in relation to staff development programs; -explore the role and scope of staff development in relation to organizational development; -methods for and significance of evaluation of staff development programs; -administrative support for and participation in staff development programs; -further clarification of what is meant by program development; -the role and characteristics of those who give leader- ship to staff develOpment programs. DEDICATION I dedicate this dissertation to Kathleen Margaret Cooper. Throughout this project she has shared love and grown with me. For years life always posed the question "What is love?" With Kathy, I have learned about love, felt love, and grown to love in ways I never imagined. Our relation- ship has given great meaning to the word “love“ and promises to continue to search for new meanings. She has been with me. Her warm hugs, laughter, tears, Irish temper, drive, and friendship helped me to keep a good perspective-~to recognize that this project was not the most important task in the world. She has made my life rich with a great appreciation of a concept that God is Love; Love is Life. It was expressed most beautifully by Emily Dickinson when she wrote: "Love is Anterior to Life, Posterior to Death Initial of Creation and, the Exponent of Earth." It is expressed most beautifully by every moment I share with Kathy Cooper. .ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 'Kathy O'Brien deserves recognition for her contribution to this dissertation. She did much more than type a manuscript. She took pride in the smallest details; encouraged me to make the extra effort to have graphics or questionnaires done professionally, gave me the personal support to keep inching along until it was finished. Her time, commitment, and personal sacrifices have made this a reality. This dissertation will become just another volume on the shelf in years to come. Yet Kathy O'Brien will always be remembered as a friend who put her heart and soul into the struggle to get that volume on the shelf so life could continue. Diane Smolen also deserves many thanks. She helped, advised, and cared. This could not have been accomplished without her. The guidance and support she provided to handle the research for this project were more than a person would dare to ask of a best friend. Lansing Community College provided the motivation and support to keep this project going. It has proved beneficial to my work there. I owe the people who are my friends and colleagues on campus a debt of gratitude. Mary Dassance's quick response to requests for information obtained through the Professional Resource Center accounts for so much of what went into chapters one and two. So many other colleagues were rooting for me and praying that this would be completed so we might talk about something else over a cup of coffee. iii There are many people who should be thanked. They include Ernie Block, Jim Greene, Dr. Lee Thornton, Dean James Platte, Dr. Larry Standridge, Richard Yarger, Marian DiFalco, President Philip J. Gannon, and many others. To list them all would be to compile a directory of personnel at Lansing Community College--and in some cases--those who work with my wife at Ingham Medical Center. Finally, there are four men whom I have hated and loved throughout the six year's encounter with graduate education. Now that the work is completed, I have begun to regain my perspective and to acknowledge their contribution. They have been professionals who have repeatedly shown their commitment to me--the student. A special thanks to Dr. Max R. Raines, Chairperson, Dr. Stephen L. Yelon, Dr. Frederick R. Ignatovich, and Dr. James H. Nelson. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES ....................... vii LIST OF APPENDICIES ..................... viii Chapter I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ............... l Staff Development in the Community College ...... l Historical Background ................ 2 The 70's Bring a Focus on Faculty Development . . . . 7 Pulling it Together ................. l5 Summary ....................... 20 Significance of the Problem ............. 23 Defining and Delimiting the Study .......... 25 Definitions ..................... 26 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............... 33 Models for Staff Development ............. 33 The Community College Model ............. 39 The Process ..................... 44 III. METHODOLOGY ..................... 7l Paradigm ....................... 72 Components of the Proposed Paradigm ......... 75 The Field Study ................... 83 The Population Questionnaire ............. 90 Treatment of the Data ................ 92 Criteria ....................... 93 IV. REPORT OF THE FINDINGS ................ 98 The Nature of Staff Development ........... 99 Breadth of Staff Development ............. lO4 Depth of Staff Development .............. ll2 Summary ....................... 183 Chapter V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... Restatement of the Problem .............. The Paradigm ..................... Summary of Procedures/Methodology .......... The Field Test .................... The Population of Experts .............. Summary of Findings ................. The Nature or Definitions of Staff Development. . . . Breadth of Staff Development ............. Depth of Staff Development .............. Ranking of the Components .............. Conclusions and Observations ............. Recommendations for Further Study .......... APPENDICES ......................... BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................ vi 184 187 188 191 191 193 194 194 196 197 204 205 215 218 255 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Conceptual Model - Richard C. Richardson ....... '38 2. Model - James Hammons et.al. ............ 42 3. The Paradigm ..................... 74 vii LIST OF APPENDICIES Appendix Page A. LETTER AND FORM SENT TO MIDWEST MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR STAFF, PROGRAM, AND ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ............ 218 B. PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE AND ACCOMPANYING COVER LETTER . . 220 C. RESULTS OF PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE ............ 228 D. PILOT INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE ............ 230 E. LETTERS SENT TO PROGRAM DIRECTORS AND INTERVIEWEES PRIOR TO VISITATIONS AND INTERVIEW QUESTION- NAIRES ...................... 232 F. QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO POPULATION OF EXPERTS, ACCOMPANYING LETTER TO EXPERTS, FOLLOW-UP LETTERS TO EXPERTS ........... 239 G. DEFINITIONS AND SOURCE OF DEFINITIONS OF STAFF DEVELOPMENT AS OFFERED BY INTERVIEWEES ...... 245 H. INTERVIEWEE RESPONSES TO QUESTION: "IS THERE A RELATIONAHIP OF ACTIVITIES IN THE THREE CONTENT AREAS?" .................. 250 I. PROGRAM ACTIVITIES REPORTED AT EACH COLLEGE ..... 252 viii CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Staff Development in the Community College, The growth of community colleges, beginning in the late 50's, has been rapid. Only in the last years of the 70's did this rate of expansion and rising enrollments slow down. One result of this growth was a need for trained faculty to carryout the mission of the two- year institutions. It was a need which was often filled by those who were subject-matter specialists with little or no teacher training or orientation to the unique philosophy of the community college. Throughout these several decades of growth, staff development initiatives have evolved in view of the demand for good faculty and the inadequacy of teacher training programs to serve the community colleges. The discrepancy between demand and supply was joined by the additional pressures of accountability, growing technology, lack of mobility, and the diversity of student bodies evidenced in the late 60's and into the 70's. This chapter reviews the expansion of community colleges in terms of the demand for faculty, the impact upon initiatives to train them, and the resulting increase in staff development programs. The staff development initiatives have followed a pattern of early advo- cacy, a proliferation of literature on the "how to's" of implementing parograms, considerations of program content, and the recognition of a 1 “ride range of college ventures into staff development as well as the sliaring of resources through professional organizations. Yet, as they enter the 1980's, many comnunity colleges remain unconvinced of the need or unable to commit themselves to organized staff development programs. One explanation for this reticence to take on organized programs may be the lack of understanding of the conceptual and oper- ational aspects of staff development. This chapter will show the need 'For a comprehensive staff development model which attempts to identify tune components of an organized program to provide a clearer definition. Historical Background The community colleges, became in the 1960's, a major new insti- txrtion in the educational system of the United States. The Carnegie Ccunnission on Higher Education reported that "At the beginning of the llresent century, there were only a few two-year college students. 33'1960, more than 600,000 students were enrolled in two-year insti- tthions of higher education and, by 1969, their numbers had grown to 1 . . . Alumst two million. . ." ThlS growth was to continue for some time as community colleges began to serve the educational needs of local communities. Programs expanded as new opportunities were provided for minority groups, technical education, low or no tuition, and a Change to enter higher education where such opportunities might not have otherwise existed. This phenomena continued until, in 1979, the American Association of Community and Junior Colleges reported the "first decline in enrollments in 20 years."2 One obvious result of this growth was the demand for teachers. Gleazer, writing in 1968, reports that "the annual need for new fac- ulty, by the most reasonable estimates, is more than 10,000.“3 This need, combined with the unique background of those already teaching in community colleges, posed a problem for two-year institutions: the training of faculty to carryout the missions of community colleges with student bodies which differed significantly from those found in traditional institutions of higher education. One author describes the picture this way, "The typical community-junior college faculty member is a 30 to 50 year-old middle-class male whose previous work experience has been in public schools or in business and industry. He has a master's degree in his subject area. His course work has been taken at four-year institutions exclusively; it has seldom in- cluded the study of the community-junior college. This lack of exper- ience in the academic field and in work is compounded by the faculty member's relatively recent entry into a community-junior college posi- tion, a new position that he may have found by chance in his local region."4 It is no wonder that the mid 60's began to see greater concern for the community college faculty, their preparation, problems con- fronting them, and the alternative means of training them. One of the earliest attempts to identify community college faculty problems was reported in 1963. This study, done by Hugo Siehr in cooperation with the American Association of Junior Colleges, identified nine key pro- blems ranging from "lack of time for scholarly work and obtaining secretarial help to understanding college policies regarding II In 2 ‘. i.- teaching load."5 The findings lend credence to the need for support of individual faculty efforts to explore and the freedom to find solu— tions to their problems. Other works were more direct in raising con- cerns. Vario, writing in 1965, stated that "salaries and fringe benefits should be just as good as four-year colleges, tenure and pro- motional systems as attractive, teaching loads comparable, and profes- sional development opportunities as favorable."6 Solutions and perspectives surrounding the issues and problems of community college faculty grew to be a major concern of the late 60's. Much dialogue focused upon teacher preparation by graduate schools. The inadequacy of teacher training for community college instructors was acknowledged by many. Gleazer points out that the approaches to such preparation--graduate assistantships in the disci- plines or student teaching in the high schools--were not appropriate to the new demands of teaching in the community college. Other critics sighted half-hearted attempts to accomodate the two-year school by introducing a course on the “junior college." Acknowledgement of the problem led to proposals which included: (1) those who suggested that community colleges train their own faculty, (2) new programs/curriculums offered by graduate schools, to (3) cooperative ventures on the part of community colleges and four-year institutions. Such views were most evident at a November, 1965, "Conference on the Community College in Higher Education." Two differing perspectives can be seen in the statements of John Stoops .and D.H. Reese. Stoops noted that "In view of the general scarcity (If teachers, the community college appears, at least for the present, 7 Reese contended, to be the best training ground for its own faculty." however, that good teachers were needed by universities and colleges just as well and that the matter was a question of training teachers. Consequently, he argued "that rather than having a teacher education program which would become part of the program of the community college, that this should be a function of colleges and universities that have graduate-level work."8 What emerged was the recognition that demand for community col- lege faculty had outstripped the ability of teacher training programs to respond. The result was to pose two questions. First, what could be done to train those who were already employed in community college systems? Secondly, how best can those who wanted to enter the com- munity college arena in the future be trained? Arthur Cohen, writing in the May, 1967, Junior College Journal, proposed that a "preparation program may best be conducted as a joint enterprise between a college or university and one or more junior colleges similar to, if not in fact, the ones in which the instructors 9 Roger Garrison, writing at the same eventually will be employed." time, went beyond the idea of developing liaisons with graduate schools. His work, Junior College Faculty - Issues and Problems: A Preliminary National Appraisal, offered suggestions such as a summer institute, workshops or seminars, to establish opportunities for 'faculty to share with others of their disciplines. In addition, he recommended the creation of a center for junior college studies. lhnong its purposes would be "the study of modes or patterns for faculty in-service programs, and professional seminars on a regular basis for practicing two-year college teachers, focusing especially on pedagogical problems posed by students of less-than-average ability."10 These early concerns for teacher education and training for the community college personnel tended to focus upon programs offered by the colleges and universities. Roger Garrison and Elmer Clark, speaking at the annual Missouri Valley Conference on Junior and Senior College Cooperation, promoted continued reliance on state colleges and universities. Arthur Cohen and Florence Brawer promoted the UCLA program in their writing Focus on Learning: Preparinngeachers for the Two-Year College. Similarly Allan Hurlbutt, in the Junior College Research Review of February, 1968, wrote of the need for greater coop- eration between universities and junior colleges. The inadequacy of teacher training programs plus the recognition of the need to help those already employed by community colleges led to greater attention being focused upon in-service education. This call for in-service education was further enhanced by Gordon Kilpatrick's observation that "While the original purpose of in-service education was the elimination of deficiencies in teachers' pre-service preparation, it has been supplanted by other purposes, such as fulfill- ing the needs of teachers to keep abreast of the latest developments in the state of the art and in their specialized fields."11 Kilpatrick set forth a number of recommendations which include some 13f the components for staff development recognized in current (rm literature. As early as 1967 these authors were attempting to set forth some guidelines for in-service/staff development opportunities. At the same time they acknowledged some of the difficulties of mounting a gggg_program, i.e., money, time, institutional support, attitudes and the provision of special on-campus conferences and workshops. It was however the rapid growth of community/junior colleges which outpaced the efforts to provide good training which led to consideration of teacher in-service in the late 1960's. While 1970 saw the continued concern for teacher preparation as evidenced by the Carnegie Commission's proposal of a doctor of arts degree, there began to be even greater concern for professional growth oppor- tunities. Indeed, Kelley and Wilbur stated that "The colleges must do more to provide better orientation..to stimulate through workshops and institutes, to provide seminars and conferences, to keep up-to- date by passing current journals across the desk instead of filing them in the library, to adopt a system of teacher visitation of classes, and to provide extra money or time off for the professional growth and improvement of teachers."12 The 70's Bring a Focus on Faculty Development If the 60's were characterized by growth of community colleges, which resulted in mushrooming faculty ranks by those unfamiliar with teaching in the community college, the 70's could be assessed as a 'time of increased pressure to maintain high quality programs with fHJman resources available to any institution. This led to new ~A.~. n1 f: 1:. “.‘ ‘\ ‘h .‘F in, considerations of faculty and staff development programs which were designed to go beyond correcting teacher inadequacies to the recog- nition of the need of all staff to keep abreast of the changing times and technologies. Gordon Kilpatrick's proposal that in-service should be viewed more broadly than as a means to eliminate deficiencies was joined by the increased pursuit of faculty development. Indeed, Joseph Fordyce stated in July of 1971 that "America's community colleges must con- tinue to give major emphasis to in-service education. Most teachers, counselors, and administrators who have joined faculties within the last ten years have had little or no specific attention or experience that has related specifically to the needs of education at this level."13 In the 70's college personnel had come to accept the fact that diverse students, new technologies, campus organizational dyna- mics, legislative demands and many other changes required the pursuit of staff development just to keep up--not simply to reduce or elimi- nate deficiencies. The Florida legislature's three percent earmark for faculty and program development was the earliest and most far-reaching attempt to provide for community college staff development which tied personal growth to the achievement of institutional goals. Wilson Wetzler commends the Florida community college system when noting that "it is believed that one aspect that can help to insure quality education is faculty and program development. Thus, any development plan should mean a dual emphasis upon improvement of its staff and of that entity e... y- 01'. ‘. C "1 o . known as the "institution" or its programs."14 As a result, the Florida programs were the first to attempt to formally focus upon staff development as a resource for maintaining quality education while enhancing the individual and promoting institutional goals. Although the Florida experiment did and still does stand alone, there followed widespread calls for comprehensive faculty and staff development programs. In the early 70's Terry O'Banion was commis- sioned by the Congress to study the question of teacher education and make recommendations. His Report to the Copgress: People for the People's College, (published in 1972 as Teachers for Tomorrow: Staff Development in the Community Junior College), is often sighted as setting the foundations for formal staff development efforts in the community college. In it he states, "there has been too little attention paid to the increased need for staff development. Unless the urgency and magnitudes of this need for staff development is recognized immediately, and massive support is made available for creative and imaginative staff development programs, the full poten- "15 In tial of the community junior college will be unrealized. . . this early work he sets forth several types of in—service programs as: institutes, workshops, staff retreats, in-house continuing sem- inars, encounter groups, conventional and professional meetings, visitations, packaged programs, apprenticeships, and professional reading. The push was on for creation of formalized organizational (efforts at staff development as part of the college's operations. . I U Np. ‘hn "Vd ii. ' ‘o 10 O'Banion concluded by noting that "if in-service programs are to be fully effective, they will need much more development, integration, and organization. . .Funds must be available. . .programs must be integrated into the fiber of the college. . .they must be better 16 The organized. . .And there must be commitment to in-service." observations of O'Banion were followed by a great deal of writing and dialogue on the subject of staff development. New Directions for Community Colleges, edited by Arthur Cohen in the Spring of 1973, included advice about improving in-service from O'Banion, a look at Danforth's Community College Institutes, Zion and Sutton's admonition that "in-service education. . .cannot be effective. . . ."17 as well as writings on faculty without an integrative purpose. . professionalism in the community college. If the early 70's led to a greater recognition of the need for good staff development programs, it was also a time for posing many questions about what constituted a staff development program, how it was to be implemented, who it should serve and many other issues about both the process and content. One of two major recommendations offered by O'Banion in his work, Teachers for Tomorrow, was that "in the 1970's priority should be given to the development of a variety of creative and well-designed in-service programs.”18 Other recommendations included the identification and dissemination of model programs and the development of a variety of mediums through which in-service might occur. 11 Zion and Sutton's call for an integrative approach fostered numerous questions to be addressed. They included a college's review of reward systems, the commitment of resources to such development programs, the ability and willingness to involve every aspect of the institution's functioning and many more topics key to getting programs off the ground. One by one these various aspects of staff development were taken up in the literature. The recognition of a need to answer these questions was accompanied by a broad spectrum of writing and studies which offered new perspectives and/or proposals. The Group for Human Development in Higher Education's work entitled, Facultprevelopment in a Time of Retrenchment, focused primarily on faculty issues in the four—year colleges and universities. It did, however, offer a number of ways to begin which were much dis- cussed in higher education. More important to the community colleges were the 1973 Assembly of the American Association of Community Colleges reported upon by Roger Yarrington, editor, in New Staff for New Students and a 1974 Conference on Questions and Issues in Planning Community College Staff Development Programs held at Pennsylvania State University in July. The 1972 Assembly recommended that state and institutional models of staff development..inc1uding guidelines for implementation be identified, compiled and described. They went one step further in their recommendations by offering some fundamental guidelines. In recommending that external agency support be sought they commented 12 that "each college must identify its own staff development needs in light of its own missions, its own clientele, and its obligations to the immediate community which it services." A further repeated theme in Assembly discussions was that the college must give active support rather than passive attention to staff development and that it must demonstrate its commitment to this activity by re-ordering its prior- ities and allocating from its own resources the necessary means for staff renewal."19 The Assembly's report underscored the growing demand for staff development in the community colleges. It was followed by the publi- cation of the Proceedings of the Conference on Questions and Issues in Planning Community College Staff Development Programs. In this work James Hammons and Terry Wallace observe that "the time for debating whether or not a need for staff development exists has 20 The conference served, therefore, passed. The issue is 'how'." as an attempt to examine literature, identify the questions and issues, offer several descriptions of successful programs and make recommendations. It is with the "how" in mind that they and other conference participants considered questions about organization, funding, motivation to participate, identifying needs, etc. Staff development in the community college was here to stay. What, then, were the essential components to establishing a staff development program? Wallace, in his first review of the literature, points up 'the need for further studies which, "should supply the guidelines ‘FOV“implementation whenever possible."21 13 More and more attention was to be given to "the how" and various components of a comprehensive staff development program. An example was Eric Holm's article in the May, 1975, Community and Junior College Journal, "The Professional Development Program You Can Afford". He describes the Mt. Hood Community College Program as one which mixes personal development with one's professional work. The result is a staff development program which is tied to the overall goals of the college. William Toombs elaborates more upon this principle in his article, "A Three Dimensional View of Faculty Development". He advo- cates that "it is in the design stages of the proposal that it (the dichtomy of employee vs organizational development) must be con- sidered so that limits of individual prerogative and institutional requirements are laid out. . ."22 It is from this basic premise that he goes on to write of the professional, curricular, and insti- tutional dimensions of faculty development. Moreover, he notes that "the nature of the basic resources for professional development are already well established in most institutions: timg_freed of obligation, support in the form of secretarial or technical aid, equipment, supplies and space and fgggs for travel or special pur- chases."23 In conclusion, he sets forth some "emergent principles" for planning staff development. His suggestions for a comprehensive program include attention to costs, identifying needs, the three (iimensions spoken of earlier, alternatives which allow for individual 14 independence while considering organizational ends, recognition of career stages, and linkages to on-going or emerging activities of the institution. In addition to the operational components of a staff development program was the need to foster a readiness for such programs. John B. Frances pointed out that "there are stages to the development of faculty development, that different approaches are appropriate at different stages, and that knowledge of the prevailing institutional climate of awareness and its relation to programs being considered are important factors in the success of such programs which are not 24 to be overlooked." He goes on to describe the three stages as (1) raising consciousness, (2) focal awareness, and (3) subsidiary. The first stage is one of "unfreezing traditional faculty disinterest. The second is moving beyond the questions of whether or not staff development is worthwhile to what specifically can be done. Finally, the third stage moves to the organizing, coordinating, and refining of specific actions being focused upon at any given point. He, too, concludes that "the necessity of implementing and organizing whatever programs seem appropriate involves consideration of how programs relate to one another and to the overall objectives of an institution. Awareness by planners of the context in which such programs are to be implemented is a crucial factor to their success."25 It is at this point that recognition is given to the fact that staff development is and must be somewhat different than traditional iii-service programs. Anthony F. Grasha, in the April, 1976, issue of 15 Educational Technology states that "Faculty development needs to go beyond the traditional activities of sabbaticals and teaching or research grants. It needs to address the personal, professional and "26 the organizational needs of faculty. . . In that same issue of Educational Technology John Lutz suggests that "construction of useful training programs for teachers must involve constructs from learning theory, psychology, subject matter specialties, management and infor- mation systems, training and implementation systems, and evaluation and feedback systems. Because of this involvement, in many areas a continuous coordination and monitoring function must be in effect 27 It is from this perspective that he during program construction." sets forth a listing of components for planning and carrying out a personal development program ranging from initial planning and needs assessment to evaluation and revision. Pulling It Together In 1976 Jerry Gaff and John Centra wrote two works which were the result of surveys to consider what faculty development was being done and how it was being done. Centra reported his findings on what colleges, universities and community colleges were most often engaging their faculty in as development opportunities. He then took the study one step further to determine what practices were «considered most effective. Yet, his work did not focus upon specific components of a comprehensive program. Instead the focus was solely Upon prevailing practices and their personal value. 16 Gaff, on the other hand, went on to offer some insight into the dimensions of a comprehensive faculty development effort. Although his focus is faculty development, the perspective offered is broader and relates to the aspects of staff, program, and organizational development. Thus he sets forth some basic principles in relation to staff development program content--personal, instructional, and organ- izational development. . .elements of process-—assessment, planning, organization, program activities, incentives and rewards, and funding and evaluation. Gaff began to fill a void which had become evident by the mid 70's. While many books, articles, and conferences addressed the question of staff development, there had not yet evolved guidelines to what constitutes the essential components of a comprehensive staff development program. Bergquist and Phillips noted, in 1975, that "efforts at faculty development have been largely cosmetic in nature or based, at least in part, on faculty assumptions about the way in which faculty, as well as students, learn, change, and grow. We are left with few guidelines for new programs in faculty development, even though such programs appear to be essential ingredients in the educational reforms of the 1970's."28 They go on to suggest that change will not occur until faculty development programs are com- prehensive, "touching on most aspects of the teaching--learning enterprise." 17 The idea that development programs not be limited to faculty was acknowledged by other authors. Greater attention was given to "staff development" which expanded the programs to include all college employees, aspects of program development and organizational development. Charles Claxton summarizes the results of a southern conference of community colleges held in the fall of 1975 in Community College Staff Development: Basic Issues in Planning to consider the topic of staff development. In this work he sets forth the components for a comprehensive staff development program as pro- posed by conference participants who ranged from the newly initiated to representatives from the Florida system which had come a long way since the legislative mandates of the late 60's. One key aspect was that such programs do include all college employees. These writings did not, however, set forth a comprehensive model. In 1976 Charles Herbert LeClair did a dissertation study on "In-Service Policies and Practices in North Central Association Community Colleges." His studyincluded a questionnaire to gather data which he suggested might "provide a process to review the college's professional development program." He concludes with a recommendation that "A model should be developed to describe the components and interrelationships which ought to comprise a quality professional development program."29 The model has not yet been proposed, examined, and made avail— able to others. As a result, more recent writings suggest the need (‘1‘ O 4 U 18 to look seriously at what is really being done through staff develop- ment programs. It has been repeatedly observed that staff development has always been an important part of higher education in the form of sabbaticals, conferences, travel, release time and numerous other programs. The question is now raised with regard to what is different about a formalized or institutionalized staff development effort. Allan Bare, writing in 1977, noted that individual performance im- provement plans are not of much value unless they are related to work responsibilities. His reasoning is that such growth contracting approaches are not likely to receive the necessary organizational support if there is not some return to the institution as perceived by those responsible for supervising. In making his case he comments that "personal growth plans derived in isolation from work require- ments get little support from the resource providers and managers preoccupied with getting the job done. Thus personal growth contracts, while more palatable to faculty members than work plans, can fail to provide developmental payoffs for lack of organizational commitment."30 Consequently, the most recent literature has begun to go beyond the questions of needs assessment, definitions, or specific develop- ment activities. With fewer dollars available the demand for more staff development programs must be met with well thought out, com- prehensive programs which are of value to both individuals and the community college. Charles Novak and Barbara Barnes acknowledge 5‘". 1) 7‘1. 3|I‘ ‘n 5,... YV an. a up-“ 11" ' n .‘ - J'J,‘ ‘ (:2’ ‘ 'd‘yl I he: 1 l (I! (.l‘ LK~ . *g. 19 this when they write, in summarizing their findings of studies in Illinois and Florida, that "a sound staff development program responds to both individual and institutional needs and recognizes their complementary nature."31 A broader consideration of staff development was provided by Hammons, Smith Wallace and Watts. They offer many insights derived from their personal experiences, consulting and studies in their work Staff Development in the Community College: A Handbook. After providing the reader with a definition of staff development, per- spectives on needs assessment and part-time faculty, they summarize what they see as the most important ingredients for a successful staff development program. They are concerned that such programs are implemented so as to focus on what is important in recognition that ". . .a staff development program is extremely vulnerable to the attacks on one or two local critics, the well intentioned cuts of a budget balancing business manager, the building fund priorities of a facility oriented president, the cost cutting impulses of community pressured board members, or the remote impartiality of 32 state officials." Finally, Terry O'Banion's most recent work, Organizing Staff _Qeyelopment Programs That Work, describes some common components or approaches that should be considered in organizing staff development programs. Although he suggests that the state of the art does not permnt.reference to experiences as guidelines, he notes the importance 20 of beginning to get a handle on what does, in fact, constitute the essential components of a staff develOpment program. He points out that "except in a few community colleges such initiatives are not organized into a well-defined, purposeful staff development program."33 Summary The community college growth has been rapid since the late 50's. The pressures and demands of our society have given rise to an unprec- edented growth in higher education. The result has been to take on many new staff in instructional and non-instructional areas to meet the influx of students. The literature and studies have pointed up how faculty and staff have been effected by this growth. The demand for new faculty throughout the 60's and early 70's outpaced the supply of certified teachers trained for instruction in the community college with its new philosophy, diversity of students and differing organizational structure. The faculties and admini- strators were pressed into service with little or no training while, at the same time, other pressures began to mount. Retrenchment, accountability, new technologies, heavy reliance on part-time faculty, new student populations and other factors demanded more of conmunity college staff. These needs gave rise to increased attention to in-service education in the late 60's and early 70's. Studies were undertaken, cOnferences held and recommendations made concerning how to provide 21 for in-service faculty and staff development programs. Moreover, the the need was met through a broad range of initiatives which included the legislative set-aside of 3 percent of funds for staff development in Florida, campus advisory committees, increased workshops, insti- tutes, formalized staff development offices, and much more. In fact, the movement became so widespread that in 1977 a National Council for Staff, Program, and Organizational Development was established to foster and share the various staff development interests in the community college. Yet, while earlier writing and studies focused on varying aspects of getting programs started, keeping them going, evaluating them, or describing the many activities which constitute staff development there remains a need to pull it together. More recently authors such as Hammons, O'Banion, Smith and others have attempted to get a handle on the state of the art and what constitutes the essential components of staff development programs. Yet, there has not been a model which has been tested in relation to the programs evolving in so many community colleges throughout the country. There is still a great need to study existing staff development IDrOgrams in order to offer some guidelines for what constitutes the l"mportant components of a comprehensive program. Indeed, with ‘31 ghtening funds, new or existing initiatives cannot stumble along airnlessly. The purpose of this study is to find out what components f\~ A!» C111" .4 u «it. a... I. H -\U l -\v N L 3A.U 14% n\u D Hair 22 constitute and are important to staff development programs using a paradigm to guide the investigation. The study examined a number of staff development initiatives in czommunity colleges to identify what constitutes the components to more clearly define the parts in relation to the whole. The study offered 2: definition of staff development through the proposal of a paradigm ‘flrt1ich identifies the major components of staff development programs and their interrelationships. It sought to test the proposed paradigm i r1 relation to practices at selected community colleges; the nature ()‘f’ staff development, the breadth of programs, and the depth of pro- grams in relation to the components of the proposed paradigm. It a1 so examined the components of the proposed paradigm with a ques- t;i (alnnaire sent to a population of experts. The following questions lear1u _ i u. