"‘1 Ill'i'HTlWl'iiIilllflmllfll 'llfllll'fllflll'lfill 3 1293 10647 1976 c... l L. I '0 1“ 4‘ III" .11." 'Lmfi"o.ezn ‘ £10 I o r, ‘- r' 4 Mal-.8. ) ”Ml-l - arna‘uuur-~mx -m'E'KI‘h; U P*-:=}!A—-'. an! unn- ‘Vi'tfl‘ This is to certify that the dissertation entitled A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF INSTITUTIONAL FUNCTIONING DIMENSIONS AS PERCEIVED BY SELECT CONSTITUENCIES IN A SMALL/RURAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE presented by Charles Kennedy Barletta has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Education Majorfiprofessor Date 2/14/86 MS U :21 an Affirmative Action/Eq ual Opportunity Institution 0- 12771 p.- A-..._,~—A..—o.‘.~"u\14 . t ‘-4. MSU LIBRARIES RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF INSTITUTIONAL FUNCTIONING DIMENSIONS AS PERCEIVED BY SELECT CONSTITUENCIES IN A SMALL/RURAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE By Charles Kennedy Barletta A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1986 ABSTRACT A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF INSTITUTIONAL FUNCTIONING DIMENSIONS AS PERCEIVED BY SELECT CONSTITUENCY IN A SMALL/RURAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE By Charles Kennedy Barletta The primary purpose of the study was to ascertain if significant differences in perceptions of institutional functioning dimensions exist between select constituencies of a small/rural community college. A secondary purpose was to examine the effect county residency had on the perception of these constituent groups toward the institutional func- tioning dimensions. The researcher conducted an Institutional Functioning Inventory (IFI) Survey at North Country Community College (NCCC). located in upstate New York, in fall 1985. Some N = 229 questionnaires were distributed to five constituent groups - faculty (N - 74), students (N s 100), administra- t°r3 (N - 20), trustees (N n 10) and county legislators (N - 25) - in order to assess their perceptions of select aspects 0f institutional life or institutional functioning at NCCC. The instrument, the IFI, deveIOped by Educational Testing Service, consisted of 132 items that were organized 13:0 11 dimensions or scales. Students responded to the fir8t 72 items (six dimensions); non-students responded to all 132 items (11 dimensions). The 11 dimensions are: 1) Intellectual-Aesthetic Extracurriculum, 2) Freedom, 3) Human Diversity, 4) Concern for Improvement of Society, 5) Concern for Undergraduate Learning, 6) Democratic Governance, 7) Meeting Local Needs, 8) Self Study and Planning, 9) Concern for Advancing Knowledge, 10) Concern for Innovation, and 11) Institutional Esprit. 0f the total surveys distributed, some N - 195 were returned (852) containing data for analy- sis. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test signifi- cant differences of perceptions for the 11 IFI dimensions between constituent groups. The statistical data obtained from the ANOVA was used to perform the Scheffee A Posteriori procedure to ascertain where significant mean differences existed between constituent groups. T-tests were used to ascertain if significant differences of perception existed between IFI respondents residing in Essex County when com- pared to respondents residing in Franklin County. (Essex and Franklin Counties comprise the NCCC service area). In analysis of the IFI Survey results, there was con- gruence among constituent group perceptions of the IFI Di- mension except for: l. Intellectual-Aesthetic Extracurriculum (Dimension I) 2. Human Diversity (Dimension III) 3. Concern for Improvement of Society (Dimension IV) There was also congruence of perception among Essex County respondents and Franklin County respondents with regard to the 11 IFI Dimensions; no significant difference in percep- tion was found. DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my wife and son who have encouraged me in many different ways to complete this phase of my education. I am thankful for having a family who value education and who have provided me with the loving support to get on with it. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS No dissertatiOn could ever be completed independently. There are many special people at Michigan State University, North Country Community College, and in Essex and Franklin Counties who have directly or indirectly helped in the achievement of this study. Thank you Dr. Lou Hekius for getting me on track, helping me with those "personofications" and being what a Graduate Advisor should be. I thank also the other committee members: Dr. Keith Anderson, Dr. Howard Hickey and Dr. Larry Lezotte for their assistance and support over the last ten years. I am proud to have had their teaching and criticism. Thank you to Dr. Phil Cusick who as Department Chairman helped me find the way to complete this educational program. Thank you to Mr. David Petty, President of North Country Community College, for his understanding, direction and friendship. David is a college president who has not forgotten the meaning of being an educator. His example is one that I will always remember. Thank you to Dr. Robert Karp, Dean of Institutional Research, for his willingness to help and serve as my unofficial Research Advisor at North Country Community College. His guidance and support are appreciated. iii There are other people I owe so much to in helping complete this benchmark in my life. The North Country Community College Board of Trustees, especially Mrs. Kathryn Young, Mr. Mitchell Tackley and Mr. Jon Parent, for their support; Mr. Stan Rockhill and Mrs. Pam Steenburge, who made it possible for me to meet the deadline; Mrs. Marylyn Gadway and Mrs. Carol McGovern for their help in getting the proposal and chapter drafts prepared. A special thanks to Mrs. Jeanne Golden for acting as Dean during my absence from NCCC; Mrs. Peg Kelly for assisting in the data collection; Mrs. Eleanor Santoro for her editing help; Professor Joe Jeannettie for his assistance and friendship when the crunch was on. Thank you to the student, faculty, administrators, trustees, legislators and supervisors who took the time to participate in the study. Last but not least, I wish to thank my wife and friend, Jocleyn Johnston, for performing many supportive tasks in this effort. Now it's my turn to return a few of the favors. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Vii CHAPTER I THE RESEARCH PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction to the Study . . . . . . . . 1 Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . 7 Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . 8 Significance of the Study . . . . . . . . 9 Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Specific Objectives of the Research Study 16 Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Background of the Study . . . . . . . . . 23 Summary and Organization of the Study . . 32 II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . 34 History and Development of the American Community College . . . . . . . . . . 37 Organizational Theory . . . . . . . . . . 45 Organizational Concepts . . . . . . . . 55 Institutional Functioning and Goal Attainment . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 III RESEARCH DESIGN, METHODS, AND PROCEDURES . . 96 Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 The Population and Sample . . . . . . . . 97 Questions and Hypothesis . . . . . . . . 99 Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Reliability and Validity . . . . . . . . 105 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Treatment of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Statistical Procedure . . . . . . . . . . 109 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 IV ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Perceptions of the Five Constituent Groups Concerning the Institutional Functioning Inventory Dimensions . . . . . . . . . 113 Intellectual-Aesthetic Extracurriculum (Dimension I) . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Freedom (Dimension II) . . . . . . . . 116 Human Diversity (Dimension III) . . . . . 118 V CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA (continued) Concern for the Improvement of Soc (Dimension IV) . . . . . . . . Concern for Undergraduate Learning (Dimension V) . . . . . . . . Democratic Governance (Dimension V Meeting Local Needs (Dimension VII Self Study and Planning (Dimension Concern for Advancing Knowledge (Dimension IX) . . . . . . . Concern for Innovation (Dimension Institutional Esprit (Dimension XI iety I) . . )... VIII) x) . . ) . . . Perceptions of County Groups Concerning the Institutional Functioning Inventory Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . Intellectual-Aesthetic Extracurric (Dimension I) . . . . . . . . Freedom (Dimension II) . . . . . Human Diversity (Dimension III) . Concern for the Improvement of Soc (Dimension IV) . . . . . . . . Concern for Undergraduate Learning (Dimension V) . . . . . . . . Democratic Governance (Dimension V Meeting Local Needs (Dimension VII ulum iety I) . . > . . . Self Study and Planning (Dimension VIII) Concern for Advancing Knowledge (Dimension IX) . . . . . . . Concern for Innovation (Dimension Institutional Esprit (Dimension XI Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . X) ) . V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . APPENDIX 1.0: APPENDIX 1.1: APPENDIX 1.2: APPENDIX 1.3: A Brief Review of the Study . Summary of Findings . . . . . Conclusions and Discussion . Recommendations . . . . . . . SUNY Network . . . . . . . . . . SUNY Community College Sources of SUNY Community College Operating C and State Aid . . . . . . . . North Country Community College Service District . . . . . . . vi Revenue OStS Page 120 122 124 126 128 130 132 134 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 158 159 159 163 166 176 181 183 185 187 APPENDIX 1.4: APPENDIX 1.5: APPENDIX 1.6: APPENDIX 1.7: APPENDIX 3.0: APPENDIX 3.1: APPENDIX 3.2: APPENDIX 3.3: REFERENCE LIST North Country Community College Mission Statement . . . . . North Country Community College Student Population . . . . North Country Community College Financial Aid Profile . . . Student Income Levels . . . . Descriptions of the IFI Dimensions IFI Items and Biserial Correlations IFI Coefficient Alpha Reliabilities Correspondence Used with the Survey vii 189 191 193 195 197 199 212 214 218 TABLE 2.1 3.1 4.1A 4.1B 4.1C 4.2A 4.2B 4.3A 4.38 4.3C 4.4A 4.4B 4.4C 4.5A 4.5B 4.6A 4.6B 4.7A 4.7B 4.8A 4.8B 4.9A 4.9B CCI Items LIST OF IFI Response Rates . Dimension I Summary Dimension Dimension Dimension Dimension Dimension Dimension Dimension Dimension Dimension Dimension Dimension Dimension Dimension Dimension Dimension Dimension Dimension Dimension Dimension Dimension I ANOVA I Schef fée II Summary II ANOVA . III Summary III ANO III Scheffee VA . IV Summary IV ANOV IV Sche V Summa V ANOVA A . ffée ry . VI Summary VI ANOV A O VII Summary VII ANO VIII Summary VA . VIII ANOVA IX Summary IX ANOVA . viii TABLES Page TABLE 4.10A 4.103 4.11A 4.11B 4.12A 4.128 4.12C 4.12D 4.12E 4.12E 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 4.23 4.24 4.24A 4.243 4.24C Dimension X Summary . Dimension X ANOVA . . . Dimension XI Summary Dimension XI ANOVA . Group Group Group Group Group Group Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test