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . - . - b i p i i h b b Azuzz_w¢ e soaem zo_e¢o~ze [W 3<8 AW 35... «Iv $553.5 Alv 23.33:: TV ezmzeodio o<=o_>_oz. o_oz_ o<=o_>_oz_ . ezwza05u>uo o<2o_e<~_zwo eeaem . pxxzyzznxm_gu newness .30: 3:300:00 < 39 Early stages reflect a more exploratory stance on the part of faculty This period is one of planning and assessment which pre- and staff. The two stages proposed reflect cedes more substantive activities. a growth from a more closed and exploratory stance to a more Open and meaningful program which begins to integrate activities into the individual's performance and organizational change. The Community College Models The community college has kept pace in the field of staff The varied experience and commitment to the initiatives development. has given rise to models described in the literature by and about the two-year college. The most recognized model is that of the Florida system. Wilson ldetzler acclaims the Florida plan as "A Breakthrough for Faculty and F’rogram Development" in a 1970 issue of the Junior College Journal. The author points to the legislative program which established that 3 percent of community college budgets be directed toward staff development activities. The creation of a legislated funding mechanism It made the Florida system a leader in staff development programs. Set forth a state model which was seen as a means of insuring good Wetzler points out, "any development 1“Faculty and program development. FJWIEiri should mean a dual emphasis upon improvement of its staff and 9 1F'1E11: entity known as the 'institution' or its programs." 40 Specific campus models for staff development in the community college did not come until some time later. Earlier writing began to identify principles, practices, and a look at some of the components. One of the first works which provided a good look at issues, aspects of planning, and the components of staff development programs in the community college was Charles Claxton's Community College Staff Development: Basic Issues in Planning. The book was a result of a conference sponsored by the Southern Regional Education Board. A most significant aspect of this and other literature from the community college was the recognition that staff development models must include non-instructional staff as well as faculty. In a 1977 article Claxton makes a note of "an emerging model of comprehensive staff development." He sees the model as having the following characteristics: (1) It is a central activity of the college, inextricably related to its mission, oper— ation, and institutional planning. (2) Staff development is a continuous, planned program taking place throughout the year. (3) Programs are based on needs identified by the staff members themselves. (4) A staff development program is increasingly viewed as positive and growth oriented. (5) An increasing number of colleges see it as being for all persons on the staff.10 41 The most recognized model (Figure 2) for staff development was offered by James Hammons, Gordon Watts, and Terry Smith-Wallace in the ERIC publication: Staff Development in the Community College: A Handbook. The model reflects much of what has been described in the literature and practices which the authors have found in colleges they have personally worked with. The Handbook goes beyond many earlier pieces by the authors and other writers in two respects. First, it attempts to offer a conceptual model rather than a look at individual campus programs. Secondly, they give considerable attention to the processes of organizing staff development programs in a community college. Terry O'Banion offers a look at the process of staff development garograms in his booklet, Organizing Staff Development Programs that jggrk, He sets forth some guidelines for organizing staff development pzrxograms while not proposing a model. His emphasis, both in this work and previous writing, calls upon staff developers to pay attention to 11¢)vv staff development functions. Staff development models must not <>\Iezrlook the mechanics of how a program will operate in the college. L‘i ke O'Banion, Gary Peterson's edited work, Staff Development - .EfljLzrj-Models for College Implementation, focuses upon a "process model". W.J. Collen, in a paper presented at the 1978 International I"Stitute on the Community College, offers a conceptual model, stating 1:’1611: "a sound staff development program is essentially an integrated 42 Figure 2 43 group of educational activities designed to change the organization so that it may remain viable and functioning in a changing environment, by changing its staff."11 It is from this perspective that he focuses upon the processes which make for a well integrated program. A contrasting position is offered by the "Comprehensive Staff Development Planning Model" proposed by the North Carolina State Department in 1977. Essentially, the model advocates that organiza- tional development be seen as the sum of all individual plans. Moreover, the individual has responsibility for creating or finding staff development opportunities which relate to the institution and his or her particular job. Other models tend to focus upon individual colleges and special types of programs. Chester H. Case's Professional Staff Development: A Community College Model describes the program and operational proce- dures of Los Medanos Community College in California. D.A. Harris and Michael Parsons describe the model for Hagerstown Junior College which specifically addresses the adjunct faculty. William Culbertson proposes, in a 1974 dissertation, a conceptual model for vocational- technical instructors. Joseph Frederico writes of "A Staff Development Model for Student Personnel Services." And Jackie Moe offers "A Staff Deve10pment Model for Part-time Instructors" which reflects a program instituted in the Dallas Community College System. In summary, models for staff development have been provided in the literature. The authors offer guidelines for staff development 44 which focus upon (1) content: personal, instructional or organiza- tional develOpment or (2) process: purpose, planning, organization and staffing, funding, programming, rewards and incentives, and evaluation. The models tend to be (1) conceptual in nature, (2) drawn from surveys of programs and the experiences of those in the field or (3) descriptions of specific campus or state programs. They lack a comprehensiveness which draws all of these components together in a process/content model which clearly sets forth guidelines which touch upon all elements of staff development. The Process The launching and maintaining of a staff development program requires that one pays attention to a number of components related to institutional dynamics. The following review of the literature attempts to identify these components of a staff development program and what has been written about them. The components generally fall under the headings: (1) Purpose or Rationale, (2) Planning, (3) Organization and Staffing, (4) Funding, (5) Programming, (6) Rewards and Incentives, and (7) Evaluation. Purpose Rationales for staff development abound in the literature. However, it is important to distinguish between reasons for the current surge of staff development initiatives and fundamental rationale for 45 programs. Every author pays tribute to the list of reasons commonly sighted for the growth of staff development which include such obser- vations as the decline in enrollments and subsequent immobile staff, changing technologies, financial constraints, the rise of tenure tracked faculty and many other standard explanations. For the com- munity college these reasons are sighted with the additional observa- tions of those who have studied two-year faculties, (O'Banion, Cohen and Brawer, Kelley and Wilbur), that the rapid growth during the 60's called for faculty who were not trained to teach in the community college. Moreover, the dependency upon part-time faculty has added still another dimension of rationale. Robert Grymes' paper, Steff_ Development for Adjunct Faculty, makes a particular point of calling for staff develOpment for a growing cadre of part-timers who are not teachers by profession and experience a high turnover rate. The reasons for the growth of staff development are most notably compiled and articulated in the Hammons, Watts, Smith-Wallace publica- tion, Change's work by the Group for Human Development in Education, and Yarrington's Report of the AACJC Assembly. Yet these reasons fall short of the fundamental rationale offered by Garrison as sighted earlier in this paper. This rationale is reinforced by Gaff's obser- vation that ". . .the quality of education depends considerably on the quality of those who are instructing; faculty members who are the most important educational resource of institutions."12 This is repeated in a more recent article by W.J. Collen, who states that "staff develop- inent is seen as one of the most important, if not the_most important 46 resource that a community college has to cope with change in environ- ment, to remain viable and functioning, and to grow, develop or revitalize since one of the greatest and most critical resources for change within most organizations is its staff or employees."13 Charles Cole's work, To Improve Instruction and Gary Peterson's edited work, Staff Development: Mini-Models for College Implementation, extends these rationale to most cogently relate to the college's mission: instruction. David Glenday, writing in Peterson's work sights three assumptions for staff development: "to increase teacher effectiveness to better meet the needs of students, to bring together all college resources toward the improvement of classroom instruction and the creation of more and better educational alternatives, and the recognition that staff and instructional development overlap in a myraid of ways."14 In conclusion, while the literature offers many reasons for the growth of staff development, the basic premise for any program rationale must be the maintenance of institutional viability in delivering instruction. This viability depends upon the primary resource of the colleges: their faculty and staff. John Gardner states this rationale succinctly, in his book Self Renewal, when he writes: 47 "Exploration of the full range of his own potentialities is not something that the self-renewing man leaves to the chances of life. It is something he pursues systematically, or at least avidly, to the end of his days. He looks forward to an endless and unpredictable dialogue between his potentialities and the claims of life--not only the claims he encounters but the claims he invents. And by potentialities I mean not just skills, but the full range of his capacities for sensing, wondering, learning, understanding, loving and aspiring."15 ". . .society is not like a machine that is created at some point in time and then maintained with a minimum of effort; a society is being continuously re-created, for good or ill, by its members. This will strike some as a burdensome responsibility, but it will summon others to greatness."16 48 Planning Planning for staff development has not been given adequate attention in practice or in the literature. Paul DeVore, writing in 1971, pointed out that in-service programs had not been well planned to encourage and support changes. Indeed, as the call for staff development became more evident, attention began to focus upon some facets of planning. Needs assessment became the primary focus of initial efforts at staff development. The practitioners search to begin somewhere seemed often to lead to a quest for information on the process of needs assessment. This was soundly called for by Anthony Grasha's observation that programs must be offered in the context of data-based development programs. The long sought after needs assessment resulted in Brenda Raine's and Patricia Justice's compilation of needs assessment instruments used in the community college and the devotion of an entire chapter to needs assessment in the Hammons, Watts, and Smith-Wallace Handbook. Many other articles have been published which tend to reflect the individual practices of community colleges. Planning, however, appears to be elusive to the staff developer. There are two schools of thought reflected in the literature. First, there are those authors who encourage planning of staff development in a systematic way; building upon needs assessment data to establish goals, organization, programming, and evaluation (Claxton, Hammons, 49 O'Banion, and Lutz are among these authors). The second group gives greater attention to the fundamental aspect of staff development as a source of change--for the individual, programs, and the organization. These authors propose that staff developers pay attention to strategies for change. The fourth chapter of David Bushnell's book, Organizing for Change: New Priorities for Community Colleges, focuses upon change strategies necessary to achieve a college's goals and relates this to staff development. Jack Lindquist's work, Strategies for Change, specifically addresses change strategies as they might relate to faculty and program development. He offers a step-by-step description of four strategies, case studies, and some insights into his own preferences. The staff developer will also want to give considerable atten- tion to Ron Havelock's work, A Change Agent's Guide to Innovation. Havelock sets forth a very useful set of procedures for those who wish to introduce change by working patiently with the users. He proposes that the introduction of new processes or instruments be done by the potential user--with the change agent serving as a broker. The process is one of establishing a trust relationship with those who will adopt and getting them to recognize the need, offering alternatives, permitting them to try the innovation, and reinforcing its introduction through refinements as necessary. 50 Still other authors refer to the need for individual planning as related to staff development. Alan Bare's article, "Individual Development Planning in Academic Settings" emphasizes the need for growth plans. Such plans spring from the multitude of works and practices which call for "management by objectives." This type of staff development would take strong support from George Odiorne, Peter Drucker, Chris Argyris-- those who represent the voices of business and industry. Yet, the proponents of management by objective programs would caution that such individual programs are of little value without organizational support. Preus and Williams in a "Statewide Community College Faculty Development: A Personalized Approach", describe a program which attempted to work with individual faculty members who would return to their campus to institute new practices. They report that the program was not successful for lack of institutional commit- ment and support groups back home. Similarly, Lance Buhl and Adele Greenfield write in "Contracting for Professional Development in Academe" that "performance contracting involves a two-way process with faculty and administrators recognizing strengths and weaknesses, and setting forth the means to achieve agreed upon goals which are in agreement with the institution's goals."17 The area of curriculum or instructional development, in relation to staff development, is even more sparce when it comes to planning. Although Gaff's, Toward Faculty Renewal, addresses the topic in a chapter on instructional development, it does not discuss 51 the planning processes for carrying out instructional improvement initiatives. The focus tends to be placed upon improved student learning through faculty development, i.e., change on the part of individual faculty practices. The individualized approaches leave us without coherent planning processes for curricular or instructional improvement. Organization Charles Novak and Barbara Barnes report on "Florida and Illinois: Views of Staff Development" in Developing Staff Potential: New Directions for Community Colleges. Their studies, done independently in Florida and Illinois, point out that administrators want a full- time person with administrative status in charge of staff development. Faculty, on the other hand, prefer to maintain control without the benefit of a full-time person. These studies may reflect divergent attitudes about who should be responsible. However, staff and faculty developers tend to unani- mously recommend that a full-time staff person be designated to carry- out programs. Bergquist and Phillips go so far as to note that "a faculty development program begun with serious intent must be adequately staffed by professionals, with additional support provided by other "18 available campus resources, including both faculty and students. The Hammons, Watts, and Smith-Wallace, Handbook for Staff Development in the Community College, gives the most complete 52 treatment to organization. The authors describe several models ranging from committee structures and part-time administratively run programs to more refined industrial models. They conclude their review of varying structures with the observation that the key is "the clear assignment of responsibility." They take this position based on the premise that everyone's responsibility becomes no one's responsibility. The support of top level administration for staff development initiatives is also key to the organization of programs. Programs should not be viewed as short term ventures to introduce change. The process of change requires that staff development be an on-going program within the organization. Thus it is from this perspective that Bessent and others write that "the acceptance of staff develop- ment as a legitimate, continuing part of school organization requires clear administrative sanction. This sanction is manifested by the creation of a full-time coordinator working in conjunction with supervisory specialists on the staff."19 The call for a full-time person and a coordinated initiative is wide-spread (Gaff, Claxton, O'Banion, Hammons, Bergquist, and Phillips, Bessent et.al., Friedlander and Brown, and others). Friedlander and Brown wisely caution that "support of top management 20 is not sufficient condition for success." This caution is further confirmed by the findings of John Centra in 1976 and Al Smith in 1980. 53 Their two studies of faculty and staff development programs revealed that forty-nine percent and fifty—three percent of the two-year schools with development programs had a unit or person responsible for staff development. With less than half of the institutions reporting such coordinating effort one is left to ask what differences are reflected in these varying initiatives. There are obvious advantages to full-time coordination, advisory committee support, presidential involvement, the creation of a unit within the organization, and other practices. Yet, there are broad variations between the ideal and practices in the two-year colleges. Al Smith's study attempts to take encouragement from the growth of full-time coordinating units of four percent. Barbara Gray and Marie Nock have gone one step further to begin to identify essential know- ledge and skills for staff developers in a Competency Project sponsored by the Florida Association and National Council for Staff, Program, and Organizational Development in 1979. Funding Many authors suggest that administrative support is reflected by budgetary support and the commitment of hard dollars. (The Group for Human Development in Education, David Hyslop, William Nelson, Terry O'Banion, James Hammons, Charles Collen). The pattern of that support may be as significant as the outlay of dollars. 54 The literature has not devoted adequate attention to funding. Chet Case considers the pattern of funding in a chapter on Community College Staff Development in Designing Teachirg Improvement Programs. He distinguishes between a narrow and wide budget approach. The wide budget approach reflects the gathering in of all staff development expenditures--travel and conferences, sabbaticals, release time, incentive grants, etc. The narrow budget approach refers to expenses solely in relation to the staffing and operation of a coordinating office. In any case, it can be noted that all colleges are devoting funds to staff development if they have so much as a release time, sabbatical or travel program. The approach to counting and managing those funds may, as Case suggests, reflect upon the philosophical basis for staff development initiatives at a community college. Al Smith's 1980 study indicates that funds committed to staff development have decreased. His study showed a larger number of colleges reporting a decrease in funding than was reported in John Centra's 1976 study. In addition, a smaller percentage of colleges showed an increase in funding in Smith's study than in Centra's. Yet, Centra's study pointed up one very important point regarding funding; over 70 percent reported that programs were funded by hard dollars. This represents significant support for staff development. Unfortunately Smith's study does not reveal whether or not the decrease was the reSLflt.of reductions in hard money or external sources. 55 Finally, no discussion of funding would be complete without recognition of the Florida system. As a model for staff development the state has legislated that 3 percent of each community college budget be devoted to staff development. Wilson Wetzler, writing in 1970, referred to the program as "a break through for faculty and program development." Unfortunately, the concept has not spread to other states since its inception and leaves staff developers envious. Programming The literature is rich with resources for staff development programming. The topic may include careful descriptions of unique college programs, lists of potential program areas, or resources such as the Bergquist and Phillips Handbook for Faculty Development which serves as a guide for conducting programs. Most programming originates with a good needs assessment. This is particularly important as a means of delivering programs which serve the college staff and create a sense of ownership in the staff development initiatives. Hammons, Watts, and Smith-Wallace devote a complete chapter to the topic of needs assessment and others have written on what they have done to carryout needs assessments at their college. Havelock, in The Change Agents Guide to Innovation, reconmends that the first step toward introducing change is to get true client to recognize the need for whatever is to be introduced to the system. 56 Programs which follow from needs assessment may vary. It is at this point that the unique dynamics of a campus have the greatest impact. As O'Banion points out, "The program format will depend upon institutional resources, expectations or participants, and the creativity of the staff development coordinator."21 The models offered for staff development suggest that programs will fall in three categories: personal, instructional and organiza- tional. Staff development, which focuses upon the personal development, will take the form of individual plans to improve upon some weaknesses identified in working with a staff member or simply rely upon chance skills building at the discretion of potential participants. Buhl and Greenfield describe the process of individual planning in a 1975 Educational Record piece called "Contracting for Professional Develop- ment in Academe." Al Smith's monograph on Faculty Development and Evaluation in Higher Education is written with an emphasis toward combining both activities in a supportive way to assist the faculty members with development. He concludes his monograph with the proposal that 'the growth contracting' process offers one of the best models for achieving in one program the major goals of most faculty develop- ment and evaluation programs i.e., the improvement of college teaching."22 The linkage between individual development and instructional (Jr organizational development requires some attention when programs are planned. While Alan Bare may agree with Smith's proposal, he is 57 adamant about the need to link individual plans to organizational goals. As noted earlier, Buhl and Greenfield strongly advocated this linkage. What then are the practices of staff development programs? John Centra's 1976 report, Faculty Deve10pment Practices in the U.S., provides the most comprehensive study of program activities in the area of faculty and staff development. The study was repeated in 1980 by Al Smith in a National Research Project on the Status of Staff, Program, and Organizational Development in Community Colleges. Both studies found agreement on four of the top five highly rated practices. They are: (1) travel funds for professional conferences, (2) use of grants by faculty members for developing new approaches, (3) summer grants for projects to improve instruction or courses, and (4) faculty visitations to other institutions. Individual college programs are reported on in the literature. Some include: a multi-campus approach described by Preus and Williams in Statewide Community College Faculty Development: A Personalized Approach; campus team projects explained in Sikes, et al, Renewing Higher Education from Within; an individual college program detailed by Chanin "Branching Out: The Staff Development Program at Parkland (killege;" Hoem's review of "The Professional Deve10pment Program TQM: Can Afford;" and Mitler and Dolan's ERIC documentation of the Oakttui Community College Staff Development Program. Also included in these program reports are the many part-time or adjunct faculty Programs. In this area Grymes sets forth some guidelines in 58 Staff Development for Adjunct Faculty, while Harris and Parsons report on Adjunct Faculty: A Working System of Development, describing a successful program at Hagerstown Junior College. Rewards and Incentives Rewards and incentives are an important consideration for any staff development program. Individuals and organizations are faced with limited resources; time and money. When attempting to set priorities we are all faced with the inevitable choice of how to allocate that time and money. Hammons, Smith-Wallace, and Watts note that "community college staff members are busy people who are torn between competing and conflicting demands on their time. In deciding among alternatives regarding the use of their time, they need to answer the question "What's in it for me"? Participation in staff development and subsequent changes in behavior require time 23 that might be spent on other activities." Glynn and Goodwin, writing in New Directions in the Community College also make this point. Needs assessments have been used to give staff members an opportunity to identify their priorities. One often reads of the need to develop a sense of ownership in the program initiatives. Gaff ivas particularly sensitive to this in his work, Toward Faculty Renewal. People are motivated to participate in activities which are gnaing to offer some benefit in relation to their own interests and goals. 59 Consequently, the needs assessment can serve to recognize a valid discrepancy between what is and what is desired or necessary to function with increasing effectiveness. However, needs assessments can also play a more important role of pinpointing areas where staff and faculty are willing to devote their time and energy. This becomes an important vehicle for deter- mining intrinsic motivators of those who will be served by staff development. Gaff commented that "faculty will change when they are praised, recognized, and rewarded for effectiveness and improve- ment. For faculty, this means the reward structure must recognize their development efforts or they will not long strive for improvement."24 Jabker and Halenski conducted a study of the effect of rewards on instructional development with their program at Illinois State University. Their findings showed that "the level of interest in regular academic year instructional development program grants declined each year in the absence of an effective reward system within the institution, thus suggesting the innovation to improve 25 Whether this instruction is more extrinsic than intrinsic." finding can be generalized to other staff development initiatives is unclear. Most authors in the field have supported the contention that programs must pay attention to incentives and rewards. Charles Cole podnts out that "combined with faculty acceptance and administrative support, a change in the reward system is also singled out by a number 60 of authors as a vital factor in assuring success of instructional improvement."26 Jabker and Halenski appear to be unique in so far as they have substantiated that proposition with their program. Alan Bare describes the need for rewards and incentives in terms of "organizational support for learning and incentives to 27 Thomas Hatfield notes that "even motivate the desired action." without mandating instructional change, the president can help to create a setting that supports, encourages, and rewards the faculty 28 member who initiates and maintains change." Martona writes, "to promote voluntary involvement in staff development new systems of 2 rewards are necessary." 9 Whatever, the perspective rewards and incentives are an important component of staff development programs. They may include release time, promotions, direct stipends, salary increases, institutional recognition, paid travel or the opportunity for personal and professional growth. The rewards and incentives for program and organizational development are not so obvious. Why should a department take on the added task of staff or instructional development? Aren't there enough demands placed upon a departmental budget and the college resources? For the answers to these questions one would have to refer back to some of the rationale for staff development. Quality education requires staff who are prepared to deliver good instructional services, low turnover of faculty dictates that initiatives be 61 undertaken to keep abreast, accountability requires that resources are used wisely, etc. From these rationale one would hope that staff development would offer one means of recognizing faculty initiative and institutional programs, generating systems which maintain enroll- ments, secure new sources of funding and create an environment con- ducive to change and good education. Yet the question of rewards and incentives for the college and its programs is neither asked nor addressed in the literature. Just as Hammons suggests that the individual will ask "What is in it for me?" so, too, might the institution ask "What are the payoffs for staff development"? The answer to that question might be seen in the comments of W.J. Collen. He stated that staff development is most important to helping the organization to cope with change and remain viable. This contention that staff development is essential to survival leads one to conclude that program and organizational rewards and incentives may be summed up by one word: "survival". Argyris and Schon offer support to this when they write: Linking individual human behavior with the state of the world in which it exists made it possible to ask how the environment affects its creators and led to the realization that this effect depends on how peo- ple experience the environment; and how they construct it. Individuals are ultimately responsible for the 62 impact of the environment because they learn from personally constructed experience. Finally, research on the nature of effective organizations began to show that organizations were frequently in decay. The ineffectiveness, costliness, and deteriorating quality of products and services were found to be based on the fact that organizations were designed originally to ignore human nature, to ignore individuals' feelings and most of their abilities, and to exploit them."30 If the community college is to remain a viable, functioning educational institution; the staff - its primary resource - must have opportunities to grow. The college is only as good as the people who deliver its services; in and out of the classroom. Evaluation Evaluation of staff development is a component of the model which raises many questions, poses a great deal of stress for staff developers, and can be approached from a variety of perspectives. It can be addressed, like any college program, with two purposes in mind: formative and summative decision-making. The formative 63 approach is of value in determining if a program is effective as it is currently implemented or needs some changes. The summative raises the question "Should it be continued?" One wonders about the question since most authors writing on the topic acknowledge that staff develOp- ment is a long standing tradition in the community college; beginning with sabbaticals, conference and travel programs, release time, etc. The question might more appropriately be stated as "Will it be continued as an organized, integrated, coordinated program of the community college?“ It may really be a question of formative evaluation since faculty and staff will continue to seek out such opportunities in some form. In any event, staff development programs have only recently begun to pay greater attention to evaluation. Both Terry O'Banion and Al Smith point out that little emphasis on evaluation in the 70's can be attributed to the staff developers concern with planning and implementing programs. They are joined by Hammons, Watts, Smith- Wallace, Mizell, O'Connell and Meeth in urging that more attention must be given to evaluation in the 80's. Smith writes that "the emphasis will have to change, with directors of development programs devoting a great deal more time and resources to program evaluation. Such a change in priorities will be necessary to halt the previously mentioned declining resources for staff development programs and to wfin further support for this most important program."31 64 The difficulty of evaluation arises in the need to appreciate the use to be made of any evaluative product. O'Connell and Meeth sum this up nicely when they write, "Too often evaluation is thought of only as the collection of data and not as a total process that includes setting goals and purposes, collecting data, interpreting the findings to serve the various audiences, and reporting the results. Throughout, those who will be affected by the results should be included in the planning."32 Criteria for evaluating the program will be determined by the purposes for which an evaluation is being done. Smith's 1980 research project on the status of staff develOpment uses the various criteria set forth by O'Connell and Meeth to determine what is currently being done. This criteria was grouped into four areas: (1) Criteria for Judging the Staff Development Program, (2) Criteria for Judging Program Effect on the Faculty, (3) Criteria for Judging Program Effect on the Administration, and (4) Criteria for Judging Program Effect on the Institution. His findings show that while staff developers sight the five most frequently used criteria as those taken from the first area; Criteria for Judging the Staff Development Program, only one of the six criteria identified as the most frequently met came from that area. What this all means is left to the interpretation of those who will make the staff development decisions on each campus. Chet Case, speaking as a participant at the 1978 National Conference of p ‘ 4 65 the National Council for Staff, Program, and Organizational Develop- ment urged that staff developers maintain a balance in the amount of time and energy devoted to evaluation. Programs must pay attention to stating clear, measureable objectives when undertaking the develop- ment of programs. Those who have emphasized the need for good planning have always been cognizant of the importance of having good objectives conducive to evaluation. Thus, evaluation is recognized as an integral part of program planning; taken into consideration before implementation and not as an after thought (Bergquist and Phillips, Claxton, Gaff, and LeForge). In relation to the proposed paradigm, two works stand out in the literature as having proposed a process for assessing the effect of staff development programs. Watts, writing in the Staff Development in the Community College: A Handbook and Donald Hoyt and George Howard's article, “The Evaluation of Faculty Development Programs", "have recognized different levels of evaluation in relation to a program's effect. These levels are viewed in regard to the indi- vidual participants and the ultimate outcomes of staff development in relation to the improved delivery of instruction and services. Watts refers to these levels as: (1) Some assessment of the staff development activity--did participants like the activity, was it \NEII planned and organized? (2) Did the participants learn anything? (3) Did participants apply what was learned in his/her job setting? (4) Did the application have an effect on student performance, 66 . . 