County Summary Mean Summary Mean Scores Mean Scores Mean Scores Mean Scores Mean Scores Mean Scores Dimension Dimension Dimension Dimension Dimension Dimension Dimension Dimension Dimension Dimension Dimension Dimension I 0 II . III IV . VI . VII VIII VIII IX . X . XI . Score Essex County Mean Score . Franklin County Mean Score ix Page 132 132 134 134 136 137 138 139 140 141 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 153 155 156 157 CHAPTER I THE RESEARCH PROBLEM Introduction to the Study The community college, like any public agency, can be supported only as long as its constituents value its pro- grams, services, purpose and results (i.e. institutional, functions). Phillips (1980) points out that little empirical research has been conducted to measure and analyze the effect of public values, perceptions and attitudes regarding small/ rural community colleges. He goes on to point out that "in fact for years educational journals have acted as if small/ rural institutions of higher education do not exist" (p. xi). The review of literature for this study through 1985 found this situation still to be true. The American Association of Community and Junior Col- leges has defined a rural college as that which enrolls a relatively small number of people but serves a large geo- graphic area. There are more than 600 rural community and junior colleges in the nation, and of these institutions one- half are in towns of 10,000 or less and two-thirds have fewer than 1,000 students. Dubay (in Phillips, 1980) stresses the impact of these colleges: "The full-time student population is estimated at over one-half million and the total students in contact each year is several million" (p.xii). Phillips (£1980) asks for attention to and examination of small/rural o who; wsfimvsum uHuuNH muo> ma omega umnu mouwmmfin NOO Non NHN NON NON musuooa wswccmumuso magmasowuumm m nouns vamamnm mosfiuoaom Hafiz mmmHo < Nmm. «we ass was Ram emawosomeu to Lugaomoaags wsfivcmumuao :8 Na Okayama u now one: oosmfivsm mufiommmo m on case: Omega NOO Nme NON NHN NON macsuso>sfi no .mousuowa :owuoa saw: woumaaou mm mufiumaosuma no .maao Imoafiam .mnuooq usonm xamu ou umwmua one: musovsum sou muo> umnu mouwmmwa Nam NHm N50 NMN NWH mfinmhwdcnum HO HHme HQDHUOHHOHGH no one: acmuuoaaw mm mum uaoaumsh new was mason Hmfioom umzu oouwmma: ommufinu mo OOOHHOO Nuwmuo>fisa OOOHHOO omeHoo msofisfiao u=m>oamulosfim> magnum>a8= oum>wum m.:o: mumum Amwowsfimd devHo: musoesum mo ammusouumm "mowoaaoo O>Hw um amfiamsu00HNOusfi unovsum um>uouuom AEAAH H u o H.N uqm<9 73 Barton concluded from this CCI study data that there was a dramatic difference between the highly intellectual climate of the University of Chicago and the extreme indifference to intellectual concerns at the state college and the men's college studied. He criticized the CCI question focus: Why not ask each student what he is in- terested in, what he would prefer to go to listen to. Perhaps the students are all reporting stereo-types which no long- er really apply; in a state of pluralist ignorance each thinks that 'the other fellow' is interested in such-and -such even though each knows he is not. This is a serious problem. For some purposes, however, we may prefer to know what the stereotypes are; they may represent the dominant tradition of the institution, which is influential in spite of the fact that large numbers of individual students privately reject it. This is a question needing further study; it is not just a matter of question-writing technique. (p. 42-43) Heeding Barton's criticisms of the CCI, and responding to college's and universities' need for a systematic data collection process about campus environment conditions from the student perspective, Pace (1963) developed the College and University Environmental Scales (CUES). CUES was devel— oped around five dimensions: scholarship; awareness; com- munity; property and practicality. Beginning in the 19708, the Educational Testing Service (ETS) of Princeton, New Jersey began to design a series of instruments which were utilized to examine goal and function processes. The Institutional Goal Inventory (IGI) was devel- oped by Peterson and Ulh (1973) to aid colleges in the ini- tial process of goal formulation. More than two years of 74 experimental and conceptual development occurred. Two exper- imental versions of the instrument were constructed and pilot-tested, the first during 1970 and the second in 1971. The general objective of the final form was to set down a conceptualization of the goals embraced by the total spectrum of American colleges, universities and community colleges (Peterson, 1973). The theoretical framework for the IGI consists of 20 goal areas which are separated into two general categories. The first 13 goal areas are conceived as "outcome goals", i.e., substantive objectives institutions may be seeking to achieve. Examples would include qualities of graduating students, research activities, or public service programs. The remaining seven goals in the inventory are considered as "process goals" which are conceived to be internal campus objectives: i.e., objectives relating to educational pro- cesses and campus climate which facilitate achievement of the outcome goals (Peterson, 1973, p. 8). The main content of the IGI includes 90 goal statements, of which 80 are related to the 20 goal areas, four per area. The other ten items represent a goal area which was judged relatively unimportant, and warranted only one goal state- ment. Each of the 20 scales has four items with five pos- sible responses ranging from "of no importance" to "of ex- tremely high importance". Quantitatively, the responses were weighted from one to five, respectively. Interim values of 2, 3, and 4 corresponded respectively to "of low importance", 7S "of medium importance", and "of high importance". Each statement has two response columns: an "is" and a "should be". Thus, each of the 20 goal areas has two measures, one relating the perceived importance and the other reflecting the individual's preferred importance of the goals (Mossman, 1976, p. 50-51). The Institutional Functioning Inventory (IFI) was de- scribed in general in Chapter I and, as the instrument of data collection in this study, will be covered in detail in Chapter III. The IFI, developed by Peterson et a1 (1983), was designed to provide data on 11 scales or dimensions dealing with the health and vitality of a particular college or university. It was the first instrument designed for analysis by all constituent groups of an institution (stu- dents, faculty, administration, governing board members). Information extrapolated from IFI data can be utilized in a self study process or for consensus seeking on institutional goal setting or criteria for institutional effectiveness. Several studies have been conducted to analyze goal definition and institutional vitality through a survey of perceptions by various members of constituent groups. Clark (1960), in a study of a midwestern community college, found a distinct difference between the institution's official and operative goals. Essentially, the president consistently denied that an official college goal was to educate latent terminal students. Yet, college policies, personnel and structure indicated this was an operative goal. 76 The work of Gross and Grambsch (1968) is considered by institutional researchers to be the single most important empirical investigation of university goals (Uhl, 1973). The study described university goals as they were perceived by administrators and faculty members of 68 institutions Of higher education. Forty-seven goal statements were developed into a survey where they were rated on two scales, perceived "is" and preferred "should be". Rank comparisons were made for the faculty and administrative samples. The base assump- tion of Gross and Grambsch was that there are two kinds of goals in any organization: "those which are manifested in a product of some kind and which we shall call 'output goals' and those which are the ends of persons responsible for the maintenance activities, which we shall call 'support goals'" (p. 9). The main conclusion was that differences are small between the sample groups at a given institution but differ considerably when different schools are compared. The study also showed a tendency of sub-groups to think of the institu— tion in terms of the goals of their particular group. Thus Gross and Grambsch established a fundamental methodology for determining college goals and devised a new way for looking at college goals in relationship to other features of the institution. Chickering (1968) authored a Project Report on Student Development for the Council for the Advancement of Small Colleges. This report summarized a comparative study of institutions' goals and their relationship to enrolling stu- 77 dent characteristics. Wilson (1979) summarizes how the study assessed institutional goals: 1.) The College Goals Rating_Sheet, which lists 25 characteristics of grad- uates, was completed by each faculty member and administrator at the colleges surveyed. The respondents, ranging in number from 17 to 58, were asked to in- dicate the two most desirable character- istics and the two least desirable char- acteristics, then the five next most desirable and five least desirable, in order to represent the educational ob- jectives of their institutions. 2.) A Guide for College Visits and Re- porting was developed by the project team to record the impressions of two staff members and representatives of the com- mittee on research and development who visited each campus to assess how college objectives were implemented in their programs, practices, and operating prin— ciples. 3.) The College and University Envirgg; ment Scales (CUES) were also used. The scales were completed at each college by a random sample of 100 students across all four classes. The samples were stra- tified to insure proportionate represen- tation with respect to class size and sex distribution. 