3 attrition or some other measure?" 3 The Hoyt and Howard process is only somewhat different in that levels number 2 and 3 are combined. A staff development model must ask ..... What is the purpose of evaluation (formative or summative) and at what level is it being done? If one goes back to Smith's earlier work, Faculty Development and Evaluation in Higher Education, staff development may be naturally linked to an individual's evaluation as a means to focus upon strengths and weaknesses to determine where emphasis should be placed with regard to a faculty or staff member's development. If the purpose is summative, in the case of individual employees, there need be no linkage to staff development. This is rarely the case; for evaluations are seldom linked to a person's dismissal. The linkage might therefore be strengthened with further efforts made to introduce growth contracting as suggested earlier by Smith. The program and organizational development which constitutes a significant part of the model will not often defer to Watts' levels 3 and 4; have changes in the job setting been instituted and have these changes resulted in desired outcomes? These measures, as noted by Hoyt and Howard will prove to be elusive because of the impact of other variables upon these outcomes. One might create an analogy to explain the problem .............. 67 Of course, the rain is important; as is the sun, the soil, the gardener, the fertilizer. Thus staff developers should not lose their perspective in evaluation. To reach too far beyond some assessment of the program and its potential impact may be a mistake. In sum, here are two caveats offered by O'Connell and Meeth. "Evaluation is a political activity; criteria for judgments may change." "An evaluator cannot be neutral since evaluation must serve a useful purpose. However, the eval- uator should not take a strong defensive stand or be overly sympathetic toward the program goals and potentialities."34 68 ENDNOTES 1 . . . Roger H. Garrison, "A Mini-Manual on In-Service," Community and Junior College Journal (June/July, 1975), p. 20. 2Terry O'Banion, OrganizingrStaff Development Programs that Work (Washington, D.C., 1978), p. 5. 3Paul Davidson Reynolds, A Primer in Theory Construction (New York, 1971), pp. 26. 4 Jerry G. Gaff, Toward Faculty Renewal (San Francisco, 1976), 5Ibid., p. x111. 6William Bergquist and Steven Phillips, "Components of an Effective Faculty Development Program,“ Journal of Higher Education (March/April, 1975), p. 182. 7 Ibid., p. 184. 8Richard C. Richardson, Jr., "Staff Development" A Conceptual Framework," Journal of Higher Education (May/June, 1975), pp. 303 and 304. 9Wilson Wetzler, "A Break Through for Faculty and Program Development," Junior College Journal (June/July, 1970), p. 14. 10Charles S. Claxton, "Comprehensive Staff Development Programs: Implications for the Office of Institutional Research and Planning," Community/Junior College Research Quarterly (July- September, 1977), p. 408. 11W.J. Collen, "Staff Development" An Organizational Skill for Survival," 9th International Institute on the Community College (ERIC, ED 172866), p. 32. 12 Gaff, op. Cit., p. 77. 13Collen, op. Cit., p. 4. 14Gary T. Peterson, Staff Development: Mini Models for College Implementation (June, 1975), p. 127. 69 15John W. Gardner, Self Renewal: The Individual and the Innovative Society (New York, 1963), pp. 11. 16 17L.C. Buhl and A. Greenfield, "Contracting for Professional Development in Academe," Educational Record, 56 (Spring, 1975), p. 121. 18 Ibid., p. 127. Bergquist and Phillips, op. cit., p. 208. 19E.W. Bessent, et al., Design for In-Service Education (Austin, Texas, 1967), p. 67. 20W. Warner Burke, Current Issue and Strategies in Organiza- tional Development (New York, 1977), p. 85. 21 O'Banion, op. Cit., p. 15. 22Albert B. Smith, Faculty Development and Evaluation in Higher Education (Washington, D.C., 1976), p. 70. 23James Hammons, Gordon Watts, and Terry Smith-Wallace, Staff Development in the Community College: A Handbook (Los Angeles, 1978), p. 53. 24 Gaff, op. Cit., p. 17. 25E.H. Jabker and R.S. Halenski, "Instructional Development and Faculty Rewards," Journal of Higher Education, 49 (1978), p. 325. 26Charles C. Cole, To Improve Instruction (Washington, D.C., 1978), p. 16. 27Alan C. Bare, "Individual Development Planning in Academic Settings," The Journal of the College and University Personnel Association (Fall, 1977), p. 2. 28Thomas M. Hatfield, "The President's Involvement in Instruction," New Directions for Community Colleges (Spring, 1977), p. 24. 29S.V. Martorana et al., "Towards Improving the Learning Process," Community and Junior College Journal (August, 1973), p.57. 70 30Chris Argyris and Donald A. Schon, Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness (New York, 1979), p. XI. 31Albert B. Smith, National Research Project on the Status of Staff, Program: and Orgenizational Development in Community Colleges (Lexington, KY, 1980), p. 52. 32William R. O'Connell, Jr., and L. Richard Meeth, Evaluating Teaching Improvement Programs (New Rochelle, NY, 1978), p. 37. 33Hammons, et al, op. Cit., p. 49. 34O'Connell and Meeth, op. Cit., p. 46. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY The purpose of this study was to find out what components con- stitute and what are important to staff development programs using a paradigm to guide the investigation. The proposed paradigm was tested by (a) a field test in relation to programs operating in five selected two-year colleges and, (b) a questionnaire sent to experts who were recognized leaders in the field of staff development as a result of national or regional leadership among professional staff developers, authorship or extensive consulting and staff development experience. The study consisted of two parts. The first part involved the examination of the paradigm's components assessed in terms of staff development programs functioning in selected community colleges in the midwest. The second part was a questionnaire to determine the viability of and weight assigned to components of the paradigm by those recognized as experts in the field of staff development. Data from both sources was used to make revisions. Criteria was established prior to the study to permit revision of the component by (1) deletion, or (2) recommendations for revision with the requirement that future studies be conducted for verification. The study was designed to seek answers to the questions found in Chapter I. 72 Paradigm The paradigm which follows was developed from the principles and insights detailed in Chapters I and II. It was based upon the synthesis of concepts and findings of studies found in the literature. It was proposed with the following assumptions and constraints. (1) (2) (3) Definition--It is based upon a generic definition of staff development which may include faculty, personal, program, curricular, instructional and organizational development activities/programs within a college. Comprehensiveness--It attempts to touch upon all con- tent and process components of staff development programs. The paradigm may be reflected in part or entirely within a community college. Standards/Guidelines for Assessment--The paradigm attempts to offer a definition of staff development programs as they function within a community college. It provides some guidelines for assessing the impor- tant components of staff development programs. 73 (4) Time/Program Maturation--The proposed paradigm recog- nizes that staff development initiatives at any one college may reflect a comprehensiveness or lack of comprehensiveness as a function of a natural evolu- tionary process which may find some programs at different levels or stages of develOpment. The study does not attempt to measure the paradigm over time. The proposed paradigm is presented diagrammatically with an explanation of the individual cells. The content and process components have been defined in Chapter One. 74 Proposed Staff Development Paradigm can,” Program/ Roe” Personal Instructional Organizational Process 8 Development Devel0pment Development 1. Purpose for 2. Purpose for 3. Purpose for Pumas. Personal Program Organizational RGIIOI‘IOIO Deve10pment Development Development A. Personal 5. Program/ 6. Organizational , Deve10pment Instructional Planning and Phnmng Plan Development Development Plan 7. Staff 8. Staff 9. Authority Organization Development Development and Personnel Program Acc0untability informanormal 10. Personal 11 Program 12. Organizational Funding Funding Budget Funding , 13. Personal 14. Program 15. Organizational Programming Programming Development Development Programming Programming 16. Personal 17. Rewards and 18. Rewards and d & Rewards and lncent ives Incentives R.war 8 Incentives for Programs for the Incentives Organize, ;on 19. Individual 20. Program 21. Organizational Evaluation Evaluation Assessment Development Evaluation Copyright 1980, John D. Cooper Figure 3 75 Components of the Proposed Paradigm Definitions and Explanations The components of the paradigm were defined as tangible, iden- tifiable practices and/or concrete products of staff development common to all programs. This definition permitted practitioners and theoreticians to respond to the paradigm and offer insights into how it may be refined. The following statements describe the com— ponents with regard to each of the cells as numbered in the paradigm. 1. Purpose for Personal Development - A statement of purpose or rationale for individual faculty or staff member growth and develop- ment. The statement might be part of a college policy, program plan or articulated as part of the evaluation process for personnel. (Examples: acquire new skills and information, assess and change attitudes/values, review and/or revise career planning, correct deficiencies.) 2. Purpose for Program Development - A statement of purpose or rationale for program and/or instructional development. A clearly articulated statement which gives direction to staff development activities in relation to programs, instruction or curriculum development. (Examples: revise or introduce new curricula, 76 revise or introduce new administrative procedure/policy, respond to limited resources, maintain or improve enrollments/reduce attrition, introduce new technology, improve or establish inter- personal relations within department/unit.) Purpose for Organizational Development - A statement of purpose or rationale which relates to the college in relation to staff develop- ment. Such a statement might be found as board policy, the artic- ulated rationale by a governing body within the college or a pro- gram policy designed to encompass campus initiatives. (Examples: achieve college goals, establish, maintain, and improve communica- tion, maintain good morale/campus climate, assist personnel to remain high caliber.) Personal Development Plan - A process for recognizing individual strengths, weaknesses and needs assessment for growth and develop- ment and setting forth some procedure to address the needs. (Examples: growth contracting, management by objectives, career planning, performance appraisal system.) Program/Instructional Development Plan - The process(es) for identifying departmental or program strengths, weaknesses and needs assessment and setting forth practices to implement 77 necessary changes. (Examples: needs assessment/program review, goals and objectives, strategies for change.) Organizational Planning and Development - College planning which gives consideration to staff needs, strengths and weaknesses and builds into college planning activities the systematic means of addressing these needs. (Examples: college self-study/assessment, goals and objectives/mission statement, management information systems, manpower planning, short and long-term plans.) Staff Development Personnel - This component refers to the role individuals play in carrying out their own and other facets of development. Colleges may adhere to a policy of individual initiative and responsibility for development, designate key personnel or rely upon external consultants on a project basis. (Examples: employee release time, chief academic administrator, line managers, full-time staff developer/director/coordinator, part—time staff developer/director/coordinator, consultants, committee members.) Staff Development Program - formal/informal - The unit responsible for carrying out deve10pment throughout the college. This compo- nent should recognize the group or grouping of personnel responsi- ble for staff development - the program or organizational unit within the college which is designated as responsible for carrying 10. 11. 78 out or supporting staff development. (Examples: staff develop- ment advisory committee, office of the chief academic administrator, office for staff, curriculum or organizational deve10pment, depart- ment/division committee.) Authority and Accountability - The location of the staff develop- ment program within the college structure and integration into the organization's policies, operations and practices which give it strength in relating staff development to overall missions and goals. (Examples: established and guided by board policy, reports to chief administrator or central administration, established and guided by collective bargaining contract, independent unit(s) within the college.) Personal Funding - Funds made available for participation in staff development activities. (Examples: special project grants, remun- erationikn‘participation, sabbatical/paid leaves, release time, external grants.) Program Budget - Funds provided which are clearly designated for staff development at all levels in the college. (Examples: wide budget approach, gathering in of all staff development expenditures such as travel, sabbaticals, incentive grants, etc., narrow budget 79 approach, funding for a specific staff deve10pment office or program.) Organizational Funding - The source of funding drawn upon for support of staff development. The college relies upon general funds as its primary source of funding or utilizes special gifts, grants, and federal money to support development. (Examples: college general funds, hard dollars, external gifts, private grants, or state and federal grants, soft money.) Personal Programming - The activities pursued by individuals directed toward their development independent of program or organizational development. (Examples: graduate or post- graduate studies, sabbaticals and leaves of absence, conference and travel, workshops and seminars, visitations, special projects, professional affiliations, professional literature and resources, consultation.) Program Development Programming - The activities which are directly related to improving skills and operations essential in functioning as a program unit within the college. (Examples: group process activities (e.g., team building), administrative/ management practices, curriculum development, special projects or task forces, master teacher and/or adjunct faculty programs.) 15. 16. 17. 18. 8O Organizational Development Programming - The activities designated to build networks or linkages between people and programs of the total college or change organizational structures. (Examples: administrative or instructional exchange programs, quality of work life programs, health improvement programs, college faculty and staff development days, planning activities/processes.) Personal Rewards and Incentives - The conditions or material com- pensations which encourage people to participate in or recognize their work in staff deve10pment. (Examples: promotions, salary increases, employee awards and honors, release time, travel, stipends or special grants, personal growth, continuing education units [CEU's].) Rewards and Incentives for Programs - The payoffs or benefits to committing personnel time and resources to staff development at the program or unit level. (Examples: program growth, improved performance by students, staff and faculty, recognition, commen- dations, etc.) Rewards and Incentives for the Organization - The tangible and intangible outcomes which encourage the college to enter into or maintain staff development. (Examples: internal-improved 81 productivity, reduced turnover and greater exchange among personnel, external recognition by the community, accrediting agencies and association.) Individual Evaluation - Evaluation refers to the process by which appraisal is done in order to relate to initial goals and objectives (or MBO's, etc.) and involvement in staff development programming. This is considered in terms of (l) participation and, (2) per- formance or application on the job. (Examples: participation-- did staff members participate, feel good about the program and become familiar with new information and skills; performance-- did staff members apply new information and skills in the work routines?) Program Assessment - The process of determining if the quality of a program (non-instructional or instructional) has improved due to the application of new skills and information acquired through staff development. (Examples: quality of program measures, personnel indicators at department/unit level, achieve- ment of goals and objectives.) 21. 82 Organizational Development Evaluation - The process for evaluating outcomes resulting from the application of new information, skills or attitudes gained due to staff development in terms of organiza- tional development. Here, staff development is measured in rela- tion to the achievement of college goals and objectives. (Examples: quality of college environment, personnel indicators, employee morale, productivity and/or efficiency.) Sample 83 The Field Study Five staff development programs in community colleges were identified to field test the paradigm. Each program was selected by polling the midwest membership of the National Council for Staff, Program, and Organizational Development. The midwest membership was asked to recommend community colleges with staff development programs based upon the following minimum criteria: (1) (2) (3) A staff development program which may function in the context of faculty, instructional or organiza- tional development. The focus of the program may be any one or all three of the areas. The program is organized with at least a half or full-time person designated as responsible for implementation. The program is designed to foster activities such as in-service workshops, seminars, sabbaticals, conference and travel, consultative teacher improvements or curriculum development. 84 (4) The program is recognized as a well established, on-going staff development program at a community college. Two hundred and forty-four midwest members of the National Council for Staff, Program, and Organizational Development were polled in a letter mailed January 5, 1981. The membership represented eleven states and Canada. Seventyeeight forms, or 31.96 percent were returned by January 31, 1981. The information provided resulted in the selec- tion of the following five community colleges for an on-site visit. (1) Des Moines Area Community College - Ankeny, Iowa Person Responsible - Robert 8. Mitchell, Director of Staff Development Date of Visit - February 16, 1981 (2) Kellogg Community College - Battle Creek, Michigan Person Responsible - Franke Crookes, Vice-President for Support Services Date of Visit - February 26, 1981 (3) Elgin Community College - Elgin, Illinois Person Responsible - Ed Haring, Dean of Non-Traditional Education Date of Visit - March 19, 1981 85 (4) Cincinnati Technical College - Cincinnati, Ohio Person Responsible - Timothy Nolan, Director of Staff Development Date of Visit - April 21, 1981 (5) Stark Technical College - Canton, Ohio Person Responsible - Jack Harris, Director of Staff Development Date of Visit - April 28, 1981 The colleges were selected with consideration given to the number of responses ranking them among the top three in each state, the number of responses from each state and the location of the colleges. Those selected offered some regional variation and an opportunity to test the paradigm in relation to programs of varying scope. Pilot Interview The interview format and questions were pilot tested at Lansing Community College and C.S. Mott Community College. This procedure was helpful to make revisions before visiting the campuses partici- pating in the study. It was discovered that the questions asked were not specific enough to generate the information sought. They were changed to ask direction questions about each of the twenty-one components of 86 the paradigm. This change assured that each interviewee responded to each individual item rather than providing a general answer to a broadly stated question. The pilot interviews were also helpful to the interviewer. It provided an opportunity to become familiar with the tape recording equipment and comfortable with building rapport with the interviewee. Visitation/Field Test The individual responsible for each staff development program identified was contacted by telephone to explain the study and request this assistance. They were asked to provide the following once it was agreed that they would participate. (1) Written background information describing the programs, organization, philosophy and activi- ties--an overview. (2) A date which was mutually convenient with the investigator for an on-site visit. (3) A schedule for interviews with the person providing program direction or coordination, their superior, committee members (if there was an advisory committee) and six to ten faculty and/or staff participants. 87 (4) Descriptive information regarding their program's statement(s) of purpose, planning process, organization, program activities, funding, systems of reward and incentives and evaluations of the program. Each contact person was sent a letter following the telephone call reiterating what had been discussed. In addition, a letterwas sent which each could distribute to those agreeing to be interviewed. This was done to explain the purpose of the visit in advance. Data Collection The on-site visit and written information received was used to look at the paradigm in relation to (1) the nature of staff develop- ment activities at each college, (2) the range, or breadth, of activities in regard to the paradigm's three content areas, and (3) the depth of activities as they touch upon the twenty-one com- ponents. This required that each on-site visit follow a standard procedure established in advance of the visit. The procedure was designed to ask questions and gather information directly related to the proposed paradigm and questions found in Chapter I. The actual test was to evaluate the paradigm's fit to the programs already agreed to be successful programs. The following is a brief description of the type of information gathered during the field study. 88 The Nature of Staff Development--The first category provided informa- tion on the definition of staff development at each college. This included any written statements which define staff development (e.g., brochures or literature distributed to college personnel or staff development planning documents). It also took the form of interview statements on the part of program directors, their super- visors and those who participate in the program. The completed study assessed the extent to which the definitions which were articulated concur with the program as it exists. The definitions provided by the interviewees and program documents were compared to the paradigm definition. Range or Breadth of Staff Development--The second category sought information in relation to the breadth of staff development at each college. Interview answers and documentation were reviewed to determine the extent to which staff development touches, by design, upon the three content areas. Specific questions asked: (1) What plans or organization exists to carryout staff development in all three content areas? (2) What specific activities are conducted which reflect this planning or organizational initiatives? 89 (3) Is there a relationship of activities in the three areas? The Depth of Staff Development--The third category provided informa- tion in relation to the depth of staff development in terms of the components. The visitation gathered information which described how each of the components are operating in support of each of the content areas--formally or informally. Specific questions were asked to find out: (1) What components are formally established in support of staff development (e.g., needs assessment, reward systems, evaluations)? (2) What components were considered important to the program's success as perceived by the interviewees? (3) If some components were absent, would their presence enhance the staff development program? Questionnaire The interviewees were asked to complete the same questionnaire which was sent to the experts. This provided information on the 90 degree of importance placed upon each component for program success by people in the field. The Population/Questionnaire Population The p0pulation was defined as professionals who were identified as an authority on staff development in the community college as a result of: (1) National or regional leadership in staff develop- ment with a professional or service organization (e.g., the National Council for Staff, Program, and Organizational Development, the National Institute for Staff and Organizational Develop- ment). (2) Authorship of a recognized publication(s) on the topic of staff development. (3) Consulting or staff development work with staff development programs in the community college. Professionals working with staff development programs and/or holding membership in the National Council for Staff, Program, and 91 Organizational Development were polled to identify the population based upon the criteria stated above. This was done with the January 5, 1981, letter seeking information about programs which could be visited. Individuals meeting any or all of the criteria were included in the population. A total of seventy-eight experts were identified. Questionnaires were mailed to the expert population on May 1, 1981. They were asked to complete and return them by May 14, 1981. A follow-up letter and questionnaire was sent on May 14, 1981. Two questionnaires were returned with notices that no forwarding address was available. Fifty-six questionnaires (71.79 percent) were returned by June 1, 1981. Three of those returned were not useable; resulting in fifty-three (67.94 percent) of the population having provided a useable response. Questionnaire A questionnaire was developed to determine the viability of the components of the proposed paradigm. The questionnaire asked the population to evaluate the appropriateness of the components using a scale with a 4 point range, with 4 as very important and 1 unimportant. The population was asked to rank the top ten components of the paradigm in order of their importance to implementing a com- prehensive staff development program in a community college. 92 They were also provided with an opportunity for open-ended comment on each item and the entire paradigm. Pilot Questionnaire The questionnaire was first pilot tested with a population of twenty professionals in staff development in the State of Michigan. Thirteen or 65 percent of the questionnaires were returned within two weeks. The responses did not result in any significant changes in the questionnaire content. It was decided to have them profes- sionally typeset and duplicated to make them more manageable. The numbers on the scale were reversed to indicate 4 as very important rather than 1. Treatment of the Data The on-site visits provided information to assess the paradigm components in relation to the programs as they function. The data collection provided information about: (1) how staff development is defined by personnel on each campus, (2) the plans or organization which exists on each campus to carryout staff development, (3) the extent to which components of the paradigm now exist in the staff development programs, and (4) the degree of importance placed upon each component for program success. The test was done to ascertain the viability of each of the components and to determine if the paradigm stands up to testing in relation to programs in place. 93 The data analysis of the study is descriptive in nature. A descriptive analysis of the response of the "experts" was made to determine the appropriateness of paradigm components. The rating scale provided an indication of the appropriateness of the individual components to the proposed paradigm. The rank ordering offered some check on the response to appropriateness and added further insights into the most significant components of staff development programs. In summary, the on-site program data and the data from the questionnaire sent to the population of experts was used to support, revise or negate the proposed paradigm. Both sources have been integrated to provide a descriptive analysis of the model in an effort to offer a definition of staff development, identify the components of staff development programs, the linkages of these components to one another, their importance to developing staff development programs and carrying them forward, and implications of the study of the proposed paradigm for the future of community college staff development. The analysis was guided by the questions found in Chapter I (pp. 22-23). Criteria A weakness of this type of study is that there is much room for interpretation. In an effort to address the problem the following criteria were established prior to undertaking the study. 94 The purpose of the criteria was to offer some guidelines for reporting on whether or not each component of the paradigm is considered important to a comprehensive staff development program. The criteria follows three steps; taking into consideration the data from the field test and the population of experts. (1) Program Verification First, the data from each institution was assessed to determine if each component was important to the program. A component was considered important to a program if a majority of those interviewed said it is important and a majority responded to the component on the questionnaire as important. For example, if twelve people were interviewed during a visit, seven or more had to indicate that a particular component was important to the program. The responses found at each college provided a program verifica- tion of the component's importance or unimportance. The impor- tance or unimportance of a component was strengthened by its existence or non-existence. Therefore, colleges reporting a component important where it exists were weighted at 1.5 points as opposed to 1 point for those colleges where it exists but was reported to be unimportant. Similarly, colleges which 95 reported that a component does not exist and is rated unimpor- tant were weighted 1.5 points as opposed to 1 point where it does not exist and is felt to be important. Consequently, for the purposes of this study a component from the proposed paradigm was considered appropriate as defined if the point score of 4 or greater was recorded in the totals of the important column. The study might result in a matrix as follows: Important Unimportant Exists Doesn't Exist (2) 96 Ideally, the component would be found to exist in all colleges and would be reported as important. However, if three or more colleges reported the component to be important it was con- sidered appropriate. Thus, the totals of columns of the matrix reflecting important/unimportant proved to be most significant in testing the proposed paradigm. The totals of the exists/ doesn't exist rows strengthened the findings. Variations within the matrix give rise to further questions for study. The result would be a matrix of program verification which reflects programs indicating that a component is important with the greatest strength reflected by a similar number indi- cating that the component exists. Population of Experts Additional verification was sought with the responses of the population of experts for the purposes of the study. The criteria for determining appropriateness of the component by the experts was a simple majority of those returning the questionnaire. Consequently, if the population were forty with 100 percent return of questionnaires, twenty-one had to respond that the component was important. 97 (3) The Proposed Paradigm Finally, when testing the proposed paradigm, each component had to receive a point score of 4 or greater as important by program and a majority response as important by the experts to stand as defined herein. If this did not result from the study, the component had to be deleted or revised. However, any revisions could only be suggested with the requirement that future studies be conducted for verification. Rank Order of the Ten Most Important Components The data gathered from this information was used to identify the ten components considered most important to the interviewees and the experts when implementing a comprehensive staff development program in a community college. The data collected from this portion of the questionnaire was treated in three groupings as the rankings of interviewees, experts, and a combination of the interviewees and the experts. It confirmed the findings of the analysis by component or raised additional questions. The data was treated in its entirety rather than on a program by program basis. Consequently, this data did not enter into the individual analysis of components. It was used to collaborate the findings reported. CHAPTER IV REPORT OF THE FINDINGS The findings of the study are reported in this chapter. The study consisted of two parts. The first involved a visit to five community colleges with staff development programs to field test the proposed paradigm. Data was gathered during the visits by use of a structured interview and the completion of a questionnaire by the interviewees. The second part of the study involved a question- naire sent to a population of experts. The data is reported in three sections. The first reports on the findings of the field test in relation to the nature of staff development. This reflects information gathered from interviewees in regard to the definition of staff deve10pment. The second section reports on the breadth of staff development as found during the field test. This data reports on the organization or plans of programs visited to carry out staff deve10pment in the three content areas of the proposed paradigm: personal, program/ instructional, and organizational development. The third section reports on the depth of staff development. The findings represent both the field tests and the response to the questionnaire by the population of experts. Each component of the proposed paradigm is examined in relation to what was found on each 98 99 campus; the responses of the interviewees to the interview questions and the questionnaire and the responses of the population of experts. This section also reports on the ranking of the top ten components in order of their importance to implementing a comprehensive staff development program in a community college. The Nature of Staff Development Definition(s) Each interviewee was asked a series of questions to determine the nature, or definition, of staff development at each college. They were asked to define staff development in their own words and identify the source of their definition. They were then asked to compare the definition of staff development at the college to that found in Chapter I. The study assesses the extent to which the definitions which were articulated concur with the program as it exists. The definitions provided by the interviewees and program documents were compared to the paradigm definition. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language states that a definition is: "1) the act of stating a precise meaning of significance, as of a word,phrase, or term; 2) the statement of the ineaning of a word, phrase or term; 3) the act of making clear and distinct; 4) the state of being closely outlined or determined; 5) a determining of outline, or extent or limits."1 100 There was very little or no documentation provided at each of the colleges visited to offer a clear definition of staff development; its precise meaning, a clarification and distinction or a determina- tion of outline, extent or limits. There were documents (planning, grant proposals, etc.) which might offer some insights into the college's definition; but there was nothing which clearly articulated to the faculty, administrators, and support personnel what was meant by staff development. Consequently the interviewees offered a variety of definitions. They are compiled in the Appendix. The definitions reflect some common elements among all the colleges and some unique qualities at each college. They most often reflected the type of programming that was offered at the colleges in the name of staff development. College 1 can be defined by the statement that staff development is a program to help the individual grow in a variety of ways-- attitudes professionally and personally(on-the-job and in their personal lives). It represents a broad perspective of programs and support services which include: curriculum consultation, a word processing service, media services productions, staff development units for step increase, off-campus secretarial programs on such topics as computers and stress management, and management development as well as ski trips, physical fitness, and awareness programming. College 2 can be described as an on-going process to keep stimulating and upgrading instruction and on-the-job skills with 101 institutional support. In this case the program focused upon a two- day series of workshops between terms, performance contracting, and occasional seminars. The thrust was self-directed development with institutional support to improve instruction. College 3 was most often defined as a program for instructional and curriculum development and the improvement ofrpersonal skills and attitudes. This reflected the strong focus on faculty develop- ment with a faculty development center sponsoring workshops on instructional strategies, mini-grants for faculty submitted projects, visitations to other colleges, a writing center, and some personal development programs. There was also the start of some administrative development with the support of the Higher Education Management Institute. College 4 was unique in its emphasis on activities which strengthened the individual with attention given to institutional goals. It is described as a program to improve performance of both the individual and the institution; allowing the individual to explore beneficial relationships between his/her career and institutional gogle, This reflects the program's early development around growth contracting based on the Gordon College Model, mini-grants, credits for step approval, a professional resource center, and consultation made available to faculty members. Finally, College 5, which was at a point of transition with new leadership and broader support, can be described in two ways. 102 First, staff development is anything which is done to help improve the faculty member's technical ability to teach--instructional methods and techniques. A second description is programming which provides incentives and opportunities for employees to grow_professionally and personally. The first reflects the program's initial focus with voluntary evaluation and performance contracting for faculty. The second represents a broader approach beginning to evolve with activ- ities which include return to industry programs, personal development seminars, mini-grant proposals, and workshops supported by the Higher Education Management Institute materials. The interviewees indicated most often that experience and obser- vation were their source when asked "What do you base this definition on?" Other responses frequently sighted discussions with colleagues, personal feelings, and readings. One interviewee stated that it was defined by the faculty contract. Another indicated that his defini- tion was derived from the goals of the AIDP (Advanced Institutional Development Program) Proposal. Clearly, most people took their definition from what they saw happening or experience at their college. The Proposed Paradigm and the Definition(s) The interviewes were given a copy of the definition of staff development found in Chapter I. They were then asked "How does this definition compare to that of your staff deve10pment program?" 103 The initial response was frequently something like "right in line", "have activities in all three areas", "would be consistent" or "think it fits very well with what we are trying to do." Twenty-one responses suggested that this definition fit their college. Eight people qualified their answer by noting that the college's staff development program emphasized personal deve10pment, did some program development, but does not do much with organizational development. Two suggested that the college had given emphasis to personal and organizational development. When one examines these responses, and observations to follow regarding each of the components, there does appear to be some common elements. There is agreement with the paradigms definition that "staff development is planned activities within the community college which are designed to have the potential for improving individual performance, program effectiveness or the organizational environment and its achievement of goals." The overriding focus was placed upon “initiatives to improve skills of college faculty and staff to help them do their job." The implicit assumption was "help the individual and you help the college.“ The definition found at each of the colleges focused upon per- sonal development and program development, when viewed as activities to improve instruction. Program deve10pment was offered to improve the teaching strategies of individual faculty in the classroom. 104 Organizational development was given far less attention as planned and coordinated activities which fall within the definition of staff development as offered. Organizational development can be characterized as being in agreement with the definition when viewed in regard to one interviewee's response to the question, "It is really what we are trying to do. It has not been the thrust of programs in relation to program goals, programming, organization, authority or evaluation." Breadth of Staff Development Questions were asked to determine the extent to which staff development programs touch, by design, upon the three areas of content-- the breadth of staff development. Specific information was sought regarding formal plans or organization for carrying out staff develop- ment with a content focus of personal, program or organizational activities. This line of inquiry was extended to find out what activities were made available under the three content areas and if there was a relationship between activities in the three areas as perceived by the interviewees. Finally, the interviewer attempted to determine what the interviewees saw extant which did not exist prior to a formal staff development program. The interviewer found no staff development program had been established for the purpose of conducting activities with a focus on 105 all three areas. They most often provided programming and support for personal development, some program development and only coinci- dentally as organizational development. This is not to suggest that the colleges were not active in all three areas. There was, however, less thought given to goals and direction for initiatives in the three areas as one moves from per- sonal to program and on to organizational development. Plans and Organization College 1 had a staff development program headed by a director. The director worked closely with several campus committees which were responsible for programming and/or advising on activities for employee groups or all campus in-service (e.g., secretarial/auxiliary support personnel in-service committee, all-campus in-service). The staff development unit approach (with step increases) was part of the faculty contract and had been the initial thrust of staff development. There was also an Institutional Development Department with a director, a new program specialist, a competency based education specialist, and a committee for faculty in-service. Plans and procedures were well written for the instructional development department. The program was project oriented for the development of materials or the training of a particular instructor in a skill for the delivery of instruction. 106 The Director of Staff Development reported to the Vice-President for Instruction. The Director of Instructional Development reported to the Dean of Media Services. There was no leadership, program or plans for organizational development as reported by the interviewees. College 2 had a full-time administrator who was responsible for staff development. He devoted approximately one quarter time to staff development. The college had a staff development plan which offered some assumptions and an introduction which expressed a focus or purpose for programs. It distinquished between development for administrative, faculty, office, maintenance, and instructional personnel. A staff development council and six task forces were outlined in the plan with membership designated and committee functions noted. The committees were not all functioning. The college emphasized that in—service is the responsibility of each dean and department chairperson in their capacity as faculty supervisor. Although the vice president for support services had a responsibility for coordination, the college retained the perspective that “staff development ehogld_be the responsibility of every manager." As Hammons, Smith Wallace, and Watts point out, this may have resulted in limited “staff development with administrators already hopelessly ensnarled in more accountable (and visible) responsibilities--e.g., budgeting, staff meetings, scheduling, and staff evaluation."2 The focus of programs at College 2 were upon "the growth of personnel, improvement of knowledge and skills, interpersonal skills, 107 and a refinement of the staff's working knowledge of the community college philosophy and roles within the college“ as written in the plan. The emphasis was on personal deve10pment with some attention to instructional development as it related to the individual faculty member who requested assistance. Program development fell largely to the responsibility of line managers--deans and department chairs. There were no plans or organization, reported during the visitation, to carryout organizational development. College 3's staff development program had originated with some seed money advocated by the president for a mini-grant program to encourage instructional development. The initiative was strengthened and expanded with funding through an Advanced Institutional Development Program Grant. The grant proposal served as the planning document which established a Faculty Development Center with an instructional development coordinator (later designated as Dean of Non-traditional Education). A curriculum committee was active for the purpose of re- viewing and approving proposals for mini-grants. The Advanced Institutional Development Program Grant also included a planning, management, and evaluation component. This activity was designated as having responsibility for a planning and budgeting system, management development, and evaluation "which keeps the management focused upon institutional goals. Thus, evaluation attempts to look at the present structure of governance, decision making and planning," according to the Advanced Institutional Development Program planning document. 108 These two activities established the plans and organization for program and organizational development. Recent activities coordinated by the Dean for Non-traditional Education, within the Faculty Develop- ment Center, have begun to focus upon personal development. There were no plans or organization with a primary purpose of personal deve10pment. College 4 began its program through involvement with an ACCTion Consortium, Title III funded program. An individual was chosen from faculty to receive training as an instructional specialist and provided one quarter release time to carryout duties relating to an In-service Academy. This program was begun in 1976. The In-service Academy later became the Center for Staff Develop- ment. The programs of the Center were provided to "direct professional and personal growth at the college." The instructional specialist took on the title of Director of Staff Development with three quarter release time. The program and its leadership was established and has grown to provide personal and program development for faculty and staff at the college. The emphasis has been upon course, curriculum and instructional improvement strategies. Personal development has also been a focus of activities. Plans and activities have been guided by a heavy emphasis on growth contracting and a staff development committee. There were no plans or organization at the college to address organizational development. 109 Staff development was making a transition at College 5. The Director had been newly appointed for only four months. He had been appointed with a renewal of administrative commitment and the creation of an advisory committee--The Staff and Program Development Committee. The Committee's purpose was "to gather ideas and desires of the college staff and to assist the Office of Staff and Program Develop- ment in finding ways to facilitate the staff in obtaining their goals." The appointment of a new director and an advisory committee was occurring with a program that had been in place for some six to seven years. At College 5 plans for staff development were primarily docu- mented by proposals for funding through the Advanced Institutional Development Program. The focus was upon program or instructional and personal development. The institution had also been one of the first colleges involved with the Higher Education Management Institute (HEMI). Some interviewees suggested that HEMI represented a facet of staff development focused upon organizational development. The director stated that the program had not been actively used for some time although there was a re-emergent interest. At the time of the visit there was not an apparent organization or plans to carryout organizational development. Activities and their Relationship Appendix I lists those activities which were reported to be occurring on the campuses visited. The activities most actively 110 pursued as staff development programs were workshops, mini-grants and fellowships, and consultation or professional support for instruc- tional projects. It is noteworthy that four of the colleges offered mini-grants or special funds for faculty projects. This is consistent with John Centra (1976) and Al Smith's (1980) findings that 75 and 70 percent of the colleges surveyed reported mini-grants as an effec- tive or very effective practice at institutions where the practice exists. It was the interviewer's observation that organizational develop- ment activities were not pursued with forethought or by prior design. Instead, organizational development activities were a by-product of functions required (North Central Self Study), standard operating procedure (in-service days or orientations) or programs with a specific purpose (Planning, Management and Evaluation). Skill building workshops were the most frequently cited activity made available to the greatest number of people as a function of the staff development program. The interviewees were then asked "Is there a relationship of activities in the three areas?" The answers were generally affirma- tive. The responses could be reduced to five perspectives. The first takes the outlook that by developing the individual you develop the programs and organization. This is reversed by the second per- spective which suggests that efforts to develop programs develop the person. The other three could be seen as variations of the 111 first two. The third would acknowledge a relationship between per- sonal and program development, but reserves organizational development to initiatives which must come from the top (higher administration, the president). A fourth would agree that there is a relationship with the reservation that it is not as strong as it could be or may be theoretical with no clear evidence of a real causal relationship. Finally, a fifth perspective proposes that staff development fosters a climate for improved organizational development to occur. The fifth perspective emphasizes that organizational commitment is very important. Formal Programs H. Stuart Smith's article "Professional Deve10pment-Substance or Fad" leaves the reader with the question; does the existence of a formal staff development program make a difference? The perceptions of the interviewees were explored to consider the proposed paradigm to determine if something existed which did not exist prior to a formal staff development program. This provided some insight into the significance of the components and the paradigm in relation to Stuart's question. The answers to the question were varied. Many pointed to staff development activities which did not exist prior to a formal program; *workshops, a staff development center, a director, advisory committees, performance contracting and rewards for growth. Some reported that staff development had greater direction, organization, and planning 112 for outcomes. Others noted that a formal staff development program led to improved communication, a greater availability of information regarding staff development opportunities, broader participation with institutional enthusiasm and commitment to the success of staff development programs. One interviewee suggested "staff development had achieved a greater credibility with a formal program." Depth of Staff Development The study gathered information to examine the paradigm in rela- tion to the depth of staff development programs. This portion of the study reports on the extent to which process components were operating in support of the content areas-—formally and informally. Data was gathered to determine whether each of the components existed and whether or not the interviewees felt that components were important to a comprehensive staff development program in a community college. Data was provided to render a program verification for each of the twenty-one components of the paradigm with a point score of 4 or greater as important to staff development. The population of experts provided data in relation to the paradigm components. Their questionnaire responses offered additional data to test the appropriateness of the components. The experts also had the opportunity to make comments in terms of "changes or additions to improve each component." 113 The combination of program verification and the data from the population of experts was used to test the components of the proposed paradigm. The criteria which serves to guide the reporting of data under this portion of the study was set forth in Chapter III. The following is an analysis of the findings in relation to each of the twenty-one components. It should be noted that the questionnaires were developed to provide a yes/no response to the question of whether or not the components were considered important or unimportant. The responses checked 4 or 3 were considered important; the responses of 2 or 1 were considered to be unimportant for the purposes of the study. Purpose for Personal Development A statement of purpose was found to exist at four of the five colleges visited. It was found to be part of the introduction to the staff development plan at one institution. At another it was included in the Advanced Institutional Development Program Grant proposal. A third provided a very brief purpose statement in a brochure describing the college's in-service program. The fourth had published the statement in a college newsletter distributed to all employees. The fifth college did have statements concerning the purpose for personal development contained within documents for the instruc- tional development program. They were made with specific reference 114 to the individual's involvement with instructional development. The staff development program did not have an articulated statement of purpose for personal development. In general, the college which had a statement of purpose for personal development did not appear to have made them known to the college employees. Most interviewees responded with an assumption that there surely must be a statement of purpose and that such a statement was important. Few, however, were able to indicate where it could be found. Each of the colleges provided data for a program verification of the component--purpose for personal development with a point score of 7. The majority of those interviewed stated the component was important. A statement of purpose did exist at four of the five colleges. Twenty-five percent of the interviewees at the college where a statement of purpose did not exist commented that it was not important. The overwhelming majority at the other colleges expressed the opinion that it was important. Fifty-one of the experts indicated that the statement of purpose was important with only two noting it was not important. It was also noted that when compared to the college respondents the experts scored the component as very important 71.70 percent of the time while college interviewees responded that it was very important in 55.32 percent of the cases. 115 Comments from the college interviewees on the questionnaire were limited. Two comments offered were very similar. One person pointed out that "goals should be developed by individuals." Another stated, "This component epitomizes the SPOD thrust at my college." (That college was heavily oriented toward growth con- tracting where individuals did, in fact, develop individual goals.) The comments of the experts were more numerous. Seven experts offered comments characterized by "purpose or rationale offers credi- bility for the entire program and a basis for personal accountability" or "you need a purpose statement to gain commitment." Five people indicated that "personal" should be changed to "professional" or made to read "personal and professional." Two suggested that "the first three [purpose for personal, program, and organizational development] are difficult to separate out. They need to be integrated if the program is to be successful." Finally, two others offered more situational comments. One individual noted "I'm less concerned with a statement of purpose than the atmosphere (conducive or non-conducive to growth). Some- times they don't go hand-in-hand." The other suggested that "in certain situations the rationale would have to reflect the condi- tions in the union contract." 116 The findings for component 1--statement of purpose were as follows: Brief Description College 1 Did not exist within staff development program College 2 Exists as part of introduction to staff development plan College 3 Exists as part of Advanced Institutional Developmental Program proposal College 4 Exists as part of in—service program and growth contracting College 5 Statement published in college newsletter 117 Table 4.1 Data from Interviewees and Questionnaires Purpose for Personal Development Number of interviewees stating component is Important Unimportant College 1 12 4 College 2 6 1 College 3 6 1 College 4 11 0 College 5 8 O Questionnaire Ratings Very Somewhat No Important Important Unimportant Unimportant Response #7 4 % #3 3 %* # 2 % #7 1 % # % College 1 10 66.27 4 26.67 0 1 6.67 College 2 3 42.86 3 42.86 1 14.29 0 College 3 1 14.29 5 71.43 1 14.29 0 College 4 8 80.00 2 20.00 0 0 College 5 4 50.00 4 50.00 0 0 Total Colleges 26 55.32 18 38.30 2 4.26 1 2.13 Experts 38 71.70 13 24.53 2 3.77 O 118 Purpose for Program Development Statements of purpose for program development were provided at four of the five colleges. Three of the four were articulated in documents which served as the basis for instructional development initiatives which were part of staff development at the colleges. Programs at the fourth college were oriented toward instructional development but did not have the benefit of a purpose statement which gave direction to initiatives. It was reported to be college policy. The component received near unanimous program verification with a score of 6.5. The experts responded similar to the college interviewees. They indicated the component was important 92.45 percent of the time. Comments for this component were not extensive on the part of the interviewees or experts. One interviewee noted "these are institutional goals" while another wrote "should be critical, accountable vehicle." Among the experts, one person pointed out that some of my examples were "really organizational development." A second, who wrote that “program development and instructional development are pot the same" noted that one of those same examples sighted by another as organizational development was part of program development. College College College College College 119 Brief Description Statement of purpose was part of well documented instructional development program Reported as policy in college policy and procedures Contained in Advanced Institutional Development Program proposal Articulated in staff development guidelines and promotional brochure Did not exist 120 Table 4.2 Data from Interviewees and Questionnaires Purpose for Program Deve10pment Number of interviewees stating component is Important Unimportant College 1 16 0 College 2 7 College 3 5 2 College 4 11 0 College 5 8 0 Questionnaire Ratings Very Somewhat No Important Important Unimportant Unimportant Response # 4 % # 3 % # 2 % # 1 % # % College 1 11 73.33 4 26.67 0 0 College 2 3 42.86 4 57.14 0 0 College 3 2 28.57 4 57.14 1 14.29 0 College 4 8 80.00 2 20.00 0 0 College 5 5 62.50 2 25.00 0 1 12.50 Total Colleges 29 61.70 16 34.04 1 2.13 1 2.13 Experts 36 67.92 13 24.53 3 5.66 1 1.89 121 Purpose for Organizational Development A statement of purpose for organizational development was not found to exist at any of the colleges visited. There was some reference to such purpose statements contained in documents required by state education agencies, planning, management and evaluation activities, self-study reports done for accreditation or verbal reports to the board. The interviewer was not provided with any evidence of such documents. Furthermore, interviewees who did refer to them did not describe them as having a relationship to staff development initiatives for organizational development. The component received a program verification with a point score of 5 as important to staff development. The majority of experts scored the component important, with 88.68 percent checking very important or important. The comments of interviewees written on the questionnaires were: "I would rate it 4 [very important] but colleges shy away from it;" "This statement is not important, but someone doing organiza- tional development is;" and "Important at the point the college admits they are going to do something about it." The experts elaborated on these observations. One wrote "much as I would like to say otherwise—-too many good programs [are] functioning without this." Another stated "If this does not exist, organizational commitment to development is questionable." Three other comments seemed to offer another perspective. One expert wrote, "This would be great. However, the commitment might 122 take a well planned educational program with the board to achieve." The second suggested "comprehensive organizational development may need to defioe_new college goals--to lead the college into the future." A third noted "My personal orientation would have this ranked as "4" [very important] however, it is possible to carryout important staff development without this dimension." 123 Table 4.3 Data from Interviewees and Questionnaires Purpose for Organizational Development Number of interviewees stating component is Important Unimportant College 1 15 1 College 2 6 1 College 3 5 2 College 4 11 0 College 5 8 O Questionnaire Ratings Very Somewhat No Important Important Unimportant Unimportant Response # 4 % # 3 % # 2 % # 1 % # % College 1 8 53.33 6 40.00 1 6.67 0 College 2 3 42.86 4 57.14 0 0 College 3 1 14.29 5 71.43 1 14.29 0 College 4 7 70.00 2 20.00 1 10.00 0 College 5 5 62.50 3 37.50 0 0 Total Colleges 24 51.06 20 42.55 3 6.38 O Experts 29 54.72 18 33.96 5 9.43 1 1.89 124 Personal Development Plan Personal development plans were used at three of the five colleges. Growth contracting had been a major activity of staff development at one college early in the program's creation. The college had made an investment in growth contracting which included sending the instructional development specialist to participate in a training program for the Gordon College model. A second college had a procedure for the development of personal plans as part of the program for faculty step increases. Participating faculty filed a three year plan with the instructional development program which was used to guide initiatives which could be credited to faculty advancement. The third college made available a performance planning option for faculty. The faculty member could obtain the assistance of the staff development office to establish a plan. The performance planning included an aspect of evaluation and support to instructional improvement. However, the evaluation was not part of an individual's official records. Participation was voluntary at all three colleges. The programs were made available to faculty only. There was nothing provided for administrative or support staff personal development plans. The component received program verification with a point score of 6.5. It existed at three colleges and was reported important by the 125 majority at each college. The experts also reported in over 90% of their responses that it was important. The interviewees who chose to comment made the following observations: "This [personal development plans] will provide happier, more satisfied individuals and teams." Important, I'if not so formal that it defeats the purpose." "Hard to implement." And, "Growth contracting is nice but not necessary." Three of the experts made observations about the process itself. One felt the component was important "only if the personal development plan is tied to accurate feedback." Another wrote, "Important! But difficult to monitor and ultimately build into the individual's evaluation. If this isn't done, then it's unimportant." A third proposed that "although crucial, the fear of misuse for evaluation and union attitudes affect the use of this activity." Several other experts made recommendations to change the component somewhat. One observed that it should be Personal and "Professional" Development Plan. Two took issue with the examples offered. Finally, one expert suggested that the component be described as "a process for recognizing individual strengths and weaknesses, for assessing growth and development needs, and for setting forth some procedure to address needs.“ 126 Brief Description College 1 Three year plans filed by faculty participating in step increase program College 2 Does not exist College 3 Does not exist College 4 Growth contracting College 5 Voluntary performance evaluation program 127 Table 4.4 Data from Interviewees and Questionnaires Personal Development Plan Number of interviewees stating component is Important Unimportant College 1 15 1 College 2 5 2 College 3 7 0 College 4 11 0 College 5 8 O Questionnaire Ratings Very Somewhat No Important Important Unimportant Unimportant Response # 4 % # 3 % # 2 % # 1 % # % College 1 10 66.67 4 26.67 1 6.67 0 College 2 2 28.57 2 28.57 3 42.86 0 College 3 3 42.86 2 28.57 2 28.57 0 College 4 8 80.00 2 20.00 0 0 College 5 5 62.50 3 37.50 0 0 Total Colleges 28 59.57 13 27.66 6 12.77 0 Experts 33 62.26 16 30.19 4 7.55 O 128 Program/Instructional Development Plan There was program verification for this component with a point score of 7.5. Each of the colleges undertook some planning in relation to this component. The interviewer found that such activities were done primarily in the context of instructional or curriculum develop- ment. There was no college which had undertaken needs assessment and planning on a department or program unit basis. The majority of experts also reported the component was important with over 90 percent rating it 3 or 4 on the questionnaire. The component did exist at each college. It took the form of instructional development plans, plans submitted to state agencies, and/or the work of advisory committees at one college. A second was done through curriculum development, advisory committees, and a state department of education program review and evaluation. The third college put together plans through the faculty development center. The fourth college was beginning to do some of this through the staff development committee and faculty dialogue in teacher talk seminars. Finally, the last college had conducted some surveys, completed task analysis or carried out such planning at the option of the division. Comments from the colleges could be summed up by the following two quotes. One individual wrote, "The 'process' can be more effec- tive when verbal communication from 'the needy' is encouraged by the staff development director." Another wrote, "should be in the academic area." 129 Finally, two of the experts made some observations about the component as it was described on the questionnaire. One noted that it "speaks to program, but not instructional concerns." The second offered a suggestion for a rewrite as follows: "The process for identifying departmental or program strengths and weaknesses, for assessing needs and for setting forth practices. . ." Brief Description College 1 Instructional development plans, advisory committees, plans submitted to state agencies College 2 Curriculum development, state program review and evaluation College 3 Faculty development center planning College 4 Teacher talk seminars, staff development committee planning College 5 Surveys, task analysis and divisional initiatives 130 Table 4.5 Data from Interviewees and Questionnaires Program/Instructional Development Plan Number of interviewees stating component is Important Unimportant College 1 15 0 College 2 7 0 College 3 7 0 College 4 10 1 College 5 8 O Questionnaire Ratings Very Somewhat No Important Important Unimportant Unimportant Response $7 4 %’ # 3 % # 2 % # 1 % # % College 1 10 66.67 4 26.67 1 6.67 0 College 2 3 42.86 4 57.14 0 0 College 3 3 42.86 4 57.14 0 0 College 4 9 90.00 0 O 1 10.00 College 5 3 37.50 4 50.00 0 1 12.50 Total Colleges 28 59.57 16 34.04 1 2.13 1 2.13 1 2.13 Experts 30 56.60 20 37.74 2 3.77 1 1.89 131 Orgenizational Planning and Development There was program verification for this component with a point score of 6.5. Three of the five colleges had some means for carrying this out. The majority of experts also responded that this component was important. An all college committee would plan in-service programs for the total college. An annual retreat was held for administrators to set goals and objectives. Programs provided by the Higher Educa- tion Management Institute (HEMI) were seen as touching upon organiza- tional development. At one college the planning, management, and evaluation (PME) system was seen as providing the framework for organizational deve10pment. Those colleges which reported that the component existed could not report that organizational planning and development was an on-going, integral function within the college. The scope of activities was limited. There was no attempt to keep it visible in the college's operations and structure. The interviewees felt the component was very important and acknowledged it is very much overlooked on their campuses. They nearly unanimously reported it was important in the interviews and in responses to the questionnaire. One interviewee's written comment was "nice in theory, but a one man show, or worse--part-time faculty/staff developer--couldn't possibly get a handle on this. [He/she] would then spend dispropor- tionate amount of time studying the problem instead of trying to do something about it." 132 Two other observations were made by interviewees when re- sponding to the questionnaire. One noted, "this should key to self-study and accreditation reports." A second wrote, “this component is ineffective if there is lack of administrative support." Two experts comments concerning the "implied definition" of organizational development taken from the component description can be summed up by that of one expert, "your notion of 0.0. is con- siderably different than mine." Three other comments by the experts focused upon the need for organizational development and the role of staff development in relation to organization development. One expert wrote, "depends upon the need for 0.0.." The other two comments can be summed up by one who wrote staff development is "not necessarily responsible for college planning, but a means by which we can facilitate it." Brief Description College 1 All college committee for in-service with focus on activities to improve climate and communication College 2 Annual retreat, interim committee planning College 3 Activities of HEMI, PME, and administrative audit College 4 Did not exist College 5 Did not exist 133 Table 4.6 Data from Interviewees and Questionnaires Organizational Planning and Development Number of interviewees stating component is Important Unimportant College 1 15 1 College 2 7 0 College 3 7 0 College 4 11 0 College 5 8 O Questionnaire Ratings Very Somewhat No Important Important Unimportant Unimportant Response # 4 % #1 3 %i # 2 % # %’ # % College 1 8 53.33 6 40.00 1 6.67 0 College 2 5 71.43 2 28.57 0 0 College 3 4 57.14 3 42.86 0 0 College 4 9 90.00 0 1 10.00 0 College 5 3 37.50 3 37.50 2 25.00 0 Total Colleges 29 61.70 14 29.79 4 8.51 O Experts 29 54.72 21 39.62 0 1 1.89 2 3.77 134 Staff Development Personnel Each of the colleges provided program verification for this component for a point score of 7.5. Someone designated as responsible for college staff development did exist on each campus since this was one of the criteria used to select schools visited. All inter- viewees stated that staff development personnel were important. Only two noted otherwise when completing the questionnaire. The experts agreed with 92.59 percent noting that the staff development personnel is an important component. Interviewees offered two observations which reflect different perspectives. One person remarked that he felt if you designate one person others will leave it to that person. This outlook was reflected in the college's program and the repeated comment of interviewees that every administrator had responsibility for the development of their staff and faculty. The second observation was the opposite perspective. Two interviewees wrote, "It is important that someone be designated for (and recognized as having) this role." and "Without this the program would stand a good chance of death." The experts offered similar comments. Three of these could be summed up by one observation that "except for rare episodes of organizational life, when there is a strong unifying sense of purpose and a tight cohesion, the position of staff developer is vital-- maybe indispensible for a successful long run program." 