4.) The project staff developed and administered the Experience of College Questionnaire to samples of 200 students at each college selected across all four grade levels by the same procedures used for CUES. The Experience of College Questionnaire asked each student to de- scribe his or her behavior and experi- ences with respect to such things as class and study activities, teacher be- havior, relationships with peers and faculty members, religious activities and general satisfaction. The questionnaire was developed to gather information about the daily life of students in order to understand which experiences facilitated or impeded patterns of development in college. (p. 99-100) The study prospectus stated: 78 the principle institutional goals are expected to include the development, on the one hand, of well-rounded individuals enabled by temperment and intellectual breadth to fit into a variety of occupa- tions and environments. On the other hand, they are expected to give high ranking to the nurturence of life . . . to emphasize training for citizenship and even (in a long term sense) for business, but not the propagation of new knowledge. Chickering was able to categorize each of the 13 parti- cipating colleges into four basic patterns - Christ-centered, intellectual-social, personal-social and professional- vocational. Each of the data groups supported those rankings and classifications (Wilson, 1979). Nash (1968) conducted another important study of insti- tutional goals for the Bureau of Applied Social Research at Columbia University. The study attempted to determine the broad range of purposes and functions of colleges. A survey form was-developed containing 64 goal statements and distri- buted to the academic deans of every college in the US. Measurement assessments were obtained when each dean indi- cated the extent to which his institution emphasized various goals. The study findings confirmed that American colleges, in broad terms, can be grouped into two categories: those institutions committed to socialization of students and those institutions concerned with organizational survival. Factor analysis indentified five classifications of goal domains: "(1) Orientation toward research and instruction, (2) Ori— entation toward instrumental training, (3) Orientation to- 79 ward social development of students, (4) Democratic orienta- tion, and (5) OrientatiOn toward development of resources" (Nash, 1968, p. 21-34). Medsker (1960) authored a book, The Junior Col— lege, Progress and Prospect, based on a descriptive study of two year colleges. An important part of the Medsker study consisted of the collection of faculty opinions or percep- tions of several issues. The faculty surveyed responded that providing the first two years of traditional college educa— tion (972) and terminal occupational programs (922) were important functions and purposes of community/junior col- leges. "Twenty five percent of the faculty surveyed were unsupportive of colleges sponsoring basic skills, remedial and adult vocational programs" (p. 128-131). A Danforth Foundation study (1969) of small private liberal arts colleges utilized a revised version of the Gross and Grambsch questionnaire (Wilson, 1979). Fourteen private liberal arts colleges were surveyed to "assist the colleges' own efforts in understanding better their goals and govern- ance" (p. 101-103). All administrators, a 25% sample of faculty and 100 students at each college were surveyed. Wilson reports that findings showed: 1.) there was significant agreement among the administration, faculty and students on most matters relating to goals and governance; 2.) differences between perceived and preferred goals were significant but the administration, faculty and students shared many views on the direction of desired changes; 3.) governance revolves around adminis- 80 trators to a large extent; and 4.) there was greatest agreement on those goals that were least important to all of those surveyed. (p. 102) Martin (1969) compared the institutional character of conventional colleges to non-traditional colleges. He sur- veyed administrators and faculty at eight institutions via questionnaire and interview regarding the goals of their respective institutions. He found during that institutional goals were discussed less frequently during faculty hiring interviews at conventional colleges and more frequently at non—traditional colleges. Forty percent of the colleges reported that the academic department was responsible for faculty recruitment and only 162 of the institutions indi— cated that institutional goals were stressed as part of the hiring interview. Martin presented the conclusion that these conditions showed ambivalence by faculty and staff toward their institution's educational philosophy. "They had no coherent rationale, no compelling vision of the college. Consequently, they found it difficult to answer questions about institutional goals or to describe their school's inte- grative value system" (p.216). Bloom, Gillie and Leslie (1971) studied the extent of faculty agreement with community college goals and compared faculty perceptions from three types of two year colleges. The study data indicated minimal support for community col- lege goals from each college faculty group. It was concluded that most faculty in the study were ambivalent toward goals. Public community college faculty reactions were more positive 81 toward the goals than faculty groups from private colleges and two year university branches. Community service goals were also perceived more positively by the community college faculty group. In a survey by ETS, 92 two year colleges were surveyed regarding institutional goals. The survey was a preliminary version of the IGI described earlier in this chapter. The survey data base analysis conducted by Bushnell (1973) found a high level of consensus among community junior college administrators, faculty, and students on the major goal de- scriptions of their college. "Project Focus" of the American Association of Community and Junior Colleges (1970) dealt partially with relating institutional goals to the community concept promoted by Gleazer and the AACJC. A self-study instrument was adminis- tered to a random sample of faculty, students, trustees and administrators at 100 colleges. Each subject was also inter— viewed. Gleazer directed the study under funding from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Mossman (1976) offers a restatement of Gleazer's findings and interpretations: Gleazer reported that a new acceptance among faculty of 'classes for learners' is evolving instead of the questions about whether a class is of college level. However, he did note factionali- zation was still common between propo- nents of traditional transfer processes versus the total community needs approach. (p. 45-46) Peterson (1973), under a contract study by ETS for the State of California, surveyed 116 colleges and universities 82 in the state with the IGI. Results showed significant dif- ferences between the types of institutions - i.e., univer- sities, four year colleges, private liberal arts colleges, and community colleges - regarding constituent ratings of goal statements. The study also showed agreement within institutional groups and disagreement between institutional groups toward the goal statements. Peterson's work in the California study allowed for extensive field testing for reliability and validity of the IGI. A recent study utilizing the IGI explored the relation- ship of institutional goals to the administration or manage- ment of a college. Since this study utilizes an instrument similar to the IGI and has a similar purpose, this study provides important theoretical background. Fuldauer (1978) studied the organizational goals of George Peabody College for Teachers, based on the responses to the IGI from select trustees, administrators, faculty and students. He also measured the climate of the institution, and used a correla- tional analysis to discover relationships between the groups' ratings of goals and their perceptions of the source of authority for developing the college goals. Analysis of relationships between institutional climate and goals also was carried out. Fuldauer (1978) found similar response patterns by all groups to both instruments. Differences within group and among groups as to their perceptions of goal statements indicated a preference for process oriented goals rather than 83 output oriented goals. Administrators and faculty showed the largest disagreement. He concluded that students and faculty wanted more authority for setting goals and went on to iden- tify a relationship between the discrepancy in current and ideal goal perceptions and perceptions of the college cli- mate. Dissatisfaction with institutional climate accompanied large discrepancies between perceived and ideal goals and was most closely related, again, to process goals rather than output goals. No significant relationship existed between perceptions of climate and authority ranking. The author concluded that the IGI analysis can serve as a valuable technique for institutional self study and decision making for the method of management. Maxwell (1984) in a study of internal and external constituent groups in Washington State community college systems found significant differences among and between the constituencies utilizing the IGI goal dimensions. She con- cluded the constituent groups had distended interests regard- ing what the college's goals were and what they should be. Arter (1981) found significant differences between vari- ous internal constituencies of a California community college using a modified version of the IGI. She concluded that greater understanding of the college's goals were necessary if effective planning was to take place. This literature search revealed a number of other stud- ies that utilized the IGI as a tool for analysis of similar- ities among goal perceptions and goal intentions. Rowland 84 (1974), Photo (1976), Mossman (1976), Wilson (1979) and Lima (1985) have utilized the IGI as part of their research pro— cedures. These studies complement the work of Peterson (1973) and provide extensive interpretive information about institutional goals in higher education. Related to these studies, but with a different focus, are research efforts that measure and analyze the nature of what the institution lg (actual practice) as opposed to goals or what should be (institutional intent). Since this study is concerned with the perception of educational practice at a select community college, as revealed through responses to the IFI, previous research studies utilizing the IFI provide an important foundation. The methodology of the IFI, like that of the IGI, has as its basis the Gross and Grambsch survey instrument discussed earlier. The IFI had its origin in a paradox described by McGrath in Peterson et al, (1983): The old saw about it being harder to change an educational institution than to move a graveyard reflects the general opinion of many observers of American college scene. They are particularly perplexed by this lack of innovation initiative when some of the most revolu- tionary changes in American culture have resulted from ideas generated by indivi- duals working in the academic community. (p. iii) This paradox frustrated two foundation officers, Charles Kettering and Edward Vause of the Kettering Foundation in Dayton, Ohio, who observed that while many very inventive ideas and practices "spring up from time to time" at some 85 colleges, others do not adopt innovations for years. They felt a study should be made of the factors in the academic complex that make a minority of institutions creative, exper- imental and adaptive while most cling to traditional practices. Hefferlin (1969), in the Dynamics of Academic Reform, reports on a study funded by the Kettering Foundation at the Institute of Higher Education at Teachers College, Columbia University. This study, the most comprehensive and signifi— cant to date, not only used but developed the IFI. The study consisted of conversations with scholars of American higher education regarding the factors in institutional life that seem to be related to institutional "vitality" or lack of it. This preliminary research lead to a conception of vitality that became the theoretical focus for a systematic study’ of institutional change. The study was particularly concerned with how institutional change takes place. How is reform accomplished? What are its causes? Hefferlin built on the work of Feldman and Newcomb (1969) and Sanford (1967), who studied factors of college effectiveness. In seeking to understand the forces that effect change at colleges and in the hope of stimulating more continuous academic reform, three research projects developed. Hefferlin (1969), working with Flexner, developed from a review of existing information on organizational change, a series of 16 case studies of educational practices at a 86 variety of institutions. The case studies were analyzed and a number of theories about the dynamics of academic change were developed. These were summarized by Hefferlin: in short, not only do colleges and uni- versities share the usual tendencies of any organization toward stability, but they have more than the usual number of constraints and several distinctive char- acteristics to safequard their own speci- fic function of education. Under these conditions and with these restraints, it may seem surprising that much academic change occurs at all. As a result of them it certainly is less surprising that the process of academic change is the source of so much complaint, frustration, and ridicule. . . .Thus the evidence to date from historians, observers of aca- demic life and reformers of education point to three dominant sources of change: (1) the resources available for it (2) the advocates interested in it and (3) the openness of the system to them. In every case of academic change, these factors together appear to deter- mine its outcome. (p. 16 & 49) Hefferlin and Flexner carried out a second project, utilizing a randomly selected stratified sample of 110 American colleges, to test the ideas on reform generated by their first project. Their tests and results covered three general areas: changes in the curriculum, agents of change and correlation of dynamism. They reported that: (1) an easing of institutional control and requirements; (2) a competition between faculty and administrators with regard to academic responsibility and determinism; and (3) a rela- tionship of institutional characteristics such as small size, participation of junior faculty and students in decision making, and under-graduate emphasis are characteristics of 87 institutions that have a climate for change. The third part of the study leads to the development of the IFI. The services of Peterson, Centra, Hartnett and Lynn of ETS, were contracted to develop a precise and objective measure of institutional characteristics related to readi- ness to accept new ideas and practice. Hefferlin (1969) postulated that higher education had become so complex and so costly that no one institution could or should attempt to do all things. Some specialization of function is indis— pensable if available resources are to be most economically used and if the need of various kinds of students are to be effectively met. If these goals are to be reached, however, institutions must know more about themselves than is typi- cally revealed through an examination of such character- istics as their publicized purposes, the academic prepara- tion of faculties, or the admissions test scores of their students. They must have more precise information about: the structure and flexibility of policy-making machinery, the ability of the institution to adapt to the changing needs of modern society, how policies must be modified to adjust the institution's programs, and a host of other fac- tors inherent in any effective institutional planning. With this in mind, Peterson devised the initial IFI as an instru- ment for use with the Kettering Hefferlin project to measure many institutional processes and for illuminating those in particular need of revision (in Hefferlin, 1969). McGrath warned that IFI will not tell a college what 88 it ought to be or what it ought to do. He went on to stress that "the IFI will help an institution determine essentially what it is, a necessary step in any intelligent planning for change" (in Peterson et a1, 1983, p. 3-4). Hefferlin, administering the IFI to 110 four year col- leges and universities, foUnd that academic reform was occur- ing at every institution, but that more curriculum change occurred at undergraduate colleges as compared to universi- ties and colleges with graduate programs. The most frequent means of academic reform were the "piecemeal adding and dropping of programs, courses and requirements . . . rather than radical transformation" (p. 188). No factor or char- acteristic appeared to be a sufficient or necessary element in accounting for differences that existed among the sample institutions in their amount of reform. He also found that environmental factors were as impor- tant as the personal orientation of college staff in the process of reform. External rewards, resources and institu- tional differences in orientation and structure are also related to the reform process. Additional research at indi- vidual colleges, supplemented by multiple data source groups exploring a better understanding of institutional vitality, was recommended. Lynn (1973) utilized the IFI and the IGI to measure goal practices and goal preferences. The study surveyed five constituent groups at a private four year college - junior faculty,l senior faculty, freshman and sophomore students, 89 junior and seniOr students, and administrators. The analysis and comparison of the two data sets showed goal congruence on 16 of the 20 preference areas and 17 of the 20 practice areas. Other results indicated that faculty and administra- tors rated goals and practice in a similar way, and that most differences occurred between students and non-students. Twenty of the goal intention areas were not confirmed by the goal practice ratings. Lynn's purpose was to evaluate the extent to which goal intentions were achieved at a particular private four year institution. It contrasts with the other IGI studies in that it used the IGI and IFI a8 evaluative measures of goal achievement. It is important to note, therefore, that the purposes of Lynn's and the other IGI studies are quite dif- ferent from the purposes of this research effort. The thrust of this study is not on evaluation of goal achievement or the analysis of goal perceptions, but on the measurement of five constituent group perceptions of various conditions and func- tions at a select community college. Since many college constituent groups influence and affect institutional opera— tions and goals, such a study can comment on the similarities among and between constituent perceptions of and attitudes toward a particular institution. In that sense, this study is concerned with perception and attitude only; after re- search findings of this type are presented to an institution and acted upon in some way that alters the planning and management system, a study relating goal intention to goal 90 practice could be a useful institutional evaluation project. In a study utilizing the IFI at a midwestern suburban community college, Thorderson (1974) found a lack of con- gruence among internal formal college constituencies (faculty and adminstrators) on the IFI dimensions. He concluded that these differences were related to a variety of personal characteristics possessed by individuals in the college hier- archy. Metz (1974) found significant differences among and between administrators and faculty on IFI dimensions at a Colorado community college. She concluded that a situation of goal dysfunction existed which could only be rectified by improved lines of communicatibn. McGrath (1983) reports on a study funded by the Murdock Charitable Trust of Vancouver, Washington, conducted to learn what makes some colleges succeed. McGrath utilized the IFI to gather data at 14 liberal arts colleges around the country. The colleges in the study were selected because they were determined to be successful by the following cri- teria: Their enrollments were stable or growing, their expenditures for salaries and aca- demic facilities were above the average for comparable institutions, their annual income from investment and current gifts was steady or increasing, the morale in the academic community was high. (p. i) McGrath felt that such a study of successful institutions would be interesting in and of itself, and perhaps beneficial to other institutions. 91 In the McGrath study, the IFI was administered to faculty, administrators, trustees and a sample of junior and senior students. Analysis of the IFI responses allowed McGrath to present the following conclusions and/or inferences: 1.) There existed a genuine commitment by all groups to the principle that undergraduate education of superior qua- lity should have high priority among institutional purposes. (p. 9) 2.) The relative well-being of the in- stitutions and their innovative spirit suggest a positive relation between these two factors. (p. 16) 3.) The institutions exhibit wide dif- ferences on perceptions of governance as constituent groups within institutions also exhibit wide differences. Trustees typically perceive the institutions for which they have responsibility as being more democratically operated than do administrators, faculty or students. The administrators rank their institution next most favorably on this side. (p. 20) 4.) Self study and planning activities exist at all of the colleges indicating that the faculties have been given con- siderable responsibility for and typical- ly have been brought into planning activities. (p. 27) 5.) Trustees' high ratings of morale reveals the enthusiastic dedication of members of the board. They were involved in more than formal actions on fiscal matters, employing faculty, and official- ly granting degrees. (p. 44) 6.) Well-being seems to be related to a clear declaration of purposes, a definite relationship between these purposes on the one hand and the academic offerings, rules and regulations, expected standards of conduct on the other. (p. 50) 7.) Groups within colleges agreed in their perception of existing conditions regarding concern for social improvement (or lack of it) (p. 55). 