135 Two other experts offered contrasting comments about release time. One wrote "release time should be utilized only for very sophisticated projects." A second commented, “Some release time is essential!" Three others felt the component was unclear. They wrote: "This item makes no sense to me," "What is this component then?", and "I don't understand this." Brief Description College 1 Staff development director, instructional development director, instruction development specialists College 2 Vice president for support services with approximately 25 percent of job responsibilities staff development College 3 Dean for non-traditional education - formerly director of instructional development College 4 Director of staff development College 5 Director of staff development 136 Table 4.7 Data from Interviewees and Questionnaires Staff Development Personnel Number of interviewees stating component is Important Unimportant College 1 16 0 College 2 7 0 College 3 7 0 College 4 11 0 College 5 8 O Questionnaire Ratings Very Somewhat No Important Important Unimportant Unimportant Response 78 4 % # 3 % # 2 % # 1 % # % College 1 13 86.67 2 13.33 0 0 College 2 2 28.57 4 57.14 0 1 14.29 College 3 5 71.43 1 14.29 1 14.29 0 College 4 7 70.00 3 30.00 0 0 College 5 5 62.50 2 25.00 1 12.50 0 Total Colleges 32 68.09 12 25.53 2 4.26 1 2.13 Experts 36 67.92 13 24.53 2 3.77 O 2 3.77 137 Staff Development Program The colleges provided program verification for the component with a score point of 6.0. Four of the five colleges had a formal staff development program. The fifth did not have a recognized staff development program although it had a committee structure which was not fully operational. It should be noted that at four of the five colleges the staff development program was physically located in the library and/or had a library/resource center. Interviewees at four of the five colleges stated that such a program was important. However, the college which did not have a program had the majority of interviewees responding in the interview that a program is not important. The majority did respond to the questionnaire by checking that a program was important. What accounts for this discrepancy is not clear. The experts indicated the com- ponent was important. Ninety eight point fifteen percent indicated it was important. Brief Description College 1 Program director and office personnel established a program integral to the college. Several advisory committees actively functioning College 2 Did not exist as formal, recognized program. Informal program as part of college procedures with committee structure which was not fully operational College 3 College 4 College 5 138 Faculty development center and advisory committee to review mini-grant project proposals Center for staff development, in-service academy and staff development committee Staff development program and staff develop- ment committee established with the approval of president's council 139 Table 4.8 Data from Interviewees and Questionnaires Staff Development Program - formal/informal Number of interviewees stating component is Important Unimportant College 1 16 0 College 2 3 4 College 3 6 1 College 4 11 0 College 5 8 O Questionnaire Ratings Very Somewhat No Important Important Unimportant Unimportant Response # 4 % # 3 % # 2 % # 1 % # % College I 14 93.33 1 6.67 O 0 College 2 1 14.29 4 57.14 1 14.29 0 1 14,29 College 3 4 57.14 2 28.57 1 14.29 0 College 4 7 70.00 3 30.00 0 0 College 5 4 50.00 4 50.00 0 0 Total Colleges 30 63.83 14 29.79 2 4.26 O Experts 36 67.92 16 30.19 0 O 1 1.89 140 Authority and Accountability Each of the colleges provided program verification for the component with a point score of 7.0. Authority had been clarified when programs were established. The individual responsible for the program had a job description with provisions for reporting to a higher level administrator. The person responsible for staff development reported to the chief academic administrator in four of the five colleges. The fifth reported to the executive vice president. The interviewees often responded by indicating that the authority of the staff development program was not clear. They frequently commented that authority was not adequate to carryout the activities to achieve staff development goals. The majority at each college stated that authority and accountability is an important component. This was unanimous at all but one college where two people felt it was not important. The questionnaire responses were similar -- a majority indicated the component was important. There were three noteworthy comments provided by the inter- viewees on the questionnaires. First, an individual wrote, "This area is somewhat difficult to define for some institutions." A second wrote, "will vary with individuals." This comment was elaborated on by a third person who noted, "depends more on the 141 personalities, abilities, and leadership of the staff development folks than on where they reside in the college structure." The experts also reported that this component was important 94.34 percent of the time. Their comments were supportive of what was occurring at the colleges visited and the statements of inter- viewees. Two made similar comments summed up by "affiliation with 'power' sources is most important." Other comments reflected upon the need for clarity of authority and accountability. An expert commented at length by observing "Sticky! Too formal it becomes a game, too loose it becomes something everyone intends to do but just never gets around to it. If the staff development person is responsible, but the troops don't comply, then you're dead! Regardless of your authority! Who's going to pull rank on "highly regarded faculty?" Brief Description College 1 Director reports to vice president for instruction. Job description establishes responsibility and accountability College 2 No authority establishing program. Person responsible reports to executive vice president College 3 Established with presidential initiative and later by AIDP grant approved by board of trustees College 4 College 5 142 Established by the president's authority and accountability clarified through work with ACCTion Consortium Program approved by president's cabinet 143 Table 4.9 Data from Interviewees and Questionnaires Authority and Accountability Number of interviewees stating component is Important Unimportant College 1 14 2 College 2 6 College 3 7 0 College 4 11 0 College 5 8 O Questionnaire Ratings Very Somewhat No Important Important Unimportant Unimportant Response # 4 % # 3 % # 2 % # 1 % # % College 1 9 60.00 5 33.33 1 6.67 0 College 2 4 14.29 4 57.14 0 1 14.29 1 14.29 College 3 2 28.57 3 42.86 2 28.57 0 College 4 7 70.00 3 30.00 0 0 College 5 5 62.50 3 37.50 0 0 Total Colleges 24 51.06 18 38.30 3 6.38 1 2.13 1 2.13 Experts 34 64.15 16 30.19 1 1.89 O 2 3.77 144 Personal Funding The component was verified by each program for a point score of 7.0. Personal funds, although limited, existed at four of the five colleges. They often were provided in the traditional form of travel and conference support and sabbaticals. Some money was available for personal development through a faculty fellowship program and mini-grants. The interviewees stated unanimously that the component was important at all but one college. Six of eight people at the fifth college felt it was important. Questionnaire responses at each college confirmed the statement of interviewees with the majority indicating the component was important. The majority of the experts also reported that personal funding is important. However, there was considerable difference in the ratings of the experts when compared to the college interviewees. Experts rated personal funding very important 39.62 percent of the time compared to 59.57 percent of the college interviewees. Ten of the experts, or 18.87 percent, indicated that this component is not important. Three of the college interviewees, or 6.38%, reported that it was not important. Comments of the interviewees were limited to one observation that the component is, "Important--but not the most important. The comments of three experts offer some insight into the larger number 145 reporting that personal funding is unimportant. First, one wrote "I still think that there are a number of worthwhile activities that can be conducted at very little cost." A second observed that "without guidance [personal funding] becomes an opportunity to engage in the improvement of skills not necessarily needed." A third commented, "I am less and less inclined to see the value." College College College College College Brief Description Faculty fellowship program Sabbaticals, travel and conference, course reimbursement Travel, mini-grants Travel and conference None 146 Table 4.10 Data from Interviewees and Questionnaires Personal Funding Number of interviewees stating component is Important Unimportant College 1 16 0 College 2 7 0 College 3 7 0 College 4 11 0 College 5 6 1 Questionnaire Ratings Very Somewhat No Important Important Unimportant Unimportant Response A 4 %i # 3 % # 2 % # % # % College 1 9 60.00 5 33.33 I 6.67 0 College 2 4 57.14 3 42.86 0 0 College 3 7 100.00 0 O 0 College 4 5 50.00 5 50.00 0 0 College 5 3 37.50 3 37.50 2 25.00 0 Total Colleges 28 59.57 16 34.04 3 6.38 O Experts 21 39.62 21 39.62 10 18.87 0 1 1.89 147 Program Budget There was program verification for this component with each of the colleges providing funds for staff development. Once again the number stating the component is important and responding the same on the questionnaire was nearly unanimous. The component received a point score of 7.5 for program verification. There were some differences in the way the funds were admini- stered. At four of the five colleges the staff development directors had a budget for the programs they administered. At one of the four the director had funds primarily for instructional development. In this case funds for administrative and clerical development were reported to be available through the assistant to the president. In one case the staff development director sought the approval of his advisory committee for all program/project expenditures. The fifth school had funds for staff development at all levels as a line item to the support services budget. This is consistent with the observation that there was not a formal staff development program or individual who was responsible for staff deve10pment on a full- time basis. Funds for staff development were also made available on a discretionary basis by department and division heads at each of the colleges. This approach was explained by one staff development director. He stated, "centralized and decentralized budgeting for 148 staff development operated side by side; with departments handling their own affairs and the staff development program helping out where departments can't do for themselves. The staff development program should not be seen as the dispenser of funds." The majority of experts also reported that a program budget was important. Two comments made by the experts were noteworthy. One wrote that "a program budget is obviously important. However, it depends on reporting lines. 'Gather in' [wide budget approach] hints at problems. (Especially if existing programs are funded decentrally)." A second expert commented that "unless this is money the staff developer controls, it's less likely to result in value-added that's consistent with measureable goals." Brief Description College 1 Program budget administered by staff development director College 2 Staff development funds as a line item of support services College 3 Funds for instructional development as part of faculty development center operations. Administrative and clerical funds available through assistant to the president College 4 Program budget administered by staff development director with committee approval College 5 Program budget administered by staff development director 149 Table 4.11 Data from Interviewees and Questionnaires Program Budget Number of interviewees stating component is Important Unimportant College 1 16 0 College 2 6 O 1 NR College 3 7 0 College 4 11 0 College 5 8 O Questionnaire Ratiogs Very Somewhat No Important Important Unimportant Unimportant Response # 4 % # 3 % # 2 % # 1 % # % College 1 11 73.33 3 20.00 1 6.67 0 College 2 4 57.14 2 28.57 0 1 14.29 College 3 5 71.43 2 28.57 0 0 College 4 9 90.00 1 10.00 0 0 College 5 4 50.00 3 37.50 1 12.50 0 Total Colleges 33 70.21 11 23.40 2 4.26 1 2.13 Experts 33 62.26 17 32.08 3 5.66 O 150 Organizational Funding There was program verification for the component with a point score of 7.5. Two of the five colleges were currently funded by grants and college general funds money. Two were funded entirely by hard dollars; with one having begun with Title III funding through involvement with the ACCTion Consortium. The fifth, which had pro- gram funding as a line item only, had some soft and hard dollars with most funding representing institutional funds. Once again, the interviewees at all five colleges were nearly unanimous in their opinion that this component was important. Their responses to the questionnaire confirmed the interview statements. The comment of one interviewee summed up the observations of many. He wrote, "the proportion of hard and soft dollars measures the institution's commitment." The experts agreed with the college interviewees. The majority or 86.79 percent indicated the component was important. In addition they offered similar statements. Some stated that hard dollars were preferred. Others commented, as did the interviewees, that "soft money melts--hard money signals an institutional commitment." One expert wrote, "If there is no dollar commitment in the regular budget there is no commitment and the program will die"! A somewhat different perspective was rendered by an expert who observed, "The situation being what it is in 1981, some soft money is critical." 151 Some experts noted that they were confused or did not understand this component. This was expressed in the form of a question by one who wrote, "Are you saying where the $ comes from is a component?" This may explain why six or 11.32 percent indicated it was somewhat unimportant. Brief Description College 1 Hard dollars approved through budget process as other college programs College 2 Both soft and hard dollars with most hard dollars College 3 Largely soft dollars under AIDP grant. Grant program had been preceded by hard dollars allocated by the president as seed money College 4 Hard money now primary source. Program began with Title III money with ACCTion Consortium College 5 Both hard and soft dollars with Title III funding 152 Table 4.12 Data from Interviewees and Questionnaires Organizational Funding Number of interviewees stating component is Important Unimportant College 1 16 0 College 2 7 0 College 3 7 0 College 4 11 0 College 5 7 1 Questionnaire Ratings Very Somewhat No Important Important Unimportant Unimportant Response # 4 % # 3 % # 2 % # 1 % # % College 1 11 73.33 4 26.67 0 0 College 2 4 57.14 3 42.86 0 0 College 3 3 42.86 3 42.86 1 14.29 0 College 4 6 60.00 3 30.00 1 10.00 0 College 5 3 37.50 4 50.00 1 12.50 0 Total Colleges 27 57.45 17 36.17 3 6.38 O EXperts 27 50.94 19 35.85 6 11.32 0 1 1.89 153 Personal Programming Program verification was provided by each college with a point score of 7.5. Personal programming activities were occurring at each college, although in some cases only on a limited basis. College 1 had provided personal programming that included such activities as physical fitness, nutrition, biorhythms, and visitations to local sights. The vice president for instruction noted that these kinds of activities would receive closer scrutiny when considered for step promotions in the future. College 2 offered personal programming primarily through traditional activities of graduate coursework, conference and travel, professional affiliations and professional literature and resources. There had been some more recent activities of a different nature such as assertiveness training and cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Personal programming at College 3 was of the skills building type of activity such as time management and listening skills. The fourth college operated with personal programming as the main stay of staff development. This was the result of the programs initial focus being that of growth contracting. Finally, College 5 offered limited personal programming with recent programming which included income tax preparation. College 5 also reported that some personal counseling was available to college employees. 154 All of the interviewees felt the component was important, providing program verification. The experts also responded in the majority that the component was important. However, there was con- siderable difference in the questionnaire responses of the inter- viewees and experts. The interviewees indicated that the component was very important 57.45 percent of the time while the experts reported it as very important in 28.30 percent of the responses. Twenty-eight point thirty-one percent (28.31) of the experts said it was unimportant as compared to 8.51 percent of the interviewees. Some of the comments offered by the experts may explain the difference. While one expert wrote, "any good staff development program should leave room for this," other comments seemed to impart a different perspective. One person repeated an earlier comment made under personal funding. In it he/she referred to such activities as an Opportunity to improve skills not needed in the job. Another wrote, "Is this staff development?" Still another suggested, "can be dangerous component initially until program is accepted, . . .fear its evaluation." Two experts wrote more pointed comments. One observed, "This becomes a game. I believe it is better to establish work unit objectives and try to go from there." Another wrote, "Too often resources go to this instead of projects that will impact students." College College College College College 155 Brief Description Physical fitness, biorhythms, visitations, stress management, course work through step increase program Traditional graduate courses, conference and travel, literature and professional resources. Recently assertiveness and CPR Personal development, skills building Growth contracting Income tax preparation, personal counseling 156 Table 4.13 Data from Interviewees and Questionnaires Personal Programming Number of interviewees stating component is Important Unimportant College 1 16 0 College 2 7 0 College 3 7 0 College 4 11 0 College 5 6 2 Questionnaire Ratings Very Somewhat No Important Important Unimportant Unimportant Response # 4 % # 3 % # 2 % # % # % College 1 9 60.00 5 33.33 1 6.67 0 College 2 5 71.43 1 14.29 1 14.29 0 College 3 3 42.86 3 42.86 1 14.29 0 College 4 7 70.00 3 30.00 0 0 College 5 5 62.50 2 25.00 1 12.50 0 Total Colleges 29 61.70 14 29.79 4 8.51 O Experts 15 28.30 22 41.51 14 26.42 1 1.89 1 1.89 157 Program Development Programming The component was found to exist at each of the five colleges. It was most notably programming which focused upon instructional or curriculum development. Four of the five colleges offered some form~of mini-grants which were often focused upon curriculum development at the program unit level. The college which did not have a mini-grant program assisted faculty through performance contracting. Two of the colleges had Higher Education Management Institute (HEMI) programs. At one school the initiative was just beginning. It held promise for opportunity to focus upon management/administrative practices. The second had been involved with HEMI for some years. They indicated an intent to revive the HEMI program for administrative development. The component was felt important by all those interviewed. The existence of the component as well as the responses of the inter- viewees, verbal and on the questionnaire, provided program verifi- cation for the component with a point score of 7.5. The experts also felt the component was important. They did rate its importance somewhat lower than the ratings of the inter— viewees. Forty-three point forty percent (43.40) said it was very important compared to 59.57 percent of the interviewees when completing the questionnaire. In addition, 15.09 percent of the experts felt it was not important compared to 2.13 percent of the college interviewees. 158 There were very few comments made about this component. Two experts took issue with the examples of team building; stating that it was an organizational development activity. One person wrote “what you do may not be as important as that you do it or how you do it." Finally, one expert made an observation concerning all three areas of programming. He noted that "programming must be balanced in approach and deal with the institution's goals and direction. One or another [personal, program development or organizational development program] may be more important depending upon these goals." Brief Description College 1 Administrative deve10pment, faculty fellowships, and instructional/curriculum development College 2 Performance contracting, curriculum development, department initiatives and interim session programs College 3 Faculty development center activities, mini-grant projects College 4 Project grants, writing center, ACCTion Consortium initiatives in health careers area, learning styles/ cognitive mapping College 5 Faculty days, instruction development, cognitive mapping program, mini-grants, and higher education management institute for administrative development 159 Table 4.14 Data from Interviewees and Questionnaires Program Development Programming Number of interviewees stating component is Important Unimportant College 1 16 0 College 2 7 0 College 3 7 0 College 4 11 0 College 5 7 1 Questionnaire Ratings Very Somewhat No Important Important Unimportant Unimportant Response # 4 % # 3 % # 2 % # 1 % # % College 1 9 60.00 6 40.00 0 0 College 2 3 42.86 3 42.86 1 14.29 0 College 3 4 57.14 3 42.86 0 0 College 4 8 80.00 2 20.00 0 0 College 5 4 50.00 4 50.00 0 0 Total Colleges 28 59.57 18 38.30 1 2.13 O Experts 23 43.40 18 33.96 8 15.09 0 160 Organizational Development Planniog Some of the colleges had some activities which fostered organi- zational development. The college did not appear to be offering programs and activities which were designated as organizational development initiatives directed by those responsible for staff development. College 1, for example, had a program for administrators to identify a colleague a month to visit in order to learn about their job and office Operations. The program had been popular for a short period and eventually lost momentum. The staff development program also had a role in planning the all college in-service program at the start Of the year. Two colleges had just begun or renewed the Higher Education Management Institute (HEMI) program. Some interviewees felt this was a form Of organizational development although it appeared to Offer training modules for administrative development; specific skills building activities for personnel. The interviewees did express the unanimous Opinion that this was important. They Often added that it was also the most neglected area at the college. The majority also answered the questionnaire by indicating it was very important. Consequently, although there was not much organizational development programming at the colleges they did provide verification Of the component since, program by program, it was recognized as important for a point score Of 6.0. 161 The majority of experts also responded by indicating that the component was important. It should be noted that the college inter- viewees saw this as very important more Often than the experts. While a nearly equal number of both groups noted the component was not important. One comment seemed to Offer some insight. An expert wrote, "This is essential--however, it may be done better as an ancillary service rather than direct programming." College College College College College Brief Description Fall all college in-service, college outings, KISS program (administrative exchange) NO programming NO programming NO programming Staff development co-sponsored development days 162 Table 4.15 Data from Interviewees and Questionnaires Organization Development Programming Number Of interviewees stating component is Important Unimportant College 1 16 0 College 2 7 0 College 3 7 0 College 4 11 0 College 5 8 O Questionnaire Ratings Very Somewhat NO Important Important Unimportant Unimportant Response # 4 % # 3 % # 2 % # % # % College 1 11 73.33 3 20.00 1 6.67 0 College 2 2 28.57 4 57.14 1 14.29 0 College 3 5 71.43 I 14.29 1 14.29 0 College 4 6 60.00 3 30.00 1 10.00 0 College 5 3 37.50 4 50.00 1 12.50 0 Total Colleges 27 57.45 15 31.91 5 10.64 0 Experts 21 39.62 24 45.28 6 11.32 0 2 3.77 163 Personal Rewards and Incentives Each of the five colleges offered some incentives and rewards. Only one offered some rewards for personnel other than faculty--with a step increase system for clerical employees. There was no reward or incentive offered for administrators at any of the colleges that was brought to the attention of the interviewer. The rewards and incentives for individuals ranged from mini-grant funds, dollars with performance contracting and step increases to recognition of outstanding faculty. At one college the majority told the interviewer the component was not important. The majority did, however, indicate it was important when completing the questionnaire. The majority at all the other colleges stated it was important in the interviews and on the questionnaire. Therefore the component did receive program verification by the colleges with a point score of 6.0. The comments of the interviewees reflected the outlook expressed by most during the interviews. One person wrote, "keeps individuals happy and satisfied. Also, would influence pe0ple staying in the job longer if she/he feels appreciated." Another noted that rewards and incentives are "more important in instituting a formal staff development program. Still important to maintenance of staff develop- ment program." Finally, another observed "Without a reward system the motivation factor is lessened." 164 The majority of experts also felt the component was important. There was a larger percentage of experts, than college interviewees, who indicated it was not important. Sixteen point ninety—eight percent of the experts noted that it was not important compared to 8.51 percent of the college interviewees. The comments of the experts reinforced the majority response that the component was important. One individual noted that "included in these rewards might be a series of other rewards that don't cost money." Another pointed out, in a similar perspective, that rewards might fall in two categories--"hygiene vs growth"-- as per Herzberg." One expert wrote that ”rewards should match individual motiva- tion." Still another explained, "this may be alot more important than I ever thought." A different perspective may have been suggested by the expert who indicated that rewards and incentives were impor- tant while adding the "example: terminating incompetent people." Brief Descriptjon College 1 Step increase system, recognition, faculty fellowships College 2 Dollars with performance contracting, money with higher degrees College 3 Financial incentives with project grants, release time, recognition, travel College 4 Step increases for faculty and clerical, project grants, some travel College 5 Graduate study, mini-grants, recognition 165 Table 4.16 Data from Interviewees and Questionnaires Personal Rewards and Incentives Number of interviewees stating component is Important Unimportant College 1 15 1 College 2 3 4 College 3 6 1 College 4 11 0 College 5 7 1 Questionnaire Ratings Very Somewhat No Important Important Unimportant Unimportant Response # 4 % # 3 % # 2 % # % # % College 1 9 60.00 6 40.00 0 0 College 2 3 42.86 2 28.57 2 28.57 0 College 3 4 57.14 2 28.57 1 14.29 0 College 4 8 80.00 2 20.00 0 0 College 5 3 37.50 4 50.00 1 12.50 0 Total Colleges 27 57.45 16 34.04 4 8.51 O Experts 30 56.60 14 26.42 9 16.98 0 166 Rewards and Incentivesfbr Programs The colleges offered no rewards and incentives for programs. Rewards and incentives provided for individuals could carry-over to affect the programs in situations where mini-grant projects involved more than one individual. None, however, could be seen as rewards and incentives provided to the programs or units within the colleges. This may be consistent with the observation made for the pre- vious component where no individual incentives and rewards were pro- vided for administrators; since most programs would be headed by administrators or faculty charged with administrative responsibilities. A comment of one interviewee would support this observation. The individual wrote, "This is the reward/incentives program for managers." The component did receive program verification with a point score of 5.0 since the majority did indicate that it was important. The majority of experts also felt the component was important. The experts and interviewees differed somewhat in terms of the degree of importance placed upon the component with 35.85 percent of the experts indicating it was very important and 51.06 percent of the interviewees responding that it was very important. 167 Table 4.17 Data from Interviewees and Questionnaires Rewards and Incentives for Programs Number of interviewees stating component is Important Unimportant College 1 13 3 College 2 4 3 College 3 5 2 College 4 11 0 College 5 8 O Questionnaire Ratings Very Somewhat No Important Important Unimportant Unimportant Response # 4 % # 3 % # 2 % # 1 % # % College 1 9 60.00 6 40.00 0 0 College 2 4 57.14 3 42.86 D 0 College 3 3 42.86 3 42.86 1 14.29 0 College 4 5 50.00 5 50.00 0 0 College 5 3 37.50 4 50.00 1 12.50 0 Total Colleges 24 51.06 21 44.68 2 4.26 O Experts 19 35.85 30 56.60 4 7.55 O 168 Rewards and Incentives for the Organization The interviewees at each of the colleges were able to identify rewards and incentives for the organization. They ranged from the intangible observation of improved morale and better instruction to more tangible things such as recognition by other colleges and pro- fessional organizations. Several colleges saw recognition of staff development programs by the North Central Accrediting Association as incentive and/or reward for programs. Three of the colleges noted the recognition of the program director as a result of offices held in or awards received by the National Council for Staff, Program, and Organizational Development or affiliation with the National Institute for Staff and Organizational Development. The majority of those interviewed felt rewards and incentives were important to staff development. Their responses to the question- naire confirmed that. As one interviewee noted, "This is the key to our success and to our future existence as an institution of higher education." There was program verification with a point score of 7.5. The majority of experts also felt the component was important. College 1 College 2 College 3 College 4 College 5 169 Brief Description Better instruction with opportunities for faculty to improve, better morale, reduced turnover, recognition by other colleges and professionals in staff develop- ment field Improved quality and recognition, better instruction for students and community Public recognition, improved quality of faculty and programming acknowledged by community, improved community image North Central Accreditation recognition in self-study, improvement of services to students and community, state and national recognition, staff development is a vehicle for motivating people, better use of resources and means of meeting new needs in hard times Better faculty for improved instruction, recognition for the college, improved employee morale 170 Table 4.18 Data from Interviewees and Questionnaires Rewards and Incentives for the Organization Number of interviewees stating component is Important Unimportant College 1 16 0 College 2 6 1 College 3 6 1 College 4 10 1 College 5 7 1 Questionnaire Ratings Very Somewhat No Important Important Unimportant Unimportant Response # 4 % # 3 % # 2 % # 1 % # % College 1 10 66.67 5 33.33 0 0 College 2 2 28.57 5 71.43 0 0 College 3 3 42.86 2 28.57 2 28.57 0 College 4 7 70.00 1 10.00 2 20.00 0 College 5 3 37.50 4 50.00 1 12.50 0 Total Colleges 25 53.19 17 36.17 5 10.64 0 Experts 21 39.62 24 45.28 7 13.21 0 1.89 171 Individual Evaluation Only one college had established a system for evaluation of individual participation in staff development. The process was part of the growth contracting and had been adapted for use by other staff develOpment activities. It involved a self-evaluation, certification of skills, and follow-up at a specified time after the activity. Another college reported that although an evaluation process did not exist they were currently reviewing the topic. It was being considered by the committee and director responsible for instructional develOpment. Finally, a third college did offer through the staff development program a voluntary program for evaluation of an indi- vidual's instruction. The majority of interviewees felt the component was important. They stated the evaluation was important when interviewed and confirmed this with responses to the questionnaire. The component did receive program verification based on these findings with a point score of 5.5. The majority of the experts also reported that the component was important. The interviewees often commented that individual evaluation was nice, but very difficult to do. Some pointed out that such evaluation was the responsibility of supervisors; it could not and should not be done by the staff development program. 172 Comments offered by the experts were mixed. One person wrote, ". . .if it's a part of the 'threat-of—release-from-the-job' than it's important, otherwise we're playing a game again." Another noted that individual evaluation "must be tied back to personal development plans in a positive manner." A third expert cautioned that it “can be a dangerous component until the program is accepted." Brief Description College 1 Individual evaluation did not exist. The topic is currently being reviewed by personnel responsible for instructional development College 2 Does not exist College 3 Does not exist College 4 Evaluation is part of growth contracting which includes self-evaluation, certification of skills, and follow-up College 5 Evaluation is not formalized. Evaluation of individual instruction is available on a voluntary basis through the staff development program 173 Table 4.19 Data from Interviewees and Questionnaires Individual Evaluation Number of interviewees stating component is Important Unimportant College 1 15 1 College 2 7 0 College 3 7 0 College 4 10 1 College 5 6 1 1 NR Questionnaire Ratings Very Somewhat No Important Important Unimportant Unimportant Response # 4 % # 3 %’ # 2 % # 1 % # % College 1 10 66.67 4 26.67 1 6.67 0 College 2 2 28.57 4 57.14 D 1 14.29 College 3 4 57.14 3 42.86 0 0 College 4 7 70.00 2 20.00 1 10.00 0 College 5 4 50.00 4 50.00 0 D Total Colleges 27 57.45 17 36.17 2 4.26 1 2.13 Experts 27 50.94 22 41.51 3 5.66 O 1 1.89 174 Program Assessment No college had established a process for program assessment. Many of those interviewed acknowledged that it was desirable but felt it was very difficult to accomplish. They often commented that they did not know how this could be done. One staff development director expressed the opinion that this component "is nice to have, but not necessary." Some interviewees observed that informal or indirect assessment did occur since staff development continued to be refunded when budgets were reviewed annually. The majority of the interviewees stated that the component was important. All but one interviewee responded to the questionnaire by indicating that the component was important. This provided for program verification of the component with a point score of 5.0 even though it did not exist at any of the colleges visited. The experts also responded by checking that the component was important. Six of the experts, or 11.32 percent of those responding, felt program assessment was somewhat unimportant or unimportant. The comments of the experts were, once again, mixed. One noted, "always [important] and on multiple levels.‘I Two others shared the perspective of many interviewees when they wrote, "this is a hard one," and "can this be truly evaluated?" Another expert commented that program assessment is "important only if something is to be done about it, otherwise it's an exercise in futility." 