8.) All institutions in the study offer atypically high opportunities for 92 students for intellectual and aesthetic stimulation and growth outside the formal exercises of the classroom. (p. 59) 9.) Most institutions have initiated some opportunities for continuing educa- tion in their respective communities. (p. 63) McGrath summarized that the IFI data gave evidence of insti- tutional well being of the institutions surveyed, especially with respect to esprit. This can reassure the members of the college communities represented in the sample that there is general satisfaction with existing programs and purposes; this recognition tends to "increase morale", which can be said to be well above average (p. 3). The McGrath study is helpful as an example for the NCCC study in that both include a survey of perceptions and atti- tudes of constituent groups toward select colleges. While the colleges he studied are not identical to a small/rural community college operating under a board of trustees ap- pointed by county legislators and the governor of the state of New York, the pressures of internal constituent groups (students, faculty, administrators and trustees) and the de- mands of common educational needs are found within a four year liberal arts college as well as within a small/rural community college. McGrath's use of the IFI's 11 scales to demonstrate relationships of attitude and perception to in- stitutional programs and purpose, is similar to the design of the NCCC study. By focusing on broad issues of institutional vitality for 14 liberal arts colleges, rather than on a limited analysis of the importance of findings for particular 93 aspects of constituent group perception of institutional functioning, the McGrath study is significantly broader in its emphasis, conclusions and generalizations than is this research effort. The interpretive logic and clarity of McGrath's report provide a good model for presenting large amounts of data without having data tables obscure the analysis. Summary This chapter has consisted of a review of literature relevant to major theoretical areas which provide a framework for this study. Areas included in the review were: com- munity college history, organizational theory, measurement, social structure, attitudes, perception, role, institutional functioning and goal attainment. In addition to establishing a conceptual framework, specific empirical studies on deter- mining the goals of colleges were discussed. Finally, re— search studies utilizing the Institutional Functioning Inventory (IFI) and other aspects of the characteristics or functions of institutions were presented. Brief reviews of studies that utilized the IFI were included to provide addi- tional perspective on this research at NCCC. An attempt has been made to emphasize those concepts which pertain to small/rural community colleges, and to Aac- count for the effects of size, multiple purposes, limited financial support and political pressure on college opera- tions. It is from this perspective that NCCC can be classi- 94 fied as an example, although unique, of a small/rural com- munity college. 95 CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN, METHODS, AND PROCEDURES This research study was conducted to determine if sta- tisically significant differences existed in the perceptions of institutional functioning dimensions between five consti- tuent groups of a select small/rural community college. The study also sought to assess the extent to which county resi- dency affected perception toward the institutional function- ing dimensions. In order to analyze and describe perceptions of the identified constituent groups (faculty, students, administrators, trustees, and legislators) concerning college functions, the research utilized the distribution of questionaires as the prime source for collecting data. This chapter describes the (1) research design, (2) population and sample, (3) questions and hypothesis, (4) instrumentation, (5) reliability and validity, (6) data collection, (7) treat- ment of data, (8) statistical procedures. A brief summary completes the chapter. Research Desigg This research study was conducted as an ex-post-facto descriptive study. Kerlinger (1973) defines ex-post-facto research as: Systematic inquiry in which the scientist does not direct control of independent variables because their manifestations have already occurred or because they are 96 inherently not manipulable. Inferences about relations among variables are made, without direct intervention, from con- comitant variations of independent and dependent variables. (p. 329) According to Kerlinger (1973), this type of research is by nature limited. However, Kerlinger believes that ex-post- facto research is important and needed within the social sciences and education because many research problems in education, "do not lend themselves to experimental inquiry" (p. 391-392). Sax (1968) saw the purpose of descriptive research as the describing of conditions as they exist. Armore (1966) maintains that descriptive statistics provide methods to organize, summarize and describe the population, behavior and phenomena studied. Isaac and Michael (1971), advocating that descriptive research can make contributions to social science knowledge, Offer the following purposes for survey research: a. to collect detailed factual informa- tion that describes existing phenomena. b. to identify problems or justify cur- rent conditions and practices. c. to make comparisons and evaluations. d. to determine what others are doing with similar problems or situations and benefit from their experience in making future plans and decisions. (p. 125 in Lima, 1985) The Population and Sample North Country Community College (NCCC) is a public com- munity oriented, post-secondary educational institution lo- cated in, and predominately serving the residents of, the northeast region of upstate New York. The college is 97 affiliated with the State University of New York (SUNY) and is accredited by the Middle States Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools. The college is sponsored by Essex and Franklin Counties and serves the largest geographic area (3,154 miles) of any SUNY two-year institution. Complete background on the college, SUNY, Essex and Franklin Counties is presented in Chapter I. The population of this study included: the members of the NCCC Board of Trustees (N-lO),.the members of the Essex County and Franklin County Boards of Legislature (N-25), all administrators of NCCC (N-20), all faculty of NCCC (N-74); a stratified 10% proportional random sample of all full and part-time matriculated students (1,000 full-time students). This was accomplished through the use of a Alpha listing of students by campus and place of residence (Asher, 1976). The returned questionnaires represented 85% of the total dis- tributed survey questionnaires and comprised the operational population of the research. The following table summarizes information on return rates for the administration of the Institutional Function- ing Inventory (IFI) Survey in this study: Table 3.1 Computation of I.F.I. Response Rates Size of # of Usable Z of Usable Constituent Group Population Returns Returns Faculty 74 53 72% Students 100 100 100% Administrators 20 16 80% Trustees 10 8 80% Legislators 25 18 72% Total 229 195 85% 98 The Qpestions and Null Hypotheses following research questions were investigated by this study: 1. Is there a difference of perceptions with regard to 2. The appropriate institutional functioning dimension 'among faculty, students, administrators, board of trustees and county legislators as measured by the Institutional Functioning Inventory Survey? Does an individual's permanent county of residence affect his/her perceptions of appropriate institu- tional functioning dimensions as measured by the Institutional Functioning Inventory Survey? following null hypotheses were developed for use in this study. A component was developed for each of the 11 dimensions for both null hypotheses. 110-1 0 ITO-2 c There are no significant differences of perception with regard to appropriate institutional function- ing dimensions as measured by the Institutional Functioning Inventory Survey among faculty, stu- dents, administrators, college trustees and county legislators. There are no significant differences of percep- tion with regard to appropriate institutional func-. tioning dimensions as measured by the Institutional Functioning Inventory Survey between select resi- dents of Essex and Franklin Counties. 99 Instrumentation This investigation utilized the Institutional Function- ing Inventory (IFI). The constructs for the IFI evolved from the work of Earl McGrath and his associates at Teachers College, Columbia University in the middle 19608. McGrath received a grant from the Kettering Foundation to develop an instrument which would act as a vehicle for analyzing the dynamics of institutional change while setting the foundation for future self—study (Hefferlin, 1969). Two conferences were held to analyze initial research efforts and find some consensus on purpose and definitions. Participants included the Educational Testing Service of Princeton, New Jersey, the Institute for Higher Education at Columbia University and a number of prominent scholars in the field (Peterson & Loye, 1967). The conference resulted in several important out— comes. First, an instrument, later to be called the IFI, would be developed which would analyze institutional vitality. Institutional vitality would operationally be defined as institutional functioning. Institutional functioning would focus on key concepts closely associated with institutional goals and objectives. These goals and objectives would serve as the "legitimization for an institu- tion's existence by various relevant assessors" Peterson et a1 (1983, p. 5). Second, 12 distinct dimensions were identi- fied which would ultimately be field tested to quantifiably measure the concept of institutional functioning. Although not operationally defined, these include the following: (1) 100 intellectual— aesthetic extra curriculum, (2) freedom, (3) policy of attracting human diversity, (4) commitment to im— provement of society, (5) concern for undergraduate learning, (6) democratic governance, (7) meeting local area needs, (8) concern for continuous evaluation, (9) concern for continuous planning, (10) concern for advancing knowledge, (11) institu- tional esprit, and (12) concern for continuous innovation. During the summer of 1967, operational definitions for the preceeding dimensions were developed by ETS staff. An experimental instrument was then constructed containing 240 items, 20 items for each of the 12 dimensions. The instru- ment was field tested in 67 institutions with a 58% return rate. An item analysis was conducted to maximize internal consistency and empirical independence of each dimension Peterson et al (1983). Biserial correlations were computed between each item, with item correlations below .25 being deleted. Eventually the instrument was revised to its pre- sent form consisting of 132 items, 12 items per dimension with 11 of the 12 original dimensions (see Appendix 3.0 for listing and definitions of the 11 dimensions. See Appendix 3.1 for the the 132 items comprising the instrument.) The first 72 items were answered by all individuals surveyed while the remaining 60 were not appropriate for students. The items are of two types: those to be answered by selecting from YES, NO, DON'T KNOW responses, and those to be answered by selecting from a four point scale of STRONGLY 101 AGREE, AGREE, DISAGREE AND STRONGLY DISAGREE. The YES, NO, DON"T KNOW items were "seemingly factual", e.g., "Students publish a literary magazine", while the other type of items were "essentially opinion", e.g., "A sense of tradition is so strong that it is difficult to modify established procedures or undertake new programs" Peterson et al (1983, p. 8). Each of the survey sections contains both types of items. In summary, the IFI in its present form is designed so that scores can be obtained on 11 dimensions, each dimension having 12 items. This means that non-student subjects can score on all of the 11 dimensions, but student subjects can score on the first six dimension only, based on the first 72 items. The 12 items comprising each dimension were mixed in the relevant sections. See Appendices 3.1 and 3.2 for de- tailed descriptions of the dimension and listings of the items. Title descriptions and letter code references are as follows: Institutional Functioning Inventory (IFI) Dimensions or Scales No. Code Description (Student and Non-Student) 1 IAE Intellectual-Aesthetic Extracurriculum 2 F Freedom 3 HD Human Diversity 4 IS Concern for the Improvement of Society 5 UL Concern for Undergraduate Learning 6 DG Democratic Governance (Non-Student) 7 MLN Meeting Local Needs 8 SP Self-study and Planning 9 AK Concern for Advancing Knowledge 10 CI Concern for Innovation 11 IE Institutional Esprit 102 Peterson et a1 (1983) warns that, "as a device for self study of an institution, scores on the IFI would have meaning only in relation to the institution's presumed roles and objectives, about which, to be sure, there may or may not be agreement" (p. 2). Thus, value judgments, such as what is good or bad, as perceived by different constituents of a given institution, need not necessarily be directly related to high or low scores. However, they point out that "it may be argued . . . that several of the IFI scales are relevant to the well being of any (institution) regardless of its mission" (p. 3). For example, scores of Self-study and Planning (SP) and Concern for Innovation (CI) might relate to an institution's willingness to engage in institutional self- renewal. Also, some minimum of morale, loyalty to the insti- tution, and mutual respect tapped by the Institutional Esprit (IE) scale would seem to be necessary to create and maintain sound environments for learning, and any post-secondary in- stitution should be expected to provide opportunities for intellectual and cultural stimulation outside the classroom (IAE scale). Insitutions granting doctorates with a research commit- ment might be expected to be rated high on Concern for Advancing Knowlege (AK) scale, while an institution showing low scores on the Concern for Undergraduate Learning (UL) scale should be concerned it if professes a commitment to undergraduate students. According to Peterson et al (1983), the IFI uses a 103 perceptual approach for assessment. Respondents report what 'their institution is like, e.g., what activities are going on and how people behave, as opposed to a self-report or other assessment methodology. The inventory was scored by assigning a "1" for a correct YES or NO response. DON'T KNOW was treated as an omit. Item responses STRONGLY AGREE- AGREE or STRONGLY DISAGREE-DISAGREE were scored as a "1" if it was the correct keyed answer. Scores are not calculated for any responder who omits more than four of the items in any scale and a special weighting is used to cater for omis- sions. There were 12 items for each dimension and a perfect score for any dimension was 12. Score distributions for survey respondents on each scale include those who received no score. The data report shows that the number of respondents who received no score is different from those who received a zero score. Those receiving no score were those who omitted more than four items, while those who received a zero score were respon- dents with four or fewer omissions, and therefore zero is a valid score. It is, of course, arguable whether the scales/dimen- sions described were the best factors which might be exam- ined. It may also be argued whether or not the IFI is a suitably valid instrument for measuring them. For these and related questions of reliability, the reader is referred to the last section of this chapter and the Technical Manual for the Institutional Functioning Inventoyy, (Peterson, et 104 al, 1983). All that is being said here is that the IFI was used and the results and discussion relate to the context and limitations which this fact produces. Several points should be noted. Peterson et al,(1983) state that the IFI, "is less appropriate for students, who are presumably less informed about the workings of the col- lege and hence less able to give meaningful responses - a presumption increasingly open to question" (p.12). For this reason the students were scored on only the first six scales. Lack of information about the IFI survey questions is likely to result in omissions or DON'T KNOW responses to the factual items. Reliability and Validity Construct validity determines whether an instrument adequately measures what it was intended to measure (Ameri- can Psychological Association, 1966). Three procedures were utilized to determine construct validity. In the first procedure, several institutions were selected where subjec- tive evidence indicated whether appropriate dimensions would either be high or low (e.g., community colleges being high on the dimension of meeting local needs). This consistently was the case. In addition, between group ratings were ana— lyzed to ascertain if there were any logical differences (e.g., ratings on the democratic governance dimension be- tween administrators, faculty and students). Once again, this was consistently the case Peterson et al (1983). In the second procedure, correlational data was generated and 105 was analyzed between IFI dimension and a previously devel- oped instrument with established construct validity. The instrument utilized was the College and University Environ- ment Scales (Pace, 1963). Data indicated high significant correlations not only between select dimensions of both instruments, but between groups with identical character- istics (e.g., CUES Awareness dimension and IFI Freedom di- mension with faculty and student subgroups). In the third procedure, a multi-grouped, multi-scale matrix was employed (Campbell and Fiske, 1959). Respondents to the IFI were broken into appropriate sub—groups: faculty, students, and administrators. Inter-group and between-group correlations were generated to ascertain if there was: agreement between groups on the same dimension; more agreement among different groups on the same dimension than on different dimensions; and higher within-group agreement than between-group agree- ment on the same dimensions Peterson et al (1983). The data generated indicated that appropriate significant correla- tions existed (see Appendix 3.1 for item/scale biserial correlations). Therefore, based upon the three previously indicated procedures, identified by Peterson et al, (1983) the IFI has strong construct validity. The concept of reliability "refers to the consistency of a person's scores on a series of measurements and indi- cates how much confidence can be placed in such obtained scores" Peterson et al (1983, p. 15). With regards to the IFI, reliabilities were determined not on individual, but on 106 group perceptions. Thus, scale homogeneity is an important factor. Peterson et al (1983) states: The internal consistency reliabilities for the IFI are coefficient alphas based on group means...The faculty alphas range from a low of .86 for the Self Study and Planning scale to a high of .96. Relia- bilities for students are of the same general magnitude as those of faculty. Because the error variance is slight when defined in terms of homogeneity of these perceptions, the IFI dimensions are quite reliable when defined in terms of internal consistency. (p.17) For additional information, refer to Appendix 3.2 for the IFI coefficient alpha reliabilities. Data Collection The data for the research were collected at NCCC in upstate New York and the Essex County and Franklin County Boards of Legislature offices in Elizabethtown and Malone, New York, respectively. The data were collected between September 1, 1985 and October 25, 1985. The questionnaires were administered in face-to-face contact situations with students, college trus— tees and county legislators. In this direct contact, the researcher was able to personally present the questionnaire to the respondents, explaining the significance and purpose of the study, clarifying points, answering questions the participants asked and talking about the confidentiality with which the answers would be treated. Initial contact with NCCC faculty and administrators (the other two con- stituent groups in this study) occurred on September 19, 1985. At that time, the President of NCCC, 107 Mr. David W. Petty, distributed the IFI Surveys with a cover memo explaining the significance, purpose, and con— fidentiality of the survey. Self adressed envelopes were included for return purposes along with explicit directions for completing the survey. Copies of these statements are included in Appendix 3.3. Follow-up requests for completion were sent at two-week intervals through October 20, 1985. By October 20, 1985, of 229 possible surveys, 195 had been returned. Thus, a return of 85% had been attained. The final step in the data collection process was to package all returns of the IFI Surveys and mail them to the Educational Testing Service in Berkley, California, for tabulation and statistical summary. These procedures are described in the following section. The IFI Survey forms were mailed to ETS on October 28, 1985 and the summary data report was received December 1, 1985. Treatment of Data Institutional Functioning Inventory (IFI) data is tabulated and summarized by the ETS into a report, called the Summary Data Report, which is designed to array the response ratings for the 11 dimensions/scales in a form that permits comparison between groups of respondents. The data is summarized by groups of respondents, not by individuals. In this study, the respondents were grouped by constituency; e.g., faculty, students, administrators, trustees, county legislators. 108 The study was designed to survey total population of the faculty, administrators, trustees and legislators con- stituent groups. A stratified 10% proportional random sam- ple by alpha listing of all full-time and part-time matricu- lated students by campus and place of residence was utilized (Asher, 1976). A 702 return rate by designated constituent groups was sought, which experienced researchers on college campuses will recognize as a respectable return rate. All of the findings of this study, therefore, should be con- sidered generally descriptive. The author's conclusions were careful and cautious ones, drawing upon other research findings when appropriate. Statistical Procedure; A variety of descriptive statistics (e.g., means, standard deviations, percentages, and frequency distribu- tions) were generated and displayed for the total population and by individual constituency group for appropriate insti- tutional functioning dimensions. One-way ANOVAS were utilized to ascertain if signifi- cant differences exist between respective constituency groups on appropriate institutional functioning dimensions for hypothesis #1. The dependent variable was each of the 11 institu- tional functioning dimensions. The independent variable was the appropriate sub-group constituency. There were three components of the ANOVA procedure. Total sums of squares, 109 between-groups sums of squares and within-groups sums Of squares were generated utilizing an SPSS statistical package (Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner & Brent, 1975). The ANOVA summary table displayed the between-grOup and within-group sums of squares, degrees of freedom, mean squares and F statistic (Asher, 1976). The significance level employed was at p '3 .05. When the F statistic was significant, a Scheffee A Posteriori procedure was generated to ascertain where the significant mean differences existed between con- stituencies (Glass & Stanley, 1970). T-tests were used to ascertain if significant differ- ences exist between respondents from Franklin Couny and respondents from Essex County (Franklin and Essex Counties comprise the service area for NCCC) on appropriate institu- tional functioning dimensions for hypothesis #2. The depend- ent variable was each of the 11 institutional functioning dimensions. The independent variable was the appropriate individual's place of residence. Appropriate tests for homo- geneity of variance were employed in order to determine whether to use a separate or pooled variance t-model. The level of significance was 93.05. While the 11 dimensions of the IFI have strong construct validity and high reliabilities, the initial authors of the instruments felt five dimensions were inappropriate for stu- dent responses. They are: Meeting Local Needs, Self Study and Planning, Concern for Advancing Knowledge, Concern for Innovation, and Institutional Esprit. 