175 Brief Description College 1 Some felt assessment was indirect through budget renewal process. Did not exist College 2 Did not exist College 3 Did not exist College 4 Did not exist. Some assessment had been part of work with Title III and ACCTion Consortium College 5 Did not exist 176 Table 4.20 Data from Interviewees and Questionnaires Program Assessment Number of interviewees stating component is Important Unimportant College 1 12 3 College 2 6 1 College 3 6 1 College 4 11 0 College 5 7 1 Questionnaire Ratings Very Somewhat No Important Important Unimportant Unimportant Response # 4 %5 $3 % # 2 % # 1 % # % College 1 10 66.67 4 26.67 0 1 6.67 College 2 3 42.86 4 57.14 0 0 College 3 4 57.14 3 42.86 D 0 College 4 8 80.00 2 20.00 0 0 College 5 5 62.50 3 37.50 D 0 Total Colleges 30 63.83 16 34.04 0 1 2.13 Experts 28 52.83 19 35.85 5 9.43 1 1.89 177 Organizational Development Evaluation Organizational development evaluation did not exist as part of the staff development programs at the colleges visited. The inter- viewees felt the component was important but difficult to do. Some repeated the observation that this evaluation, like program assessment, was occurring through informal processes of budget renewal and verbal feedback received on an individual basis. The majority of the interviewees expressed the opinion that the component was important when interviewed and when completing the questionnaire. The responses supporting the components importance provided for program verification with a point score of 5.0 even though it did not exist at any of the campuses visited. The majority of experts also felt the component was important when completing the questionnaire. Two comments made by the experts were noteworthy. One repeated an observation made about program assessment by writing, "Can this truly be evaluated?" A second expressed the opinion that "attention should be given to this area. However, I do not want to be held accountable for organizational productivity when there are so many other variables to be accounted for." 178 Table 4.21 Data from Interviewees and Questionnaires Organizational Development Evaluation Number of interviewees stating component is Important Unimportant College 1 14 1 1 NR College 2 6 1 NR College 3 6 1 College 4 IO 1 College 5 7 1 Questionnaire Ratings Very Somewhat No Important Important Unimportant Unimportant Response # 4 % # 3 % # 2 % # % # % College 1 11 73.33 4 26.67 0 0 College 2 4 57.14 2 28.57 1 14.29 0 College 3 3 42.86 4 57.14 0 0 College 4 7 70.00 2 20.00 1 10.00 0 College 5 5 62.50 3 37.50 0 0 Total Colleges 30 63.83 15 31.91 2 4.26 O Experts 22 41.51 26 49.06 3 5.66 0 2 3.77 179 Ranking of the Components The data gathered indicates that not every component was found to exist as part of the staff development programs studied. As many as ten components were found absent from one of the staff development programs. One program did not include nine of the components. Two other programs lacked six components and a fifth fell short by seven. The evaluation components were found absent in almost every case. One college had established a process for individual evaluation. In every other case the components of individual evaluation, program assessment, and organizational development evaluation were not present. Three other components were found to be predominantly absent. They were: purpose for organizational development, organizational development programming, and rewards and incentives for programs. Organizational development programming was found to exist at one college with the components missing in every other case at the colleges visited. The previous findings showed that the interviewees and experts agreed that each component was considered important to a comprehensive staff development program in a community college. Both groups were then asked to "rank the top ten components in order of their impor- tance to implementing a comprehensive staff development program in a community college." The rankings were computed by giving the components from one to ten points depending upon how they were ranked 180 and averaging the score for each component. The highest average score was then ranked as the top component and so on. (For example, if component 9 was ranked as the top component by fifty respondents it would have a total point score of 500 which would average to a rank order score of 10.) This portion of the questionnaire was challenged by five of the experts. One wrote "You need it all. Would you make a cake and leave out the flour? The eggs? The milk?" Another explained, "I think the separation of these components is artificial and unrealistic. It is like saying "What is more important--a fork or a plate?" They are both important and more important when used together. The same applies to your components. I agree some components are going to be more important than others. I disagree with how you have asked me (us) to differentiate them. I don't see the value of it at this point." A third person observed “I found this not to be a true repre- sentation of what I felt--as the components change according to the state of development of your program. . ." The data was computed to reflect the ranking of the top ten components by (1) all the interviewees from the five colleges visited, (2) the experts, and (3) a combination of the experts and the interviewees. The findings are as follows: 181 Top ten components as ranked by interviewees: 1. N 0 U1 \DmNCh 10. Top ten l. 10. \JNO‘D-Dw Personal Development Plan Purpose for Personal Development Staff Development Personnel Purpose for Program Development Staff Development Program-informal/formal Program Budget Program/Instructional Development Plan Personal Rewards and Incentives Authority and Accountability Personal Funding components as ranked by the experts: Purpose for Personal Development Purpose for Program Development Purpose for Organizational Development Personal Development Plan Staff Development Personnel Staff Development Program-informal/formal Organizational Planning and Development Personal Rewards and Incentives Program Budget Authority and Accountability 182 Top ten components as ranked by the experts and interviewees: Purpose for Personal Development Purpose for Program Development Staff Development Personnel Personal Development Plan Purpose for Organizational Development Staff Development Program-formal/informal Personal Rewards and Incentives Program Budget Authority and Accountability Program/Instructional Development Plan 183 Summary This chapter has reported the findings of the field test and questionnaires sent to a population of experts. The first two sections report on the findings in terms of the nature and breadth of staff development. These sections are devoted to providing definitions of staff development and the organization or plans to carryout programs as explained by interviewees at each of the five colleges visited. The third section reflects a combination of information obtained from the interviews on each of the five campuses, responses of the interviewees to the questionnaire, and the responses of the experts to the questionnaire. The findings provide an examination of the depth of staff development. An analysis of each of the twenty-one components of the proposed paradigm for staff development is reported. The analysis follows the criteria set forth in Chapter III: combining the information or documentation from interviews, data from completed questionnaires of the interviewees, and data from the completed questionnaires of the experts. Finally, this section reports on the ranking of the top ten components in order of their importance to implementing a comprehensive staff development program in a community college. The rankings are presented in three groupings: (1) rankings of the interviewees, (2) rankings of the experts, and (3) rankings of both the interviewees and experts. 184 ENDNOTES 1William Morris, ed., The Ameri can Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Massachusetts, p. 2James Hammons, Terry H. Smith- Development in the Community College: 346. Wallace, Gordon Watts, Staff A Handbook (Los Angeles, 1978), p. 54. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of this chapter is to provide a summary of: the problem, review of the literature, and findings. There will also be a review of questions which gave direction to the study and recom- mendations for further study. The growth of community colleges, beginning in the late 50's, has been rapid. Their growth continued for some time as more two- year colleges began to respond to educational needs of local commu- ities. Programs expanded as new opportunities were provided for minority groups, technical education, low or no tuition, and a chance to enter higher education where such opportunities might not have otherwise existed. The increasing enrollments and expanding programs of community colleges brought about a demand for teachers. The need for teachers posed a unique problem for two-year schools. Faculty were rarely trained to teach in an institution with a mission to provide educa- tion to traditional and non-traditional students enrolled in transfer, developmental studies, technical occupational programs, leisure time courses, adult basic education, continuing education, training and more. Those who began to find their way into community college 185 186 teaching were schooled in baccalaureate systems, experienced high school teachers, skilled tradesmen, graduate assistants at neighboring universities and part-time teachers who sought extra income or entrance into the field. The lack of teacher training and the need for new approaches to the diverse student population gave rise to the recognition that something must be done to prepare teachers for the community college. Early approaches focused upon special programs offered by graduate institutions and teacher training colleges. The demand for two-year faculty exceeded the ability of such initiatives to respond adequately and appropriately to the need. The problem was one of training those already employed in the community college and those who wanted to enter the two-year college arena in the future. In addition, techno- logical growth of the 60's and 70's, calls for accountability, and reduced funding had given emphasis to the need to keep abreast of one's discipline and educational developments. It was this phenomena which brought about the increasing initia- tives at in-service education in community colleges. In l967 Gordon Kilpatrick observed that the purpose of in-service education was not only to eliminate deficiencies in teachers' pre-service but to help them to keep abreast of the latest developments in education. The result was to promote greater attention to faculty and staff develop- ment beginning in the late 60's. 187 In l969 the Florida legislature established a statewide program for faculty and program development with three percent of college budgets devoted to staff development. Terry O'Banion was commissioned by Congress to study the problem of teacher training for two-year colleges and make recommendations. His report focused upon the “urgency and magnitude of the need for staff development." These developments led to greater efforts to create formalized staff development programs as part of college operations. Conferences and seminars began to focus upon the many questions about what con- stituted a staff development program, how it was to be implemented, who it should serve, and many other issues about both the process and content. At a l974 conference on Questions and Issues in Planning Community College Staff Development Programs, James Hammons and Terry Wallace pointed out that it was no longer a question of the need for staff development but an issue of "how". The early 70's was a time when the topic of faculty development was emerging in the four-year institutions also. In l974, giggggg published a report, Faculty Development in a Time of Retrenchment, which was widely read and discussed. This was followed by Jerry Gaff's 1976 work, Toward Faculty Renewal and John Centra's, Study of Faculty Development Practices in the United States. The community colleges recognized that staff development must expand to include all college employees while colleges and universities tend to focus primarily upon faculty development. Charles Claxton 188 summarized a 1975 conference in Community College Staff Development: Basic Issues in Planning. The conference participants proposed a series of components for comprehensive staff development programs. The literature and conference sessions prior to the mid 70's focused upon different processes of organizing and carrying out staff development in the community college. The Claxton report was one of the first to identify components of staff development programs. There was a need to pull these ideas and proposals together into a compre- hensive model. In 1976 Charles Herbert LeClair did a disseration study on In-Service Policies and Practices in North Central Association Com- munity Colleges. He concluded with a recommendation that a model should be developed to describe the components of staff development and their interrelationships. The model had not yet been proposed, examined, and made available to others. Restatement of the Problem Earlier writing and studies focused on varying aspects of getting programs started, keeping them going, evaluating them, or describing the activities which constitute staff development. More recent authors such as Hammons, O'Banion, Smith, and others have attempted to get a handle on the state of the art and what constitutes the essential components of staff development programs. There has not been a model which has been tested in relation to programs evolving in so many community colleges throughout the country. 189 Terry Wallace's first review of the literature of staff develop- ment advocated the need for more models which offer guidelines for implementation. Terry O'Banion's l979 publication, Organizing Staff Development Programs That Work, noted that too few programs are well thought out. Models have been offered which focus upon various aspects of staff development: part-time faculty, committees and program organi- zation, internships, administrative development, and unique campus programs or models. LeClair's recommendation that a model be developed which describes the components of staff development programs and their interrelationships continues to require attention if staff development is to meet the challenge of keeping faculty and staff up with changing technology, reduced mobility, fewer dollars and student diversity. There is a need to study existing staff development programs in order to offer some guidelines for what constitutes the important components of a comprehensive program. With reduced budgets and greater demands, new or existing efforts must be well thought out and directed. The purpose of this study was to find out what components constitute and are important to staff development programs using a para- digm to guide the investigation. The Paradigm Some models have been provided in the literature. They offer guidelines for staff development which focus upon (1) content: personal, instructional or organizational development, or 190 (2) process: purpose, planning, organization and staff, funding, programming, rewards and incentives, and evaluation. They lack a comprehensiveness which draws all components together in a process and content model which clearly sets forth guidelines which touch upon all aspects of staff development. This study has proposed a paradigm for staff development in the community college. It is a paradigm, which, as defined in Paul Reynolds's book, A Primer in Theory Construction, offers some refine- ment of what exists while representing a unique description of the phenomena without suggesting a dramatic change. The study sought to test the proposed paradigm in relation to practices at selected community colleges; raising questions about the nature of staff development, the breadth of programs, and the depth of the programs in relation to the proposed paradigm. The proposed paradigm was constructed with consideration given to the content focus and processes of staff development programs. The content focus was defined to include personal, program/instruc- tional, and organizational development. Staff development was defined as follows for the purpose of the study to include these three areas of content focus: (1) PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT is defined as those activities which focus upon the individual employee--instruc- tional or non-instructional personnel--in an attempt to improve or add to his/her knowledge, interper- sonal skills, technical skills, or attitudes. This term is often interchanged with faculty and staff development. 191 2) PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT is defined as those activities designed to maintain and improve upon curricular, instructional, or functional units within the college. It places primary focus upon the improve- ment of the delivery of instructional and non- instructional services throughout the college. 3) ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT is defined as the planned activities which address the college's structure and its environment (climate) to provide for change in operations or staff relations to carry out its mission(s) or assume new missions. The staff development processes were defined as those functions or operations necessary to carry out staff development programs within the community college. They included: (a) a statement of purpose or rationale, (b) planning, (c) organization and staff, (d) funding, (e) programming, (f) rewards and incentives, and (9) evaluation. The proposed paradigm was then developed to include twenty- one identifiable components within the context of the content areas and processes for staff develOpment. These components were defined after careful review of the literature and based upon a synthesis of the perspectives found therein. The twenty-one components are: 1. Purpose for Personal Development 2. Purpose for Program Development 3 Purpose for Organizational Development 4. Personal Development Plan 5. Program/Instructional Development Plan 6. Organizational Planning and Development Staff Development Personnel 8. Staff Development Program - formal/informal 9. Authority and Accountability 192 l0. Personal Funding ll. Program Budget l2. Organizational Funding 13. Personal Programming l4. Program Development Programming l5. Organizational Development Programming l6. Personal Rewards and Incentives l7. Rewards and Incentives for Programs 18. Rewards and Incentives for the Organization l9. Individual Evaluation 20. Program Assessment 2l. Organizational Development Evaluation Summary of Procedures/Methodology The proposed paradigm was tested by (a) a field test in relation to staff development programs operating in five selected two-year colleges, and (b) a questionnaire sent to experts who were recognized leaders in the field of staff development as a result of national or regional leadership among professional staff developers, authorship or extensive consulting and staff development experience. The Field Test The field tests were conducted by a visit to five staff develop- ment programs in community colleges from the midwest. These colleges were selected after polling the midwest membership of the National Council for Staff, Program, and Organizational Development. 193 The membership was asked to identify colleges from their state or Canada which met the criteria as stated in Chapter Three. The member- ship represented eleven states and Canada. The information resulted in the selection of the following five community colleges for on-site visits: (l) Des Moines Area Community College-Iowa, (2) Kellogg Community College-Michigan, (3) Elgin Community College-Illinois, (4) Cincinnati Technical College-Ohio, and (5) Stark Technical College-Ohio. The colleges were selected with consideration given to the number of responses ranking them among the top three in each state, the number of responses from each state and the location of the colleges. Those selected offered some regional variation and an opportunity to test the paradigm in relation to programs of varying scope. The on-site visit included interviews with personnel who directed the programs, faculty and staff who participated in staff development programs, people who served 6n advisory committees and administrative personnel to whom the staff development director or leadership reported. The interviews followed a standard format to insure consistency of questioning. The interview questions had been pilot tested on two campuses prior to the visits for the study. The interviewees were asked to complete the questionnaire which was later sent to the experts after the interview was completed. In addition, supporting documentation was requested to assess whether or not the twenty-one components were extant on the campuses. 194 The interviews were constructed to obtain information in keeping with questions posed in the first chapter of the study. Specifically, the interviewees were asked questions about (1) the nature of staff development which provided information on the definition at each college, (2) the breadth of staff development which assessed the extent to which staff development touches by design upon the three content areas, and (3) the depth of staff development to test the components of the proposed paradigm as they existed on each campus. The Population of Experts Seventy-eight experts were identified as authorities on staff development. They were determined by polling the mid west membership of the National Council for Staff, Program, and Organizational Development. The membership was asked to name people who met the criteria of national or regional leadership, authorship, and con- sulting with staff development programs in the community college. Sixty-seven point ninety-four percent of the population re- sponded with useable data. The questionnaires were sent to the experts after the on-site visits had been completed. The questionnaire was developed to determine the viability of the components of the proposed paradigm. The respondents were asked to evaluate the appropriateness of the components using a scale with a 4- point range, with 4 as very important and l unimportant. They were then asked to rank the top ten components of the paradigm in order of their importance to implementing a comprehensive staff 195 development program in a community college. The questionnaire had been pilot tested with a population of twenty professionals in staff develop- ment in the State of Michigan. Summary of the Findings The purpose of the study was to find out what components con- stitute and are important to staff development programs using a paradigm to guide the investigation. There was no intent to evaluate the staff development programs at the colleges visited. There was no assumption made with regard to any program's "comprehensiveness". The paradigm could have been reflected in part or entirely within the community colleges visited. The first two sections of the report of the findings represent an analysis of written documentation received during the visits and the responses to questions during interviews. These sections of the fundings address the question of staff development definitions on each of the campuses as compared to that of the paradigm and the extent to which programs were organized to address the three content areas of staff development as defined by the paradigm. The Nature or Definition(s)of Staff Development A definition of staff development had not been clearly articu- lated to employees at the colleges visited. The result was that inter- viewees offered a variety of definitions. Most reported that their definition had been derived from observation or experiences. A review of those definitions (see appendix) and program activities do present a unique perspective for staff development at each of the 196 colleges. The result was that the five colleges defined staff development as: a program to help the individual grow in a variety of ways--attitudes, professionally and personally (on-the-job and in their personal lives). an on-going process to keep stimulating and upgrading instruction and on-the-job skills with instructional support. a program for instructional and curriculum development and the improvement of personal skills and attitudes. a program to improve performance of both the individual and the institution; allowing the individual to explore beneficial relation- ships between his/her career and institutional goals. finally, a college which appeared to be making a transition offered two perspectives. First, staff development is anything which is done to help improve the faculty members' technical ability to teach-instructional methods and techniques. Second, staff development is pro- gramming which provides incentives and oppor- tunities for employees to grow professionally and personally. The definitions offered and program activities at each of the schools seemed to reflect a common approach. Staff development referred to efforts to improve the individual's job performance and, occasionally, personal skills deve10pment. Yet, the majority of interviewees agreed with the definition provided by this study (Chapter I). They expressed the opinion that their college's staff development could be charac- terized by the proposed paradigm definition; although acknowledging 197 reservations about the commitment to or ability to address organiza- tional development and, to some extent, program development. Breadth of Staff Develppment The staff development programs were most often organized to provide programming and support for personal development, some program development, and only coincidentally as organizational develop- ment. No program had been established for the purpose of conducting activities with a focus on all three areas or organizational develop- ment. Although staff development touched upon each area there was less direction given to programs as one progressed from personal to organizational development. The interviewees felt that there was a relationship of activities in the three areas. They expressed the opinion that by helping the individual to develop you improve programs or the reverse idea that efforts to develop programs result in opportunities for personal' growth. They saw activities in personal and program development as fostering a climate for improved organizational development to occur. The existence of a formal staff development program was credited with improving communication, providing greater availability of infor- mation, and allowing for more participation in planning. Formal pro- grams gave greater direction to organization and planning for staff development outcomes as seen by the interviewees. 198 Summary of Depth of Staff Development This portion of the study reports on findings from the college visits and responses to the questionnaire by the interviewees and population of experts. Criteria was established (Chapter III) for verification of the proposed paradigm components in relation to their importance to a comprehensive staff development program in a community college. The findings from the study show the components which were found to exist at each of the community colleges visited. Components for organizational development were found to be most notably absent. They did not exist in 45.7 percent of the occasions observed for the programs visited. Program development components were not found in 40 percent of the cases observed. Personal development components were absent 22.8 percent of the time. The components most often found not present as part of staff development were: purpose for organizational development, organizational development programming, rewards and incentives for programs, and all evaluationcomponents. Interviewee statements and questionnaire responses indicate that the components are each felt to be important to staff develop- ment programs. There was program verification for each of the components and the majority of experts indicated they were important. The following is a brief summary of those findings in relation to each component. 199 Puppose for Personal Development A statement of purpose did exist at four of five colleges. The statements of purpose had not been made available to most employees. Some of the experts suggested that the component be purpose for "professional" rather than "personal" development or combined to read "personal and professional". Some suggested that a statement of pur- pose for personal, program and organizational development are diffi- cult to separate and should be integrated as one statement. Purpose for Program Development The component existed at four of the five colleges. The state- ments focused upon purpose for instructional development. The com- ment of one expert supports this observation. He/she wrote that "program development and instructional development are ppt_the same." Purpose for Organizational Develppment The component was found absent at each college. Interviewee and expert comments pointed to the absence of this component as a reflection of the need for or measure of college commitment. Personal Development Plan The component existed at three of the five colleges. It was found as growth contracting, performance planning or faculty plans 200 for a step increase program. Personal development plans were pri- marily used with faculty members with little or no attention given to administrative or support personnel. An expert suggested the com- ponent's revision to read "a process for recognizing individual strengths and weaknesses, for assessing growth and development needs, and for setting forth some procedure to address needs." Program/Instructional Development Plans The component did exist at all the colleges. It was found pri- marily in the context of instructional or curriculum development. A suggestion was made by an expert to revise the component to read "the process for identifying departmental or program strengths and weaknesses, for assessing needs and for setting forth practices. . . [to address needs]." Organizational Planning and Development Three of the five colleges had some means of carrying this out. Organizational planning and devel0pment was not an on-going integral function within the colleges where it was reported to exist in relation to staff development. One expert's comment was pertinent to this observation. It was noted that "staff development is not necessarily responsible for college planning, but a means by which we can facili- tate it." 201 Staff Development Personnel Staff development personnel were found to exist at each college. Observations and comments during the visits as well as expert responses support the observation that without designating someone at a college as responsible for staff development it does not get the direction and leadership needed; other demands such as budget, staffing, scheduling, and staff evaluation take precedence. Staff Development Program Four of the five colleges had a formal staff development program. The fifth reflected the perspective that staff development should be handled in each program, department or division without a central staff development program. Authority and Accountability Authority and accountability for staff development was found to have been articulated at each college. Interviewees, however, often stated that it was not clear or inadequate. A noteworthy comment was made by one who wrote that this "depends more on the per- sonalities, abilities, and leadership of the staff development folks than on where they reside in the college structure.“ 202 Personal Funding Personal funding existed at four of the five colleges; often in the traditional form of travel and conference support and sabbat- icals. The exception was provision for faculty fellowships and mini- grants. The experts noted that this component was not important more often than the interviewees and raised concerns about how such funds are used. Program Budget There were program budgets at four of the five colleges. Funds were made available at the fifth as a line item. The colleges did report varying approaches to administering these funds; with each indicating that some money was available at the discretion of depart- ment and division heads in addition to the program budgets for staff development. One director noted that this was appropriate since staff development should be seen as helping out where departments could not do for themselves rather than serving as the dispenser of funds. Organizational Funding Two of the colleges were currently funded by grants and college general funds. Three were funded entirely by hard dollars; with one 203 having begun with grant funds. Comments pointed to college funding as a measure of institutional commitment. Personal Programmipg A wide range of personal programming activities existed at the colleges. The experts were less supportive of the component with 28.31 percent stating it was not important compared to 8.5l percent of the interviewees. While the experts felt it was good to have, comments seemed to suggest the concern that staff development be job related for specific skills to improve performance. Program Development Programming Programming was found to exist at each college. The primary focus was upon instructional or curriculum development. Organizational Develppment Programmipg Organizational development programming did not exist at four of the five colleges. There were some singular activities at the colleges which were viewed as organizational development. They were neither initiatives directed by staff development programs nor on- going activities. One expert's comment may be significant. He/she wrote, "This is essential, however, it may be done better as an ancillary service rather than direct programming." 204 Personal Rewards and Incentives Personal rewards and incentives were made available at each of the colleges. With one exception--they were not offered for admini- strators and support personnel. The component was often cited as important for motivation by the comments of interviewees and experts alike. Rewards and Incentives for Programs The colleges offered no rewards and incentives for programs. Rewards and incentives provided for individuals could carry over to affect the programs in situations where mini-grants involved more than one individual or curriculum development. Rewards and Incentives for the Organization Interviewees were quick to point to such things as college recognition and improved morale or better instruction as rewards for the college. The experts made no significant note of the component while agreeing that it is important. Individual Evaluation Only one college had established a system for evaluation of individual participation in staff development. The process was part of the growth contracting and had been adopted for use by other staff 205 development activities. Both experts and interviewees expressed the opinion that the component was important but acknowledged its com- plexity to administer. Program Assessment No college had established a process for program assessment. Many indicated that it was desirable but difficult to accomplish. Some observed that it was informally done when budgets were reviewed and refunded. Organizational Development Evaluation The component was felt to be important. No one could comment on how it was to be done. One expert may have summed up the senti- ment of most when writing "Can this truly be evaluated?" Ranking of the Components The interviewees and experts were asked to rank the top ten components in order of their importance to implementing a compre- hensive staff development program in a community college. There were some who objected to this part of the questionnaire by noting that everything was important to an integrated staff development program. The rankings were reported in three groupings; those of the experts, college interviewees, and a combination of the two. 206 There was near agreement of the items found among the top ten com- ponents when all three groupings were considered. The combined rankings showed the following components ranked as the ten most important. (1) Purpose for Personal Development (2) Purpose for Program Development (3) Staff Development Personnel (4) Personal Development Plan (5) Purpose for Organizational Development (6) Staff Development Program-formal/informal (7) Personal Rewards and Incentives (8) Program Budget (9) Authority and Accountability (10) Program/Instructional Development Plan Conclusions and Observations The purpose of this study was to find out what exists and what is important to staff development programs using a paradigm to guide the investigation. The study sought to test the proposed paradigm in relation to practices at selected community colleges in terms of the nature of staff development, the breadth of programs, and the depth of programs as determined by components of the proposed paradigm. 207 The proposed paradigm was tested by a questionnaire sent to a popula- tion of experts also. Questions found in Chapter I lend direction to the study. The findings provide the basis for some conclusions and observations. The Paradigm and Paradigm Components The findings showed that the definition of staff development for the proposed paradigm was compatible with program intent at the colleges visited. The interviewees agreed with the definition with some reservation about the extent to which their college's staff development program was addressing each of the content areas; particularly organizational development. The definition was, according to most, in keeping with the intent of staff development. The individual definitions of interviewees can be summed up by the statement that staff development is "initiatives to improve the skills of college faculty and staff to help them do their job." The definitions which were offered at each college did reflect a unique orientation for staff development on the individual campuses. Consequently, while the definition of staff development offered by this study was found to be accepted by interviewees it can be con- cluded that the activities of each campus do reflect upon the nature or definition of staff development unique to each college. 208 This conclusion was supported by findings in relation to the breadth and depth of programs reported at each college. Programs were established to offer personal and program development with differing emphasis. None were organized or planned to address organizational development. Furthermore, where components of the proposed paradigm were found to exist there were differences in the quality or substance of the components from one campus to another. The study was not designed to measure these differences. However, the differences were evident in perspectives offered concerning the definition of staff development and the subsequent findings for each component. It is helpful to consider the questions posed in Chapter I to conclude this study. First, what are the common components of staff development programs in the community college? All of the components of the proposed paradigm were found to be important and, therefore, appropriate to staff development. Organizational develop- ment components were notably absent in both quality and number. No college had a statement of purpose for organizational development or procedure for evaluation. Only one college offered any programming for organizational development. While three colleges had some organ- izational planning and development these initiatives were very limited in scope and level of participation or commitment. There appeared to be little direction or emphasis given to the components under organiza- tional development. 209 There were no rewards and incentives for programs or program assessment at the colleges. Moreover, when components under the content area of program development were found to exist the emphasis was placed upon instructional or curriculum development. The findings led to the conclusion that the components for personal and program development are most common in the community colleges visited. Program development was carried out in the context of instructional or curriculum development with little or no atten- tion given to non-instructional aspects of program units within the college. Are some components more important than others? This question cannot be answered conclusively although the study gives some hint to the answer. The fact that components related to personal development are much more prevalent is noteworthy. The components ranked among the ten components important to implementing a comprehensive staff development program existed in 74 percent of the cases observed. A purpose for organizational development was the only component ranked among the top ten to be found absent at each of the five colleges. One can conclude that some components have been given more attention than others with the reservation as offered by one expert that the components may change in importance according to the stage of develOp- ment for individual staff development programs. 210 What are the linkages of these components to one another? The components for personal development were related to program develop- ment since the improved performance of individuals was seen as leading to better programs or improved instruction. Program development was carried out through activities which provided opportunities for personal growth. Consequently there was a clear relationship between components under personal and program deve10pment. Staff development was found to foster a climate for improved organizational development to occur while leaving such initiatives to top administrators. One can conclude that while there was a strong link between personal and program development components the relationship was not as strong or evident in terms of organizational development components. 