110 Thus, there are two IFI instruments. The first is specifically for students and only includes 72 questions measuring the first six dimension. The second is for other constituency groups and includes 132 questions measuring all 11 dimensions. Therefore, this investigation utilized ap- propriate statistical procedures for all constituency groups on the first six dimensions. The analysis of the remaining five dimensions did not include student perceptions. Finally,, two types of item formats were employed in the IFI for scoring purposes. The first was factual with a YES, NO, or DON'T KNOW answer required. The second was opinion with a STRONGLY AGREE, AGREE, DISAGREE, or STRONGLY DISAGREE answer required. Appropriate numeric designations were applied for respective responses. Summary In this chapter, the research procedures were used to analyze and describe perceptions of constituent groups to- ward the IFI dimension. Thus far, the chapters have presented procedural steps conceptualized and undertaken in conducting the research. The principal procedures adopted dealt with ex-post—facto research. The next chapter will present the data analysis and findings of this research study. 111 CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA This chapter contains a detailed analysis of data, organized and presented through the display of tables. This section portrays various tables concerning perceptions of the respondents by respective constituent and county groups with regard to the 11 dimensions of the Institutional Func- tioning Inventory (IFI) questionnaire. The tables will display the various mean scores, standard deviations, standard errors, ANOVAs, where appropriate, and post-hoe comparisons, for each respondent group for each of the 11 dimensions. Also, means, standard deviations, and .E‘ statistics are shown for perceptions of the respondents by county on appropriate IFI dimensions. Tables will be shown separately for each of the 11 dimensions. Mean scores were calculated based on a 12-point scale. The descriptive statistics for each dimension are pre- sented in summarizing form. The statistics are calculated directly from the responses to the items of the IFI. 112 Perceptions of the Five Constituent Groups Concerning the Institutional Functioning_InventoryyDimensions Research question Number One asked: Is there a difference of perception with regard to appropriate institutional func- tioning dimensions between faculty, stu- dents, administrators, board of trustees and county legislators as measured by the Institutional Functioning Inventory Sur— vey? Testing of Hypotheses The first null hypothesis of the study states: Ho-l. There are no significant differences of perceptions with regard to appropriate institutional functioning dimensions as measured by the Institutional Functioning Survey between faculty, students, admini- strators, college trustees and county legislators. 113 Ho-la: Intellectual-Aesthetic Extracurriculum (Dimension I) This dimension refers to the availability of activities and opportunities for intellectual and aesthetic stimulation outside the classroom at North Country Community College (NCCC). Table 4.1A Mean Scores, Standard Deviations, and Standard Errors by Respondent Group for Dimension I (Intellectual-Aesthetic Extracurriculum) GROUP N M S.D. S.E. Faculty 53 2.98 2.01 .28 Students 100 3.32 2.25 .22 Administrators 16 4.50 2.03 .51 Trustees 8 5.25 3.49 1.23 Legislators 18 4.22 2.53 .60 Table 4.13 Analysis of Variance for Respondent Groups for Dimension I (Intellectual-Aesthetic Extracurriculum) Source SS df MS F p Between Groups 67.37 4 16.34 3.31 .012 Within Groups 967.35 190 5.09 Total 1,034.72 194 114 Table 4.1C Complex Contrast of Faculty vs. Administrators and Trustees for Responses to Dimension I (Intellectual-Aesthetic Extracurriculum) Estimated Test Comparison Contrast Standard Statistic Deviation Faculty vs. Admini- strators & Trustees 1.893 .579 3.27* * p<.05 There was a significant difference between perceptions of constituent groups with regard to Dimension I: §.(4,190) - 3.31, p$.05. However, simple pairwise comparisons of group means were not significant as indicated by the Scheffee post-hoc simple contrast. Further analysis re- vealed that a significant difference existed when the post- hoc complex contrast measured the perceptions of faculty versus the perceptions of the average of administrators and trustees: 3.27, pfi.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis was retained when simple contrasts were conducted, but was re- jected when a complex contrast was performed. Thus, in combination, trustees and administrators perceive more de- liberate institutional efforts to afford opportunities for intellectual and aesthetic stimulation outside the classroom than do the faculty. 115 Ho-lb: Freedomy(Dimension II) This dimension has to do with academic freedom and freedom in the personal lives of those who make up the NCCC community. Table 4.2A Mean Scores, Standard Deviations, and Standard Errors by Respondent Group for Dimension II (Freedom) Group N M S.D. S.E. Faculty 53 6.96 2.32 .32 Students 100 6.59 1.86 .19 Administrators 16 7.00 2.13 .53 Trustees _ 8 8.63 1.60 .57 Legislators 18 6.50 1.62 .38 Table 4.2B Analysis of Variance for Respondent Groups for Dimension II (Freedom) Source SS df MS F p Between Groups 34.71 4 8.68 2.19 .072 Within Groups 754.49 190 3.97 Total 789.20 194 116 There was no significant difference between perceptions of constituent groups with regard to Dimension II: ‘§(4,190) a 2.19, 'p<.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis was retained.. Thus, constituent groups did not differ in their perception regarding the degree of academic and personal freedom for individuals in the campus community at NCCC. 117 Ho-lc: Human Diversity (Dimension III) This dimension has to do with the degree to which the faculty and students at NCCC are heterogeneous in their backgrounds and present attitudes. Table 4.3A Mean Scores, Standards Deviations, and Standard Errors by Respondent Group for Dimension III .(Human Diversity) GROUP N M S.D. S.E. Faculty 53 6.08 2.20 .30 Students 100 5.05 1.80 .18 Administrators 16 6.00 1.79 .45 Trustees 8 5.88 1.73 .61 Legislators 18 6.17 1.50 .35 Table 4.3B Analysis of Variance for Respondent Groups for Dimension III (Human Diversity) Source SS df MS F p Between Groups 50.56 4 12.64 3.54 .008 Within Groups 677.82 190 3.57 Total 728.38 194 118 Table 4.3C Significant Pairwise Contrast for Responses to Dimension III (Human Diversity) Estimated Test Comparison Contrast Standard Statistic Deviation Faculty vs. Students 1.026 .321 3.20* * p<.05 There was a significant difference between perceptions of constituent groups with regard to Dimension III: 'F (4,190) - 3.54, pfi.05. A Scheffee simple pairwise post-hoc was significant: - 3.20, pfi.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypo- thesis. Thus, the faculty group perceived NCCC as having more diversity with respect to ethnic and social back- grounds, political and religious attitudes and personal tastes and styles than did the student group. 119 Ho-ld: Concern for the Improvement of Society (Dimension IV) This dimension refers to a desire among people at NCCC to apply their knowledge and skills in solving social prob- lems and prompting social change. Table 4.4A Mean Scores, Standard Deviations, and Standard Errors by Respondent Group for Scale IV (Concern for Improvement of Society) GROUP N M S.D. S.E. Faculty 53 3.49 2.29 .31 Students 100 4.97 1.95 .19 Administrators 16 4.13 2.53 .63 Trustees 8 3.75 1.48 .53 Legislators 18 5.39 42.33 .55 Table 4.4B Analysis of Variance for Respondent Groups for Dimension IV (Concern for Improvement of Society) Source SS df MS F p Between Groups 97.03 4 24.26 5.41 .0004 Within Groups 851.68 190 4.48 Total 948.72 194 120 Table 4.4C Significant Pairwise Contrast for Responses to Dimension IV (Concern for Improvement of Society) EStimated Test Comparison Contrast Standard Statistic Deviation Faculty vs. Students -l.483 .360 4.11* Faculty vs. Legislators —1.90 .578 . . 3.29* *,p<.05 There was a significant difference between perceptions of constituent groups with regard to Dimension IV: ‘F (4,190) - 5.41,‘p<.05. A Scheffee simple pairwise post-hoc was significant: - 4.11, pfi.05 for the faculty—student comparison and : . S(.95), . 3.29, p<.05 for the faculty- legislator comparison. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis. Thus, the students and legislators perceived the people at NCCC as having a stronger desire to apply their knowledge and skills in solving social problems and prompting social change than did the faculty. 121 Ho-le: Concern for Undergraduate Learning (Dimension V) This dimension describes the degree to which NCCC - in its structure, function and professional commitment of faculty - emphasizes undergraduate teaching and learning. Table 4.5A Mean Scores, Standard Deviations, and Standard Errors by Respondent Group for Dimension V (Concern for Undergraduate Learning) GROUP N M S.D. S.E. Faculty 53 8.36 2.03 .28 Students 100 8.11 2.02 .20 Administrators 16 8.94 2.02 .50 Trustees 8 8.50 2.14 .76 Legislators 18 7.33 2.72 .64 Table 4.5B Analysis of Variance for Respondent Groups for Dimension V (Concern for Undergraduate Learning) Source SS df MS F p Between Groups 25.06 4 6.26 1.42 .228 Within Groups 836.97 190 4.40 Total 861.98 194 122 There was no significant difference between percep- tions of the constituent groups with regard to Dimension V: .§(4,190) - 5.41, .p<.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis was retained. Thus, cOnstituent groups did not differ in their perceptions of concern for undergraduate learning at NCCC. 123 Ho-lf: Democratic Governance (Dimension VI) This dimension reflects the extent to which individ- uals in the NCCC community, who are directly affected by a decision, have the opportunity to participate in making the decision. Table 4.6A Mean Scores, Standard Deviations, and Standard Errors by Respondent Group for Dimension VI (Democratic Governance) GROUP N M S.D. S.E. Faculty 53 7.98 3.34 .46 Students 100 7.801 2.67 .27 Administrators 16 8.38 3.12 .78 Trustees 8 6.50 2.56 .91 Legislators 18 7.00 2.11 .50 Table 4.6B Analysis of Variance for Respondent Groups for Dimension VI (Democratic Governance) Source SS df MS F p Between Groups 31.88 4 7.97 .97 .423 Within Groups 1,554.73 190 8.18 Total 1,586.62 194 124 There was no significant difference between percep- tions of constituent groups with regard to Dimension VI: £(4,190) a .97, pfl.