00 some components exist independent of others? The answer to this question is evidenced by the fact that each component was not found to exist at each college. While some components did exist independent of others there may be some effect upon the quality of components when some are not present. For example, the college which did not have a staff development program did not have the programming or direction for staff development that existed at other colleges. The individual who devoted a quarter time to staff development was not providing the same leadership to programs as the directors who had three quarters to full time effort devoted to staff development. Are some common components more prevalent or important at different stages of the evolution of a staff development program in 211 the college? The question cannot be answered conclusively since the study did not attempt to measure the paradigm over time. It was observed that the program visited which was in transition gave noticeable recognition to the new leadership, advisory committee established, and commitment of the president's cabinet. They seemed to suggest that staff develOpment personnel as well as authority and accountability were important at that time in the program's evolution. Another program had been initiated with Title III grant funds in cooperation with the ACCTion Consortium and had since been funded entirely by college general funds. There were plans for a change of leadership at this college. In yet another case, the individual providing leadership for faculty development had recently been pro- moted to the level of dean within the college structure. Although one cannot be conclusive, there did appear to be some support for the observation that these components were more prevalent or impor- tant at the stage of staff development's evolution at the colleges visited. Does the absence or presence of any component mean something in terms of more or less return to the individual, programs or college? Rewards and incentives were viewed by many as affecting employee motivation. It was evident that administrative participation was not as great as that of faculty with the observation that rewards and incentives were not found to exist for administrators or programs. 212 The college which had a broader committee structure with greater participation was more active and interviewees seemed more knowledge- able than those at the college which did not have a formal staff development program or full-time personnel to give direction to staff development. The lack of an evaluation process at any of the colleges did not inhibit programming or other aspects of staff development at the colleges. People expressed the opinion that it was important to measure outcomes and justify staff development while others saw it occurring without a formal process when budgets were renewed. One can conclude that the quality of any component as it exists may be as important as its presence or absence. What are the implications of this paradigm for community college staff development? The field test and questionnaires completed by the experts confirmed the importance and appropriateness of each of the components for a comprehensive staff development program in a community college. The paradigm offers some guidelines for assessing important components of staff development programs. The key word appears to be "comprehensive". The components were reported to be important even though they were not entirely present as part of any one staff development program. The real absence of organizational development components poses some important questions about the role and relationship of staff development in the context of organizational development. Although both the interviewees and experts felt it was important it may be necessary to more clearly define the limits and role of staff development in terms of organizational planning and 213 development, authority and accountability, organizational development programming and the achievement of college goals and objectives through staff development (organizational development evaluations). This might be achieved with attention given to the articulation of a state- ment of purpose for organizational development. It can be observed that this component (purpose for organizational development) was the only one of those ranked among the top ten in importance which did not exist at any of the colleges visited. The study also raises some questions about program development other than instructional or curriculum development. There seemed to be a great deal of attention given to instructional development with no evidence of program development at any of the colleges visited. Should the content area defined by the paradigm be limited to instructional devel0pment? Is the definition of program development offered by the paradigm inadequate? 00 colleges need to take a closer look at staff development initiatives which might be bypassing program development? Observations The author of the study made a number of personal observations which could not necessarily be supported by the reported findings. Nevertheless, it may be helpful to note them at this time as other items for consideration since they reflect my personal reactions to 214 five campus visits lasting one day each. They are thoughts which are not in keeping with the stated purpose of testing the proposed paradigm. Leadership for staff development played an important part in the success of programs on the campuses visited. The need for strong, creative leadership left an impression. At the same time, there was a concern that staff development programs were driven by a strong "personality". The programs had to have broad administrative support and be well integrated into the college's operations to insure con- tinuity in the event that the staff development leadership changed. It was not always apparent that the support was there. There was also a need to build some concensus among college employees in terms of the purpose for and definition of staff develop- ment. Interviewees often assumed that there was a statement of pur- pose for staff development. Definitions were a reflection of indi- vidual experiences and program activities. It seemed as though staff development programs might be strengthened if therewere a clearer understanding of purpose among college employees. This may require continual review or reinforcement of the agreed-upon meaning and pur- pose for staff development on each campus. The responses of interviewees and observations made at one campus strengthened my support of the statement that "staff development which is everyone's responsibility is no one's responsibility". An identi- fiable program and leadership seemed important in order to provide 215 a program that is to meet employee need, generate broad participation, and foster a climate where personnel enthusiastically understand and are committed to development. The interviewee responses to the question "Does a staff develop- ment office or unit have clearly articulated authority to carry out staff development initiatives, policy and operations?" repeatedly brought to mind a section on authority found in Karl E. Weick's book, The Social Psychology of Organizing. Weick uses a quote to point out that pe0ple often do not understand how much authority they have. The most cogent idea is that authority fails because individuals withhold their contribution of personal efforts since they do not see the advantage to them of changes. Those responsible for leader- ship of staff development may want to pay particular attention to this idea in order to administer programs which are by nature change oriented. Programs often appeared to have originated out of something like growth contracting, mini-grants, a special faculty day, in- service programs or instructional development. Those activities continued to have a strong influence upon the program's direction. They seemed important to the visibility and understanding people had of staff development. There was, however, much more potential for broader initiatives. Finally, some respondents, both experts and interviewees, had some difficulty with ranking those items which were the ten most important components to implementing a staff development program. 216 Yet, the components did not exist in their entirety at any of the campuses visited. It seems important that staff developers set priorities to build upon what exists in order to establish well- integrated programs. This may be particularly true if one accepts the premise of some, like John Frances, that there are stages to the development of staff development. Recommendations for Further Study The purpose of this study was to find out what exists and what is important to staff development programs using a paradigm to guide the investigation. The paradigm and its components were found to be appropriate to describe what exists and is important for staff develop- ment. The limits of the study suggest that a number of questions should be considered in the future. The following studies are suggested: (l) The findings demonstrated that each of the components was seen as important by the overwhelming majority of respondents. Further studies may want to examine the individual components to make greater discrim- inations and assess their quality in relation to staff development programs. (2) There were indications that some components may be more important than others at different stages of staff development. It would be helpful to assess the extent to which individual components are more important in establishing, sustaining, and renewing staff development programs. (3) It was noted that administrative support for staff development is important while participation is somewhat limited. Further study should be under- taken to consider the question(s) of administrative support and participation. (5) (6) 217 The evaluation components, while considered important, were given virtually no attention on the campuses visited. The methods of evaluation and their significance to staff development should be studied to assist prac- ticers responsible for implementing programs. Further study must be undertaken to more clearly determine what is meant by "program development" since activity under this heading was predominantly instructional or curriculum development. Organizational development was occurring only coincidentally in relation to staff develop- ment at the colleges visited. A study should be undertaken to determine the role and scope of staff development in relation to organiza- tional development. A l979 study conducted by Barbara Gray and Marie Nock attempted to determine the essential knowledge and skill areas of staff developers. The initiative should be carried further to study the role and characteristics of those who give direction to staff develop- ment programs in the community college. APPENDICIES APPENDIX A LETTER AND FORM SENT TO MIDWEST MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR STAFF, PROGRAM, AND ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 218 ofansing Community College 419 N. CAPITOL AVE, BOX 40010 LANSING, MICHIGAN 48901 Serving the Hour! of Michigan January 5, 1981 Dear Colleague: I need your help to identify colleges with staff development programs and "experts" in the field of staff development. This information will be used for my doctoral research at Michigan State University to identify the components of comprehensive staff development programs. The study will involve the field testing of a paradigm for staff development at two-year colleges in the midwest and a questionnaire based upon the paradigm to be sent to "experts" in the field. Would you please take time to complete the accompanying form. Your prompt response will be most appreciated. Please feel free to call or write if you are interested in learning more about the study. Thank you. Sincerely, John D. Cooper, Director Professional Development JDC/d Enclosure 219 1. STAFF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS IN COMMUNITY COLLEGES The following criteria is used to identify staff deve10pment programs for this study: . 1) A staff development program which may function in the context of faculty, instructional, or organizational development. The focus of the program may be any one, or all three of the areas. 2) The program is organized with at least a half or full—time person designated as responsible for implementation. 3) The program is designed to foster activities such as in-service workshops, seminars, sabbaticals, conference and travel, consultative teacher improvements, or curriculum development. 4) The program is recognized as a well established, on-going staff development program at a community college. Please list up to three community colleges with staff development programs in your state or Canada using the criteria above; ranking them from lst to 3rd based upon you knowledge of them. Cgllege‘ Person Responsible for Staff Development 1. 44 2. 3. II. POPULATION OF "EXPERTS" IN STAFF DEVELOPMENT The following criteria is used to identify ”experts" in the field of staff development for this study: 1) National or regional leadership in staff development with a professional or service organization (e.g., the National Council for Staff, Program, and Organizational Development; the National Institute for Staff and Organizational Development); 2) Authorship of a recognized publication(s) on the topic of staff development; 3) Consulting with staff development programs in the community college. Please list people who you feel qualify as "experts” based upon these criteria. List as many as possible. Use the back of the sheet, if necessary. Name Address, if known ——-_—. THANK YOU! PLEASE RETURN TO: John D. Cooper 109 Lincoln Avenue Lansing, Michigan 48910 APPENDIX B PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE AND ACCOMPANYING COVER LETTER 220 .fansing Community College .‘ (\D. I..-,.I. COLLEGE 419 N. CAPITOL AVE, BOX 40010 LANSING, MICHIGAN 48901 Serving the Heart of Michigan January 27, 1981 Dear Would you take the time to complete and mail the enclosed questionnaire by February 6th. The response you provide will be a big help with research for my dissertation at Michigan State University. The questionnaire asks that you rate twenty-one proposed components of staff development programs in regard to their importance and to rank the top ten in order of their impor- tance. It should take from fifteen to thirty minutes to complete. ' Your help will be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Sincerely, John D. Cooper, Director Professional Development JDC/d Enclosure 221 PROPOSED STAFF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM IONNAIRE SECTION I The purpose of this section is to evaluate the appropriateness of each coeponent of the proposed paradign. Please consider each iten listed below in relation to its inortence to a colprehensive staff developent progra- in a min college. INSTRUCTIONS: Place a check in the colt-n (1,254 or 4] which nost (a accurately reflects the degree of 4“ liportance as each component to a Please note colprehensive staff develmnt any changes or additions to improve each canponent m- l. Eggpoae for Personal Develgggggt A statement of purpose or rationale for in- dividual faculty or staff nenber growth and develop-eat. The stateeent night be part of a college policy, progran plan or articulated as part of the evaluation process for per- sonnel. (Era-pies: acquire new skills and infer-ation, assess and change attitudes/ values, review end/or revise career planning. correct deficiencies.) 2. gggpgse for Proggan Develgpgent A state-eat of purpose or rationale for pro- gree and/or instructional developeent. A clearly articulated stateeent which gives dio rection to staff develop-ant activities in relation to progrels, instruction or curricu- lul develop-cut. (Era-ples: revise or intro- duce new curricula, revise or introduce new abinistrative procedure/policy, respond to lilited resources, naintain or ilprove enroll- Ients/reduce attrition, introduce new technol- ogy, ilprove or establish interpersonal rela- tions within departeent/unit.) 222 Ppgpose for Organizational Development A statement of purpose of rationale which re- lates to the college in relation to staff de- velopment. Such a statesent eight be found as board policy, the articulated rationale by a governing body within the college or a progran policy designed to ence-pass calpus initiatives. (Era-ples: achieve college goals, establish, Iaintain, and ilprove coauunication, Iaintain good norale/calpus clinate, assist personnel to remain high caliber.) a; “9° ‘9 OMHERI‘S Please note any changes or additions to improve each couponent Personal Development Plan A process for recognizing individual strengths, weaknesses and needs assess-eat for growth and development and setting forth sole procedure to address the needs. (Exaaples: growth contracting, eanageeent by objectives, career planning, perfornance appraisal systees.) Prgggem/lnstructional Developeent Plan The process(es) for identifying depart-ental or prograa strengths, weaknesses and needs assesseent and setting forth practices to inplenent necessary changes. (Exaaples: needs assessaent/progran review, goals and objectives, strategies for change.) Organizational Planning and Develgplent College planning which gives consideration to staff needs, strengths and weaknesses and builds into college planning activities the systelatic leans of addressing these needs. (Ens-pies: college self-study/assessnent, goals and objectives/nission state-eat, san- ageeent infer-ation systels, eanpower planning, short and long-tern plans.) 223 Staff Development Personnel This coeponent refers to the role individuals play in carrying out their own and other facets of development. Colleges lay adhere to a policy of individual initiative and responsibility for develop-cut, designate key personnel as a link or network, hire full or part-tine personnel or rely upon external consultants on a project basis. (Examples: employee release time, chief acadeaic adainistrator, line eanagers, fullotine staff developer/director/coordinator, part-tine staff developer/director/coordinator, consultants, co-Iittee labers.) COMMENTS 49 e i“ Please note any changes or additions to improve each couponent Staff Develppeent Program - foraal/inforlal The unit responsible for carrying out develop- sent throughout the college. This coeponent should recognize the group or grouping of per- sonnel responsible for staff developeent - the program or organizational unit within the college which is designated as responsible for carrying out or supporting staff develop-ant. (Examples: staff development advisory/coe- Iittee, office of the chief acadeaic adlini- strator, office for staff, curriculul or or- ganizational develop-ant, depart-ent/division connittee.) Authority and Aecggntability The location of the staff developeent prograa within the college structure and integration into the organization's policies, operations and practices which give it strength in re- lating staff develop-ant to overall nissions and goals. (Era-plea: established and guided by board policy, reports to chief adainistrator or central adlinistration, established and guided by collective bargaining contract. in- dependent unit(s) within the college.) 10. 11. 12. 13. 224 ‘/ COMMENTS 6 1? Please note any changes or additions to improve each component Personal Funding Made available in the form of special project grants, remuneration for participation in staff and curriculum development activities, sab- batical compensation or release time. (Examples: special project grants, remuneration for par- tieipation, sabbatical/paid leaves, release time, external grants.) Progrgg Budget Funds provided which are clearly designated for staff development at all levels in the college. (Examples: wide budget approach (gathering in of all staff development expenditures such as travel, sabbaticals, incentive grants, etc.) narrow budget approach (funding for a specific staff development office or program.) Organizational Funding The source of funding drawn upon for support of staff development. The college relies upon general funds as its primary source of funding or utilizes special gifts, grants and federal money to support development. (Examples: college general funds (hard dollars), external gifts, private grants or state and federal grants (soft money). Personal Programmiqg The activities pursued by individuals directed toward their development independent of pro- gram or organizational development. (Examples: participation in or self-directed activities: graduate or post-graduate studies, sabbaticals and leaves of absence, conference and travel, workshops and seminars, visitations, special projects, professional affiliations, profes- sional literature and resources, consultation.) 14. IS. 16. 17. 225 Program Development Activities The activities which are directly related to improving skills and operations essential in functioning as a program unit within the college. (Examples: group process activ- ities (e.g., team building), administrative] management practices, curriculum development, special projects or task forces, master tea- cher I/or adjunct faculty programs.) / / I a o comnrnrs j“ 4 Please note any changes or additions to improve each component Organizational Development Program-12g The activities designated to build networks or linkages between people and programs of the total college or change organizational structures. (Examples: administrative or instructional exchange programs, quality of work life programs, health iaprovement pro- grams, college faculty and staff develop- ment days, planning activities/processes.) Personal Rewards and Incentives The conditions or material compensations which encourage people to participate in or recognize their work in staff development. (Examples: promotions, salary increases, employee alards and honors, release time, travel, stipends or special grants, personal growth, continuing education units (CED's). Rewards and Incentives for Programs The payoffs or benefits to committing per- sonnel time and resources to staff develop- ment at the program or unit level. (Examples: program growth, improved performance by students, staff 0 faculty, recognition, commendations, etc.) 18. 19. 20. 21. 226 £9 COMMENTS Please note any changes or additions to improve each cannonent Rewards and Incentives for the Organization The tangible and intangible outcomes which encourage the college to enter into or main- tain staff development. (Examples: internal- improved productivity, reduced turnover and greater exchange among personnel, external- recognition by the community, accrediting agencies and associations.) Individual Evaluation Evaluation refers to the process by which appraisal is done in order to relate to initial goals and objectives (or "30's, etc.) and involvement in staff development pro- gramming. This is considered in terms of I) participation and 2) performance or ap- plication on the job. (Examples: partici- pation ~ did staff members participate, feel good about the program and become familiar with new information and skills - performance- did the staff members apply new information and skills in the work routines.) Program Assessment The process of determining if there is a rela- tionship to the service(non-instructional or instructional and employer participation in staff development). Has the quality of the program improved through the application of new skills and information acquired through staff development? (Examples: quality of program measures, personnel indicators at department/unit level, achievement of goals and objectives.) Organizational Evaluation The process for evaluating staff development activities at the level of outcomes resulting from the application of new information, skills or attitudes gained through staff de- velopment. Here it is measured in relation to the achievement of college goals and ob- jectives. (Examples: quality of college environment measures, personnel indicators, achievement of missions/goals and objectives) 227 w The purpose of this section is to rank the tap ten components of the proposed paradigm in order of their importance. INSTRUCTIONS: Please rank the top ten cogponents as described previously in order of their importance to implementing a comprehensive staff development program in a community college. OOQOMIbMNH COMPONENT 5 COMPONENT I 1 6. 2 7. 3. 8 ‘e 9' 5 10 .............Q Purpose for Personal Development Purpose for Program Development Purpose for Organizational Development Personal Development Plan Program/Instructional Development Plan Organizational Planning and Development Staff Deve10pment Personnel Staff Development Program - formal/informal Authority and Accountability Personal Funding Program Budget Organizational Funding Personal Programing Program Developeent Activities Organizational Development Programming Personal Rewards and Incentives Rewards and Incentives for Programs Rewards and Incentives for the Organization Individual Evaluation Program Assessment Organi zational Evaluation APPENDIX C RESULTS OF PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE Component # 4 1 i- 2 9 52 3 5 29. 4 7 41 5 11 64. 6 7 41 7 9 52 8 7 41 9 8 47. 10 6 35. 11 1O 58. 12 5 29. 13 5 29. 14 6 35. 15 4 23. 16 6 35. 17 7 41 18 4 23. 19 7 41 20 6 35. 21 4 23. 228 RESULTS OF PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE 47. O6 .94 41 .18 71 .18 .94 .18 O6 29 82 41 41 29 53 29 .18 53 .18 29 53 m Neale: moo \INSDQOWLDNOSNCD ._a OOWKDmKO 41 29. 47. 29. 47. 41 35 41 52. 35 52 52. 4T 4T 52. 47. 52. 47. 58. 52. 47. .18 06 41 06 41 O6 .18 .29 .18 94 .29 .94 94 .18 .18 94 06 94 06 82 94 5.88 5.88 ._.| 01010 N-b IT $000000 35 no 4: -a .. 0101 I] ——l 0'! 4 23. _e _..I|:u: 23. T7. T7. T7. 23. .29 .88 .88 .88 53 .76 .88 65 65 65 .29 .88 .88 53 .76 .88 53 000010101 OOOOUTU‘IOOOOU'IUT *Numbers have been reversed for scoring from questionnaire to be consistent with findings from_interviewees and expert popu1ation. 4-very important, 3=importfint;’2=SOmewhat important, 1=unimportant .88 .88 .88 .88 .88 .88 .88 .88 0&0 229 Top Ten Components Ranked in Order of Importance To: #0») TO. U'IU'ICDNO‘U'I Staff Deve10pment Program Purpose for Persona1 Deve10pment Staff Deve10pment Personne1 Program Instructiona1 Deve10pment P1an Program Budget Purpose for Program Deve10pment Authority and Accountabi1ity Program Assessment Persona1 Rewards and Incentives Rewards and Incentives for Programs Persona1 Deve10pment P1an APPENDIX D PILOT INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE II. III. 230 Field Test Questionnaire SchedUle Introductory questions about the interviewee-- m-DWN—J Name Position at the college Role or function in relation to staff development Number of years in that role Amount of time devoted to staff development Definition gf_staff develgpment I. 2. l. #00 How do you define staff development at your college? What do you base this definition on? (i.e., your obser- vations, written definitions given you by program personnel, etc.) Does this definition agree with your perceptions when you first got involved with the program? If not, how has it changed? Staff development as defined by this paradigm is--give the interviewee a sheet with the definition taken from chapter 1, p. 29. a. How does this definition compare to that of your staff development program at college? b. Would you like to see the definition of staff development at your college broadened or scaled down? Breadth gf_staff development What plans or organization exists to carry out staff development in all three content areas? (i.e., personal, program and instructional, and organizational development). What activities are conducted in each of these areas? Is there a relationship of activities in the three areas? Do activities in one area affect others? If so, how? Who has participated in programs? Has their participation been narrow or broad (i.e., have they participated in all areas)? How does the breadth of programs compare to what existed in earlier programs at your college? IV. VI. 231 Depth 9: programs 1. Which of the following are provided as part of the college's staff development program? "thCLOU'DJ g. Statements of purpose or rationale yes___no____ Planning yes___no____ Organization (for staff development) yes___no___ Funding yes___no___ Programming yes___no___ Rewards and incentives yes___no____ Evaluation yes___no___ la. For those answered yes above, please provide a description or explanation. 2. Would the addition or deletion of any of these items improve the staff development program? 3. Do these items relate in a systemmatic way to all three areas? (i.e., personal, program and instructional, and organizational development). Would you like to make additional comments or observations in relation to staff development at your school? Please complete the following questionnaire. (Each person would be given a copy of the questionnaire to be sent to the experts and asked to complete it.) APPENDIX E LETTERS SENT TO PROGRAM DIRECTORS AND INTERVIEWEES PRIOR TO VISITATIONS AND INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE 232 «Causing Community College 419 N. CAPITOL AVE, BOX 40010 LANSING, MICHIGAN 48901 Serving Ihe Heart of Michigan February 12, 1981 Dear I would like to request the opportunity to visit your campus to conduct research for my dissertation. The purpose of the visit is to field test a model for staff development. The model consists of components of staff development programs to be tested against what exists in programs like yours. It is not an attempt to eval- uate your program. If you agree, I will need your help to do the following in con- junction with my visit: 1) Provide background information describing the program's organization, philosophy and activities-~an overview. 2) Arrange for interviews with the following people: a) the person you report to; b) yourself; c) members of an advisory committee, if one exists; d) faculty and/or staff participants in staff development. 3) Provide any descriptive information regarding the program's purpose, planning process, organization, program activities, funding, systems of reward and incentive, and evaluation process. This can be provided at the time of my visit. If possible, I would like to try to visit on February 24, 25, or 26. We can try for some day in March if these days are not convenient. A letter is enclosed which you may want to give to those who agree to an interview. Your help would be greatly appreciated. Please let me hear from you at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, John D.,Cooper, Director Profe551ona Development 233 .Cansing Community College 419 N. CAPITOL AVE, BOX 40010 LANSING, MICHIGAN 48901 Serving Ihe Heart of Michigan April 15, 1981 Dear I would like to ask for your help with a study for my doctoral program at Michigan State University. It will be an important step toward completing this "experience" for me. Your participation will require 1 to 1 1/2 hours to consider a model for staff development in the community college in relation to what is being done at your college. It may provide an oppor- tunity to take a look at how your college goes about staff develop- ment. As a part of the interview you will be asked to complete a 21 item questionnaire and rank 10 items as to their importance to staff development as you see it. Your willingness to participate will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, John D. Cooper, Director Professional Development JDC/d 234 PREINTERVIEN STATEMENTS TO INTERVIEWEE Explain the purpose for the study. Remind the interviewee that their comments are taped for my convenience and will be confidential. Explain that the questions may seem redundant. Tell them that they will be asked to complete a questionnaire at the end of the interview which will take approximately 15 minutes. 235 FIELD TEST - INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 1. Introductory Questions 1. 2. 3. 4. Name Position Role or function in relation to staff development Number of years in that role 11. Definition 9: Staff Development l. How do you define staff development at your college? What do you base this definition on? (i.e., your observations, written definitions given you by program personnel etc.) ‘ Does this definition agree with your perceptions when you first got involved with the program? If not, how has it changed? Staff development as defined by this paradigm is-- give the interviewee a sheet with the definition taken from chapter 1, p. 29. a. How does this definition compare to that of your staff development program? b. Would you like to see the definition of staff development at your college broadened or scaled down? Important? a. 236 III. Breadtthf_Staff Development 1. What plans or organization exists to carry out staff development in all three content areas? (i.e., personal, program and instructional, and organizational development) What activities are conducted in each of these areas? Is there a relationship of activities in the three areas? Who has participated in programs? Has their participation been narrow or broad (i.e., have they participated in all areas)? What exists now which did not exist prior to a formal staff development program? IV. Depth pf Programs 1. Which of the following are provided as part of the college's staff development program? a. a statement of purpose or rationale for individual faculty or staff members. Yes____ No b. a statement of purpose or rationale for program and/or instructional development. Yes No c. a statement of purpose for organizational development. Yes No 237 personal development plans (individual needs assessment and plans to meet them). Yes No program/instructional development plan(s)-- needs assessment and planning for curriculum/ instructional/program development. Yes No organizational planning--needs assessment and planning for college-wide activities--0.D. Yes No staff development personnel--personnel who are responsible for carrying out SPOD activities. Yes No staff development program--a department or unit responsible for staff development. Yes No authority and accountability—-does a staff development office or unit have clearly artic- ulated authority to carry out staff develop- ment initiatives; policy and operations. Yes No personal funding--are personal funds made available for individual participation in staff development. Yes No program budget--does the office or department responsible for staff development have funds for staff development at all levels in the college? Yes No organizational funding--does the college provide hard dollars for staff development? Yes No . 0r, soft dollars? Yes No does the college staff development program provide programs for individual development independent of program or organizational development? Yes No does the college have activities to improve, through staff development, skills and operations essential at the program level? Yes No VI. 238 0. does the college have specific programming for organizational development? Yes No . , ———- p. does the college have personal rewards and incentives for involvement in staff develop- ment? Yes No q. does the college have rewards and incentives for staff development at the program level? Yes No r. are there rewards and incentives for the commitment of the college's resources to staff development? Yes No s. is there an evaluation of the individual's participation in staff development? Yes No t. is there an evaluation or assessment of staff development's impact upon programs, curriculum and/or instructional development? Yes No u. is there an evaluation of staff development in relation to organizational development? Yes No 2. Would the addition or deletion of any of these items improve the staff development program? Would you like to make additional comments or observations in relation to staff development at your college? Please complete the following questionnaire. (Each inter- viewee is to receive a copy of the questionnaire.) APPENDIX F QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO POPULATION OF EXPERTS ACCOMPANYING LETTER TO EXPERTS FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO EXPERTS 239 aCausing Community College 419 N. CAPITOL AVE. BOX 40010 LANSING, MICHIGAN 48901 Serving Ihe Heart of Michigan May 1, 1981 Dear You have been identified by midwest region members of the National Council for Staff, Program, and Organizational Development as an expert in the field of staff development. Members were asked to provide the names of experts based upon criteria of: national or regional leadership in staff development with a professional or service organization; authorship; or consulting with staff development. Your response will be especially important since this is, as you might expect, a small population. Would you take the time to complete and mail the enclosed questionnaire by May 14th. The response you provide will be a big help with the research for my doctoral studies at Michigan State University. The study involves the field testing of a paradigm for staff development at two-year colleges and a questionnaire sent to experts in the field. Each item should be considered as to its priority when implementing a staff development program. Please feel free to call or write if you are interested in learning more about the study. Thank you! Sincerely, John D. Cooper, Director Professional Development JDC/d Enclosure 9 240 PROPOSED STAFF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM COMPONENTS QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION I The purpose of this section is to evaluate the appropriateness of each component of the proposed paradigm. Please consider each item listed below in relation to its importance to a comprehensive staff development program in a community college. INSTRUCTIONS: Place a check in the column (1, 2, 3, or 4) ,, ~ ~ 3 é“ which most accurately reflects the degree of importance of g? f «.33 e COMMENTS , each component to a comprehensive staff development pro- SIAQO ch~ $529" 31' PM“ not. my cum gram. ‘5 ‘6 a? 3 36‘ or additions to improve 4 3 2 Q 1 0 each component. 1. Purpose for Personal Development A statement of purpose or rationale for individual faculty or staff member growth and development. The statement might be part of a college policy, program plan or articulated as part of the evaluation process for personnel. (Examples: acquire new skills and informa- tion, assess and change attitudes/values, review and/or revise career planning, correct deficiencies.) 2. Purpose for Program Development A statement of purpose or rationale for program and/or instructional development. A clearly articulated state- ment which gives direction to staff development activi- ties in relation to programs, instruction or curriculum development. (Examples: revise or introduce new cur- ricula, revise or introduce new administrative procedure/ policy, respond to limited resources, maintain or improve enrollments/reduce attrition, introduce new technology, improve or establish interpersonal relations within department/unit.) 3. Purpose for Organizational DeveIOpment A statement of purpose or rationale which relates to the college in relation to staff development. Such a state- ment might be found as board policy, the articulated rationale by a governing body within the college or a program policy designed to encompass campus initia- tives. (Examples: achieve college goals, establish, maintain, and improve communication, maintain good morale/campus climate, assist personnel to remain high. caliber.) 4. Personal Development Plan A process for recognizing individual strengths, weak- nesses and needs assessment for growth and development and setting forth some procedure to address the needs. (Examples: growth contracting, management by objec- tives, career planning, performance appraisal systems.) 5. Program/Instructional Development Plan The process(es) for identifying departmental or program strengths, weaknesses and needs assessment and setting forth practices to implement necessary changes. (Exam- ples: needs assessment/program review, goals and objec- tives, strategies for change.) 5. Organizational Planning and Development College planning which gives consideration to staff needs, strengths and weaknesses and builds into college planning activities the systematic means of addressing these needs. (Examples: college self-study/assessment, goals and objectives/mission statement, management information systems, manpower planning, short and long-term plans.) ’ 1: Couyright, 1981 24) COMMENTS Please note any changes or additions to improve each component. Staff Development Personnel This component refers to the role individuals play in carrying out their own and other facets of development. Colleges may adhere to a policy of individual initiative and responsibility for development, designate key per- sonnel or rely upon external consultants on a project basis. (Examples: 'emplgoyee‘ release time, chief academic administrator, line managers, full-time staff developer/ " director/coordinator, part-time staff developer/director/ coordinator, consultants, committee members.) r Staff Development Program — formal/informal The unit responsible for carrying out development throughout the college. This component should recog- nize the group or grouping of personnel responsible for staff development — the program or organizational unit within the college which is designated as responsible for carrying out or supporting staff development. (Examples: staff development advisory committee, office of the chief academic administrator, office for'staff, curriculum or organizational development, department/division committee.) 3 ‘ ‘ . i Authority and Accountability The location of the staff development program within the college structure -' and integration into the Organiza- tion's policies, operations and practices which give it strength in relating staff development to overall mis- sions and goals. (Examples: established and guided by board policy, reports to chief administrator or central administration, established and guided by collective bargaining contract, independent unit(s) within the college.) ‘ - --7 Personal Funding , Funds made available for participation in staff develop- ment activities. (Examples: special project grants, re- muneration for participation, sabbatical/paid leaves, release time, external grants.) 11. Program Budget Funds provided which are clearly designated for staff development at all levels in the college. (Examples: wide budget approach, gathering in of all staff develop- ment expenditures such as travel, sabbaticals, incentive grants, etc.; narrow budget approach, funding for a specific staff development office or program.) 12. Organizational Funding The source of funding drawn upon for support of staff development. The college relies upon general funds as its primary source of funding or utilizes special gifts, grants, and federal money to support development. (Examples: college general funds, hard dollars; external gifts, private grants, or state and federal grants, soft inoneyj 13. Personal Programming The activaties pursued by individuals directed toward their development independent of program or organiza- tional development. (Examples: graduate or post-gradu- ate studies, sabbacticals and leaves of absence, confer- ence and travel, workshops and seminars, visitations, special projects, professional affiliations. professional literature and resources, consultation.) 242 COMMENTS ~ ,5 ‘23 $8168 $90 Please note enychengee e or additions to improve 269° 1 O each cwnponent. 14. Program Development Programming The activities which are directly related to improving skills and operations essential in functioning as a pro- gram unit within the college. (Examples: group process activities (e.g., team building), administrative/manage- ment practices, curriculum development, special projects or task forces, master teacher and/or adjunct faculty programs.) 15. Organizational Development Programming The activities designated to build networks or linkages between people and programs of the total college or change organizational structures. (Examples: administra— tive or instructional exchange programs, quality of work life programs, health improvement programs, college faculty and staff development days, planning activities/ processes.) 16. Personal Rewards and Incentives The conditions or material compensations which encour- age people to participate in or recognize their work in staff development. (Examples: promotions, salary in- creases, employee awards and honors, release time, travel, stipends or special grants, personal growth, con- tinuing education units (CEU's).) 17. Rewards and Incentives for Programs The payoffs or benefits to committing personnel time and resources to staff development at the program or unit level. (Examples: program growth, improved per- formance by students, staff and faculty, recognition, commendations, etc.) Rewards and Incentives for the Organization The tangible and intangible outcomes which encourage the college to enter into or maintain staff development. (Examples: internal-improved productivity, reduced turnover and greater exchange among personnel,externa|- recognition by the community, accrediting agencies and associations.) 19. Individual Evaluation Evaluation refers to the process by which appraisal is done in order to relate to initial goals and objectives (or MBO's, etc.) and involvement in staff development programming. This is considered in terms of I) participa- tion and 2) performance or application on the job. (Examples: participation — did staff members partici- pate, feel good about the program and become familiar with new information and skills; performance — did sraff members apply new information and skills in the work routines.) Program Assessment The process of determining if the quality of a program (non-instructional or instructional) has improved due to the application of new skills and information acquired through staff development. (Examples: quality of pro- gram measures, personnel indicators at department/unit level, achievement of goals and objectives.) 21. Organizational Development Evaluation The process for evaluating outcomes resulting from the application of new information, skills, or attitudes gained due to staff development in terms of organiza- tional development. Here, staff development is measured in relation to the achievement Of college goals and objectives. (Examples: quality of college environment, personnel indicators, employee morale, productivity arid/or efficiency.) continued on b; SECTION II The purpose of this section is to rank the top ten components of the proposed paradigm in order of their importance. INSTRUCTIONS: Please rank the top ten components as described previously in order of their importance to implement- 243 ing a comprehensive staff development program in a community college. “’FPSPPP’NI" 9° COMPONENT # Purpose for Personal Development Purpose for Program Development Purpose for Organizational Development Personal Development Plan Program/Instructional Development Plan Organizational Planning and Development Staff Development Personnel Staff Development Program — formal/informal Authority and Accountability Personal Funding Program Budget Organizational Funding Personal Programming Program Development Programming Organizational Development Programming Personal Rewards and Incentives Rewards and incentives for Programs Rewards and Incentives for the Organization Individual Evaluation Program Assessment Organizational Development Evaluation Please Return To: COMPONENT # 10. JOHN D. COOPER 109 Lincoln Avenue Lansing, Michigan 48910 I“ 244 .fansing Community College CIIIIIIIITY ‘ cause: 419 N. CAPITOL AVE, BOX 40010 lANSING, MICHIGAN 489OI Serving Ihe Heart of Michigan May l4, l98l You recently received a questionnaire from me. Would you please take a minute to complete and return it if you have not already done so. The questionnaire and a field test of staff development programs will be used to complete my doctoral studies under Dr. Max Raines at Michigan State University. Your response will be a big help. The questionnaire was sent to a small population of experts in the field of staff development. Therefore, every response is important! Sincerely, John D. Cooper, Director Professional Development kao Enclosure APPENDIX G DEFINITIONS AND SOURCE OF DEFINITIONS OF STAFF DEVELOPMENT AS OFFERED BY INTERVIEWEES 245 DEFINITIONS AND SOURCE OF DEFINITIONS OF STAFF DEVELOPMENT AS OFFERED BY INTERVIEWEES Definitions-CollegeII The development of staff from a professional, social, and attitu- dinal perspective. A program to help staff grow in a variety of ways: growth in attitudes; further themselves professionally; help the individ- ual on the job and in their personal lives. Those elements of educational activities which enhance the general knowledge and teaching skills in the classroom plus the skills of support staff. These things which enhance the personality of the instructors which may or may not have im- pact upon the classroom. Any activity which is planned to either up-grade or improve individual abilities on the job. Personal and professional growth for all employees facilitated at the college: by lowering barriers; by programming; by encouraging faculty to improve their knowledge, their skills, and personal relations. The development of all staff, faculty development. Sourcels) observation, needs of the institution, an evolving model observations, director's attitudes, what goes on in activities readings, contact with members of educational consortium, developed independently experience defined by the institution, faculty contract 246 Definitions-College.g A program integrated into the fabric of the institution which involves those things which are personal (done at the initiative of the individual) with the in- stitution working to support those efforts. Instructional development is the responsibility of deans in an evaluative way. Organizational development is for the instructor with administrators across the institution. Any activities to improve the out- looks, attitudes, and capabilities of staff. An on-going process using a lot of different tools to keep stimu- lating and up-grading instruction. The opportunity for staff to develop materials to enhance their areas of operation (in this case teaching) and encourage people to be innovative. Anything which is of developmental value to staff which benefits their work. Source 5) written documents evolving with eXperience based on what happens and interviewee feels should happen personal experience observation 247 Definitions-College,§_ Source 5) I. There are two components: readings and practical 1) curriculum or course develop- applications ment for changes in instruction, and 2) the development of people skills, attitudes, etc. 2. The aid and encouragement of experience and work as a attempts at new strategies for committee member the classroom, to improve strategies faculty are now using, or to dis— cover strategies others are using. 3. Programs to make a better teacher readings, ten years ex- available to students in the class- perience as an administrator, room. Second, to make a better twenty years experience as professional; a man or woman who a teacher can contribute in committee meetings, curriculum meetings. 4. An organized program to identify readings and experience areas of strength and weakness to continue to assist the strong pro- grams and to develop workshops, seminars, etc. to overcome the deficits. 5. The enrichment of the faculty's activities participated needs and wants to improve them- in and activities which selves in and out of the classroom have been offered as an instructor. 6. A program to improve teaching skills; discussions with AIDP basic skills and knowledge for staff and instructional instruction. deans 7. Self-improvement in terms of personal based on goals set forth skills, instructional strategies, by the AIDP* and materials looking at alternative approaches to non-traditional students/ teaching. *AIDP=Advanced Institutional Development Program 248 Definitions—College fi_ An activity that is used to improve performance of both the individual and the institution. Ideally, it is supposed to allow the individual to explore beneficial relationships between his career and institutional goals and somehow work out a relation- ship. Staff development provides opportunities for all members of the college for self- improvement, skills development, and professional growth. A program designed by the individual for his/her growth in his function as an instructor, coordinator--or what- ever his duties are at the college-- to improve his/her duties at the college from a personal and professional view- point. Personal and professional growth. Development of the staff which implies growth--professional and personal development—-not restricted to dis- cipline or immediate job responsibilities. Individual growth opportunities which can become beneficial to the college as staff participate or groups participating together which could bring about some good to the institution. A service to faculty and staff to identify development needs and provide programs to deal with the identified needs of the college. Source 5) six (6) years on the job as staff development director and instructional development specialist committee discussions and participation in staff development functions evolved with the program Staff Development Director feelings, week at Gordon College, Advisory Committee Retreat personal opportunities to grow, travel, readings, and state meetings 249 Definitions-College §_ Staff devel0pment helps the college function more effectively and helps each department to help each other. Anything which will help the employees to improve their professional and personal life. A process of taking the individual instructor, who might have good technical expertise and no teaching experience, and molding them into good classroom instructors. A support system which can enable faculty members, on a voluntary basis, to become better at their craft and support the emotional and sensitive side of faculty members--hands-on work and human facotrs of instructors. Providing incentive and procedures or opportunity for employees to grow professionally and personally and to deal effectively with problems--espe— cially professionally related problems in the classroom but also extending to personal life. Anything which is done to help improve faculty member's technical expertise and ability to teach--instructional methods or techniques and technical expertise. An on-going process of informing, educating, exposing the faculty to new ideas, new concepts, and new methods in keeping with needs identified by faculty. A means to offer in-service in areas which may benefit individual members of the college community. meals) observation personal attitudes, literature and training personal observations-- seeing this as a need observation observations feelings as an administrator responsible for the deve10p- ment of staff observation, participation and communication the word development APPENDIX H INTERVIEWEE RESPONSES TO QUESTION: "IS THERE A RELATIONSHIP OF ACTIVITIES IN THE THREE CONTENT AREAS?" 10. ll. 12. I3. 14. 15. 250 Responses to Question: "Is There a Relationship of Activities in the Three Content Areas?“ Yes. Those turned on by one area's activities will go on to do something in the other areas--motivation carries over to each area. The content of activities touch upon all three areas by providing skills which the individual can use, in team building and sharing throughout the college. There is a relationship as per my original definition of activities to improve the whole person. Organizational development is talking about climate. That climate fosters staff development in other areas. Organizational commit- ment--extremely important to providing support to people--moral and financial. They are interwoven. There is a theoretical relationship. You never know whether there is a real casual relationship. By developing the person, you develop the organization. By developing materials for instruction, there is personal develop- ment. Personal and program development are very related. Organizational development is a separate thing--all from upstairs-down. Personal is often also organizational development and vice versa. Personal is impacted by program development. Although program oriented, it goes back to individual development. All part of the same process with different activities to highlight the different areas. ’ Yes, but I'm not convinced that the organization sees that organizational development is related. I Between personal and program there is a relationship. Improve staff and you improve programs. Indirectly. Programs designed based on perceived needs where needs may cut across all three areas. 16. l7. I8. 19. 20. 21. 251 By getting programs in motion you are improving the personnel and the college. There is a progression from personal to program. Personal and program development should lend strength to organizational development. Definite tie in, one follows from the other upward from personal. Yes, but not as much as there should be. It is hard to separate personal from program development. Definitely related. Personal development will strengthen the organizational develop- ment. APPENDIX I PROGRAM ACTIVITIES REPORTED AT EACH COLLEGE 252 Emgmoga chomgma “cmEQo—m>mu chowpmuwcmmgo chowuuzgpmcw\smgmogq pmcowpozgpmcw\smgmoga Pacowuuzepmcr\5mgmoga Emgmoga chomgwq Pmcowpuagpmcw\smgmoga ucmEQopm>mu Pocowum~wcmmco pcmsaorm>mn chowumecmmgo FacOmng mzuou “cmpcoo Lace one use 0:0 03p 03g ozp mco muggy m>Pm nmcmwmo mm: xuw>wpum Emgmoga avcmzonwu aupzumm\mucmgwum:?z mm0w>gmm mememcaou Amzav cowpmzpm>u ucm ucmsmmmcmz mcwccmpa mcwpumgpcou mucasgomgwm mpmuwumnnmm cowpznwgpmwo mczpmgmawg new mpmcezow mEmLmoga chowmw>_o cowmmwemm cowuwzh\mucwgw cowuwzp Ammuv :oPHmuaum uwmmm zucmawaeou meowpepcm_co ecmpm zmz mxmo xppzumm\muw>gmmucH Pym; maocmxeoz acwupwam F_cxm mews: mammppou mo consaz pr>wuo< uabwmc> mamm__ou m>_a web on cased mmva>wpu< pcmsaopa>mo teeum 253 chowpuacumcw\2mgmoga chowuuaggmcw\5mcmoga chowpuzeumcw\smgmoga Emcmoga\pm:omgmq chowuuzgumcw\smgmoga chowuuagumcw\5mgmoga Emgmoga\chomLma Emgmoga acman~m>mu Pocowpmchmmgo\_mcomgma pcmaaopm>mu chowpm~wcmmgo\—mc0mema pcmsqo—m>mc chowpmecmmLo Emcmocq Emgmoca chomcma\5mcmocn mace; ucmucou mmccp mco mco ozp Lace Laow 03» 6:0 039 0:0 mco mco mco mco nmcmmwo mm: xuw>wpum mews; mmmuppou +0 gangs: agoaazm\mmuw>gmm >u< mcvpawumwo xa mucogmwcoo mumpm cowumzpm>u xgmuczpo> xgumaucH op cgzpwm scrumppamcou empcmo mueaommm chowmmmyoga Emumzw pwumcu um>ogaa< ampm mcwuumgpcou gpzogu AHZMIV pcmsmmmcmz cowamosum gmgmw: pmmcpmm m>wpmcpmwcw5u< mzmopm_o meucmuwmmgm wave mmmmfimm Fm>meh new mucmgmwcou m=o_papwmw> Npe>_pu< 254 pcmquFm>mc chowgmecmmLo Emcmoga chomemq msuom ucmpcoo mco xnapmuepmm\3mw>mm Fmgucmu sagoz 03p mmcwummz xppaomu pucznu< o3» mcmxmmam amaze umcmwmo mm; pr>wuum mews; mommFFou mo Lmnsaz Nuw>wuu< BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Argyris, Chris and Donald A. Schon. Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publisher, 1974. Babble, Earl R. The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., l975. Bare, Alan C. "Individual Development Planning in Academic Settings." The Journal of the College and Universitngersonnel Association, XXVIII (Fall, 1977), l-7. Barthlow, Robert L. "Don't Overload Classified Staff." Community and Junior College Journal, XLIV (November, 1973), 34. Beaudoin, A. P. "A State Plan for Staff Development." Community College Frontiers, II (Winter, l974), 28-30. Behm, R. et.al. Accentuating the Professional Role gf_Part-Time Faculty. ED I43 40l. Bender, Louis W. and James 0. Hammons. "Adjunct Faculty: Forgotten and Neglected." Community and Junior College Journal, XLIV (October, l972), 20-22. Berquist, William H. and Steven Phillips. "Components of an Effective Faculty Development Program." Journal gf_Higher Education, XLVI (March/April, l975), l77-2ll. . A_Handbook for Faculty_Development. Washington, D.C.: Council for the Advancement of Small Colleges, Vol. I, l975; Vol. II, l977. Bessent, E. W. et.al. Designs for Inservice Education. Austin, Texas: The University of Texas Press, l967. Buhl, L. C. and A. Greenfield. "Contracting for Professional Develop- ment in Academe." Educational Record, XVI (Spring, l975), lll-l2l. Burke, W. Warner, ed. Current Issues and Strategies jn_grganizational Development. New York: Human Sciences Press, l977. 255 256 Bushnell, David S. Organizing for Change: New Priorities for Community Colleges. New York: McGraw-Hill, l973. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. The Open Door Colleges: Policies for Community Colleges. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., l970. Case, Chester H. Professional Staff Development: A_Community College Model. Pittsburg, Calif.: Los Medanos College, 1976. Centra, John A. Faculty Development Practices jn_y, S, Colleges and Universities. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, 1976. Chan, B. "Branching Out: The Staff Development Program at Parkland College." Community College Frontiers, II (Winter, 1974), 21-25. Chavez, Jose. Summary of Results: Staff Development Survey. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Community and Junior Colleges, l973. Claxton, Charles S. Community College Staff Development: Basic Issues jn_Planning. Atlanta, Ga.: Southern Regional Ed- ucation Board, l976. . "Comprehensive Staff Development Programs: Implications for the Office of Institutional Research and Planning." Community/Junior College Research Quarterly, I (July- September, 1977), 397-408. Cohen, Arthur M. "Teacher Preparation: Rationale and Practice.“ Junior College Journal, XXXVII (May, 1967), 21-25. Cohen, Arthur M., ed. Toward a_Professional Faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, l973. ’ Cohen, Arthur M. and Florence Brawer. Confronting Identity: Ihg_ Community College Instructor. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall, Inc., l972. Focus gn_Learning: Preparing Teachers for the Two-Year College. Los Angeles: University of California At Los Angeles, l968. Cole, Charles C. Ig_Improve Instruction. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education, 1978. Collin, W. J. Staff Development: Ag_0rganizational Skill for Survival. Sarnia, Ontario: 9th International Institute on the Community College, June l2—l5, l978. 257 Colman, Clyde Herbert. "Organization and Administration of an In- Service Program for Public Junior Colleges.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska, 1968. Comprehensive Staff Development Plannigg_Model. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State Department of Community Colleges, ED 139 466. Comras, Jay and Robert Masterman. "A Rationale for Comprehensive In-Service Programs." The Clearinghouse, (March, l972), 424-426. Croy, John E. "An Appraisal of In-Service Programs for Teaching Faculties in Selected Public Urban Community Colleges." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington State University, l973. Culbertson, William N.C. "A Conceptual Model for In-Service Education for Community College and Technical Institute Occupational Instructors Who Have not Participated in Traditional Teacher Education Programs." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, l975. DeNevi, D. I'Retreading Teachers the Hard Way." Junior College Journal, 40 (April, l970), 6-9. Devore, Paul W. Variables Affecting Change ig_In-Service Education, Final Report. Morgantown, West Virginia: West Virginia University, l97l. Faculty Development jg the Junior College: A_Second Interim Report gg_the Program with Developing Institutions gj_the year l969- l970. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Junior Colleges, l970. ED 052 773. Federico, Joseph H. A_Staff Development Model for Student Personnel Services. Schnecksville, PA: Lehigh County Community College, ED 097 944. Fordyce, Joseph W. "Faculty Development in American Community Junior Colleges." Peabody Journal gf_Education, (July, l97l), 270—75. Francis, John B. "How do we get There From Here?: Program Design for Faculty Development." Journal 9: Higher Education, XLVI (November/December, l9755, 7l9-32. Gaff, Jerry G. Toward Faculty Renewal. San Francisco: .Jossey-Bass Publishers, Inc., 1976. Gardner, John W. Self Renewal: The Individual and the Innovative Society. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, l963. 258 Garrison, Roger. Junior College Faculty: Issues and Problems. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Junior Colleges, l967. "l969 Seminar for Great Teachers: Preliminary Report on a National Experiment." Junior College Journal, XL (November, 1969), 7-9. . "A Mini—Manual on In-Service." Community_and Junior College Journal, XLV (June/July, l975), l8-20. Teachin jg_e_Junior College: A_Brief Professional Orientation. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Junior Colleges, l968. Gleazer, Edmund J., Jr. "Faculty Development Project." Junior College Journal, XXXVIII (April, l968), 7. Grasha, Anthony F. "An Administrative and Faculty Training Program in Teacher Education and Development." Educational Technology, XVI (April, l976), 52-54. Group for Human Development in Higher Education. Faculty Development jg_g_Time gf_Retrenchment. New Rochelle, NY: Change Magazine Press, l974. Grymes, Robert J., Jr. Staff Development for Adjunct Faculty. l977, ED 148 409. Gustafson, K. L. "Improving Instructional Development: Faculty as Learners." Educational Technolqu, XV (May, 1975), 34-38. Hammons, James O. and Terry H. Wallace. Ag_Assessment gf_Community College Staff Develoament Needs jg_the Northeastern United States. University Park, PA: The Center for the Study of Higher Education, The Pennsylvania State University, 1976. . "Sixteen Ways to Kill a College Faculty Development Program." Educational Technology. XVI (December, l976), l6-20. Hammons, James 0., Terry H. Wallace, and Gordon Watts. Staff Development jg_the Community College: A_Handbook. Los Angeles: ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior Colleges, l978. Hammons, James 0., ed. Proceedings: The Conference gg_guestions and Issues jg_Planning Community College_$taff Development Programs, July l-3, l974. University Park, PA: Center for the Study of Higher Education, Pennsylvania State University, l975. 259 Harris, D. A. and M. H. Parsons. Adjunct Faculty: A Working System gf_Development. Hagerstown, MD: Hagerstown Junior College, December 1975. ED 115 318. Hatfield, Thomas M. "The President's Involvement in Instruction." New Directions for Community Colleges, XVII (Spring, 1977), 23-29. Hoem, Eric. "The Professional Development Program You can Afford." Community and Junior College Journal, XLV (May, 1975), 32-34. Hurlburt, Allan S- "The Preparation and Characteristics of Junior College Teachers." Junior College Research Review, II (February, 1968). Hunter, W. E. and E. Beyers. "Administrators vs. Teachers: Their Perceived Differences and Similarities Regarding Staff Development Needs Within TwoaYear Colle es." Community/ Junior College Research Quarterly, III (April—June, 1979), 239-249. Hyslop, D. J. "A Study of In—Service Education at Selected California Community Colleges in Relation to Institutional Needs and Posture." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1974. In-Service Training for Two-Year Faculty and Staff: A_Surve .gf Junior and Community College Administrators. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Junior Colleges, 1969. ED 034 519. Isaac, Stephen and William B. Michael. Handbook jg_Research and Evaluation. San Diego: Edits Publishers, 1971. Jabker, E. H. and R. S. Halinski. "Instructional Development and Faculty Rewards." Journal gf_Higher Education, XLIX (1978), 316-328._ Jaggard, Sharon G. "A Faculty Monocle: Accolades and Heartaches." New Directions for Community Colleges, XVII (Spring, 1977) 1-11. Kelley, William and Leslie Wilbur. Teaching jg_the Community College. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofte, 1970. Kilpatrick, Gordon. In-Service Education with Recommendations Concerning Its Implementation jg_American Junior COTleges. El Camino, CA: El Camino College, 1967. Ed 020 721. Kozoll, C. E. et.al.. "Staff and Organization Development: An Analysis of Their Interaction in a Community College and Resulting Changes." April, 1978. ED 152 989. 260 LeClair, Charles Herbert. "In-Service Policies and Practices in North Central Association Community Colleges." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Arizona, 1976. Lefforge, O. S. In-Service Training ggieg_1nstrument for Change. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Institute of Higher Education, 1971. ED 055 577. Lutz, John E. "In-Service Personnel Development: A Systematic Approach to Program Planning.“ Educational Technology, XVI (April, 1976), 44-47. Martorana, S. V. et.al. "Towards Improving the Learning Process." Community and Junior College Journal, XLIV (August, 1973) 56-57. Mayo, C. D. and C. S. Claxton. Conference Report: Improving College Teaching. Memphis, TN: Memphis State University, 1978. ED 157 494. McCall, M. B. "A Comparison of Staff Development Programs in Two- Year Colleges With and Without Formalized Staff Development Plans." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1977. McClain, Rosella. "The Creation of a Plan for a Statewide Consortium for Delivering Staff Development Activities to Community College Personnel." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Memphis State University, 1977. McDermott, R. A. I'The Role of the Department Head in Staff Develop- ment in Selected Community Colleges as Perceived by Depart- ment Heads, Faculty, and Deans." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Miami University, 1976. McLeod, N. and C. Trent. The Educational Development Officer-75 New Staff Development Concept jg_the Community College and Technical Institute. Roxboro, NC: Piedmont Technical Institute, l975. ED l4O 012. McMillen, H. G. "The Instructional Clinic and Staff Development: When Faculty Come From Behind the Classroom Door." 1977, ED 144 630. Mittler, M. L. and R. E. Dolan. Oakton Community College Staff Development Prggram. Morton Grove, IL: Oakton Community College, (November, 1975). ED 114 142. Mizell, A. P. "Getting Faculty Involved in Instructional Development." Educational Technology, XVIII (June, 1978), 40-42. 26l Moe, Jackie. "A Staff Development Model for Part-Time Instructors." New Directions for Community Colleges, XVII (Autumn, 1977), 35-46. Monahan, William 6., ed. Theoretical Dimensions pf Educational Administration. -New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1975. Morris, William, ed. The American Heritage Dictionary. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1976. Nelson, William C. "Faculty Development: Prospects and Potential for the 1980's." Liberal Education, LXV (Summer, 1979) 141-149. O'Banion, Terry.' Organizing Staff Development Programs That Work. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Community and Junior Colleges, 1978. . "Patterns of Staff Development.’ New Directions for Community Colleges. I (Spring, 1973), 9-29. . "Staff Development: Priorities for the Seventies." ‘ Community and Junior College Journal, XLIII (October, 1972), lO-ll. Teachers for Tomorrow: Staff Development jp_the Community- Junior College. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1972. Teachers for Tomorrow: One Year Later." Community and Junior College Journal, XLIV (November, 1973), lO-ll. O'Banion, Terry, ed. "Developing Staff Potential." New Directions for Community Colleges. Los Angeles: Jossey-Bass Publishers, Inc., XVII (Autumn, l977), lO3-llO. Parsons, M. H. "Against the Dying of the Light: Staff Development Confronts the 1980's.“ October, 1977. ED 145 881. . "The Instructional Clinic: Staff Development in Action." June, 1976. ED 129 354. Peterson, Gary T., ed. Staff Develppment: Mini—Models for College Implementation. Cupertine, CA: DeAnza College. June, 1975. ED llZ 958. Preus, P. K. and D. F. Williams. "Statewide Community College Faculty Development: A Personalized Approach." November, 1975. ED 118 168. 262 Raines, Max R. and William K. Ogilive. Perspectives on the Community College: Selected Readings. _New York: Appleton- -Century- -Crofts, l97l. Reynolds, Paul Davidson. A Primer in Theory Construction. New York: The Babbs- Merrill Company, Inc. , l97l. Richardson, R. C., Jr. "Staff Development: A Conceptual Framework." Journal pf_Higher Education, XLVI (May/June, 1975), 303-312. Richardson, William R. Staff Development for the Rural Community College. l975. ED llO l36. Ritz, W. C. et.al. "How to Conduct a Workshop." Syracuse, NY: Eastern Regional Institute for Education. 1970. ED 065 486. Rives, Stanley G. et. al. Academic Innovation: Facultyyand Instructional Development at Illinois State University. Normal, IL: Illinois State University, 1979. Samlin, J. R. "In- Service Education in American Public Junior Colleges. " Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Illinois State University, 1967. Santos, Gilberto de 105. "El Paso's Organizational Development Model." Community and Junior College Journal, XLVI (October, 1975), l6-l7. Schultz, Raymond E. "Low Turnover Creates Staff Development Problems." Community College Review, I (April, l973), 22-28. Serquist, J. "A Staff Development Project: Enhancing Attainment of Career Center Goals by Determining Staff Needs and Objectives." Doctoral dissertation, Nova University, 1977. ED 165 064. Siehr, Hugo E. et. a1. Problems of New Faculty Members in Communit Colleges. Washington, D. C. American Association of Junior Colleges, 1963. ED 013 093. Sikes, W. W., Lawrence E. Schlisinger, and Charles N. Seashore. Renewing Higher Education from Within. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, Inc., 1974. Singer, Direk S. "00 We Need a Community College Institute?" Junior College Journal, XXXIX (October, 1968), 36-40. Smith, Albert 8. Faculty Development and Evaluation in Higher Education. Washington, D. C: American ASsociation f6r Higher Educat1on, l976. 263 Stoops, John A. and Charles W. Guidities. Conference pp the Community College 1p Higher Education. Lehigh University, November 21-22, 1965. ED 013 092. Taylor, W. R. "A Consortium Approach to Faculty Renewal." New Directions for Community Colleges. XII (Winter, 1975), 17-22. Thomas, Wanda E. "The Chairperson's Role in Promoting Better Teaching." New Directions for Community Colleges, XVII (Spring, 1977), 13-18. Thornton, James W., Jr. The Community Junior College. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1972. Tobin, H. M. et.al. The Process pf_Staff Development: Components for Change. 2nd ed. St. Louis: C. V. Mosby Co., 1979. Toombs, William. "A Three Dimensional View of Faculty Development." Journal pf_Higher Education, XLVI (November/December, 1975), 701-717. Topper, M. A. "A Working Model for In-Service Training." IggrYear College Mathematics Journal, V (December, 1974), 16-18. Vairo, Phillip 0. "Faculty Quality-~A Challenge to the Community College." Journal pf_Higher Education, XXXVI (April, 1965), 217-20. Vincent, William E. "Locked in and Locked Out." Community and Junior College Journal, (February, 1980), 54-55. Wallace, Terry H. S. The Literature pf_Staff Development: Emphases and Shortcomings. Los Angeles: ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior Colleges, 1974. ED 094 822. Wattenbarger, James L. and R. S. Carpenter. "Faculty Development" Let Teachers Take the Initiative." Community College Review, 111 (June, 1975), 25—30. Weber, Yvonne R. "In-Service Training of College Teachers: Aims and Practices for Faculty Development." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1973. Weddington, Doris. "Partnership for Faculty Development: The University and the Community College." 1974. ED 146 988. Weick, Karl E. The Social Psychology pf Or anizin . Reading, Massachusetts: Addison—Wesley Publishing Company, 1969. 264 Wergen, J. F. et.al. "The Practice of Faculty Development: An Experience-Derived Model." Journal pt Higher EduCation, XLVII (May/June, 1976), 289-308. Wetzler, Wilson. "A Break-Through for Faculty and Program Development." Junior College Journal, XL (June-July, 1970), 13-15. Wilson, Richard E. "Staff Development: An Urgent Priority." Community and Junior College J0urna1, XLIII (June-July, 1973), 68-69. Yarrington, Roger. "Facing the Critical Issues." Community and Junior COllege Journal, XLIV (November, 1973), 8-9. Yarrington, Roger, ed. Educational Opportunity for All: Neg_$taff for New Students. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Community and Junior Colleges, l974. Zion, C. and C. Sutton. "Integrated In-Service Development." Neg_ Directions for Community Colleges, I (Spring, 1973), 41-51.