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis was retained. Thus, constituent groups did not differ in their perceptions of involvement in decision making at NCCC. 125 HO-lg: Meeting Local Needs (Dimension VII) This dimension refers to an institutional emphasis at NCCC on providing educational and cultural opportunities for all adults in the surrounding area, as well as meeting needs for training manpower on the part of local businesses and government agencies. Table 4.7A Mean Scores, Standard Deviations, and Standard Errors by Respondent Group for Dimension VII (Meeting Local Needs) GROUP N M S.D. S.E. Faculty 53 9.72 2.67 .37 Administrators 16 9.13 3.14 .78 Trustees 8 9.38 1.51 .53 Legislators 18 8.78 2.60 .61 Table 4.78 Analysis of Variance for Respondent Groups for Dimension VII (Meeting Local Needs) Source SS df MS F p Between Groups 13.50 3 4.50 .63 .596 Within Groups 647.49 91 7.11 Total 660.99 94 126 There was no significant difference between percep- tions of constituent groups with regard to Dimension VII: l§(3,91) a .63, pfi.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis was retained. Thus, constituent groups did not differ in their perceptions of NCCC's institutional emphasis on providing educational and cultural opportunities for adults in the sur- rounding community, as well as fulfilling the local needs for trained manpower. 127 Ho-lh: Self Studyyand P1anningy(Dimension VIII) This dimension has to do with the importance NCCC leaders attach to continuous long-range planning for the total institution, and to institutional research needed in formulating and revising plans. Table 4.8A Mean Scores, Standard Deviations, and Standard Errors by Respondent Group for Dimension VIII (Self Study and Planning) GROUP N M S.D. S.E. Faculty 53 6.64 3.02 .41 Administrators 16 6.69 2.65 .66 Trustees 8 6.38 2.62 .92 Legislators 18 5.06 2.26 .53 Table 4.8B Analysis of Variance for Respondent Groups for Dimension VIII (Self Study and Planning) Source SS df MS F p Between Groups 36.44 3 12.15 1.55 .209 Within Groups 714.45 91 7.85 Total 750.88 94 128 There was no significant difference between the per- ceptions of constituent groups with regard to Dimension VIII: ‘§(3,19) - 1.55, pfl.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis was retained. Thus, constituent groups did not differ in their perceptions of the importance attached to continuous long range planning by NCCC leaders. 129 Ho-li: Concern for Advancing_Knowledge (Dimension IX) This dimension reflects the degree to which NCCC - in its structure, function and professional commitment of faculty - emphasizes research and scholarship aimed at extending the scope of human knowledge. Table 4.9A Mean Scores, Standard Deviations, and Standard Errors by Respondent Group for Dimension IX (Concern for Advancing Knowledge) GROUP N M S.D. S.E. Faculty 53 2.21 1.70 .23 Administrators 16 2.81 2.23 .56 Trustees 8 3.13 1.13 .40 Legislators 18 3.17 1.72 .41 Table 4.9B Analysis of Variance for Respondent Groups for Dimension IX (Concern for Advancing Knowledge) Source SS df MS F p Between Groups 16.78 3 5.59 1.79 .155 Within Groups 284.53 91 3.13 Total 301.31 94 130 There was no significant difference between percep- tions of the constituent groups with £13.91) - 1.79, retained. Thus, ‘p<.05. Therefore, constituent groups perceptions of institutional concern ledge at NCCC. 131 regard to Dimension IX: the null hypothesis was did not differ in their for a advancing know- Ho-lj: Concern for Innovation (Dimension X) This dimension refers to NCCC's institutionalized commitment to experimentation with new ideas for educational practice. Table 4.10A Mean Scores, Standard Deviations, and Standard Errors by Respondent Group for Dimension X (Concern for Innovation) GROUP N M S.D. S.E. Faculty 53 6.85 2.64 .36 Administrators 16 7.31 2.09 .52 Trustees 8 5.88 2.70 .95 Legislators 18 6.94 1.95 .46 Table 4.10B Analysis of Variance for Respondent Groups for Dimension X (Concern for Innovation) Source SS df MS F p Between Groups 11.17 3 3.72 .62 .602 Within Groups 544.05 91 5.98 Total 555.22 94 132 There was no significant difference between percep- tions of the constituents groups with regard to Dimension X: .§(3,91) - .62, ‘p<.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis was retained. Thus, constituent groups did not differ in their perceptions of NCCC's institutionalized commitment to experi- mentation with new ideas for educational practice. 133 Ho-lk: Institutional Esprit (Dimension XI) This dimension refers to a sense of shared purpose and high morale among constituent groups at NCCC. Table 4.11A Mean Scores, Standard Deviations, and Standard Errors by Respondent Group for Dimension XI (Institutional Esprit) GROUP N M S.D. S.E. Faculty 53 9.68 2.82 .39 Administrators 16 8.63 3.34 .84 Trustees 8 10.75 1.04 .37 Legislators 18 10.00 1.85 .44 Table 4.11B Analysis of Variance for Respondent Groups for Dimension XI (Institutional Esprit) Source SS df MS F p Between Groups 28.74 3 9.58 1.35 .264 Within Groups 646.80 91 7.11 Total 675.54 94 PTThere was no significant difference between percep- tions of the constituent groups with regard to Dimension XI: £(3,91) - 1.35, pK.OS. Therefore, the null hypothesis was retained. Thus, constituent groups did not differ in their perceptions of the level of institutional esprit at NCCC. 134 Tables 4.12A through E display the group mean scores for the 11 dimensions. Table 4.12E displays and compares group mean scores. 135 Score 1'2. '38 m 1:: G Swag .L‘A. l .BU Table 4 . 12A NCCC - IFI Faculty Group Mean Scores ”23H ... .- ~ dultu w .f “g.§ if; ‘1 g. “T. b. I.“ *1 <9". 'I» W‘i‘ p P 2.96 8.89 M H 4 5 E ? Dimensions 136 In 11 Table 4.12B Nccc_- IFI Students Group Mean Scores Stars 12.98 ‘.udent [fl 18.88 8.88 r: I s E. .L. I :3! F cl- 2.88 C' 1313 6.89 7’. 13 I"? a. m B F LL' ?.BB 1 F 41 Lgl t. 11.66 1.89 2.83 3.133 4.39 -.Jo Dimensions 137 113. an f-J 9. BB .616 .33 .86 .08 '3." 05¢ Table 4.12C NCCC - IFI Administrators Group Mean Scores Dimensions 138 FF! mini rater-s- A / l g If I l '1 '3' //f "I "\l 'f .5 . l\v? .. ..J__.J__Ir 2 .3 4 5 6 "‘ E? 1&3 11 I a 3 E O H l .lfl M n .86 m 5.68 9.99 Table 4.12D NCCC - IFI Trustees Group Mean Scores Dimensions 139 Thuste )P i "A t . i ‘s \\ It 'A [If X, .. I, f f y 2 4 5 s P 3 16 11 0| In" fl H - m 3 ISI 0 18.98 2.38 Table 4 . 12E NCCC - IFI Legislators Group Mean Scores 4+ CI '5 [A la '4- ”'41:. “I‘m 1 lb. (4 4 5 z. 7’ Dimensions If: "‘0 140 13 11 Score 12 18 Ch. M Table 4 . 12F NCCC - IFI Group Comparison Mean Scores Dimensions 141 I ft .I I" a". ,l "I! 3’5"" '1' .1. :11" 'l ‘ f ' ' 1 " I". i {I}! [J n. .E K . ' ff :- '. ' 5;"I‘ I‘ . ,: "I. *1 i" . ~ . “ I" ‘1' . 5 i? "j" r .' , f 4" ' "I’ll ' " - .I( l 3.1". . v- " "' '- ' ’r f I! k... l- ... .(J 1‘ 1;. 1", | 0' . .' '5‘... 'I, f; ‘ r "I I i If (I ,0 '3 J .55. .x]. J I): '|. . ," '- J . ,— . v + , V A '1 t J" -' . 3;! ‘ 3 K '7 '3 M 'I In. -' .'; ' s 9' ' E XE! ,- ' - . . ’ '. .‘ I \ : n ' j. ' ; I" II' If i" 5,." LA "I." 3; y t:. U1 H '1 Ii. ', Kc! "I1 3' at- T "w in ' I" L} ,I III "In": I" x u' 1. 2 3 5 O i? 3 9 18 ll Research question Number Two asked: Does an individual's permanent county of residence affect his/her perceptions of appropriate insti- tutional functioning dimensions as measured by the Institutional Functioning Inventory Survey? The second null hypothesis of the study states: Ho-2: There are no significant differences of perception with regard to appropriate institutional func- tioning dimensions as measured by the Institu- tional Functioning Inventory Survey between select residents of Essex County and select residents of Franklin County. 142 Ho-2a: Intellectual-Aesthetic Extracurriculum (Dimension I) This dimension refers to the availability of activities and opportunities for intellectual and aesthetic stimulation outside the classroom at NCCC. Table 4.13 Means, Standard Deviations, Standard Errors and E-Test E and p values for Dimension I (Intellectual-Aesthetic-Extracurriculum) GROUP N M S.D. S.E. t p Franklin 92 3.34 2.22 .23 Essex 97 3.63 2.40 .24 -087 039 There was no significant difference between perceptions of Essex County residents and Franklin County residents with regard to Dimension 1: £(187) = -871,‘p<.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis was retained. Thus, no significant difference of perception existed between Essex County resi- dents and Franklin County residents with regard to deliberate institutional effort to afford opportunities for intellectual and aesthetic stimulation outside the classroom at NCCC. 143 Ho-2b: Freedom (Dimension II) This dimension has to do with academic freedom and freedom in personal lives of those who make up the NCCC community. Table 4.14 Means, Standard Deviations, Standard Errors, and E-Test 5 and p values for Dimension II (Freedom) GROUP N M S.D. S.E. t p Franklin 92 6.73 1.98 .21 Essex 97 6.95 2.02 .21 ‘076 .45 There was no significant difference between perceptions of Essex County residents and Franklin County residents with regard to Dimension II: 5(187) a 76, p<.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis was retained. Thus, no significant difference of perception existed between Essex County resi- dents and Franklin Counties residents with regard to the degree of academic and personal freedom for individuals in the campus community at NCCC. 144 Ho-2c: Human Diversityy(Dimension III) This dimension has to do with the degree to which the faculty and student at NCCC are heterogeneous in their back- grounds and present attitudes. Table 4.15 Means, Standard Deviations, Standard Errors and g-Test.£ and p values for Dimension III (Human Diversity) GROUP N M S.D. S.E. t p Franklin 92 5.70 1.91 .20 Essex 97 5.44 1.93 .20 .90 .37 There was no significant difference between perceptions of Essex County residents and Franklin County residents with regard to Dimension III:V £(187) a 90, lp<.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis was retained. Thus, no significant difference of perception existed between Essex County resi- dents and Franklin County residents with regard to the diver- sity of ethnic and social backgrounds, political and reli- gious attitudes, and personal tastes and styles at NCCC. 145 Ho-2d: Concern for the Improvement of Society (Dimension IV) This dimension refers to a desire among people at NCCC to apply their knowledge and skills in solving social prob- lems and prompting social change. Table 4.16 Means, Standard Deviations, Standard Errors, and ‘E-Test E and p values for Dimension IV (Concern for Improvement of Society) GROUP N M S.D. S.E. t p Franklin 92 4.61 2.13 .22 Essex 97 4.42 2.30 .23 .58 .56 There was no significant difference between perceptions of Easex County residents and Franklin County residents with regard to Dimension IV: .£(187) = -87, p<.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis was retained. Thus, - no significant difference of perception existed between Essex County resi- dents and Franklin County residents with regard to the desire among people at NCCC to apply their knowledge and skills in solving social problems and prompting social change. 146 Ho-2e: Concern Or Undergraduate Learningy(Dimension V) This dimension describes the degree to which NCCC - in its structure, function and professional commitment of faculty - emphasizes undergraduate teaching and learning. Table 4.17 Means, Standard Deviations, Standard Errors, and ErTest g and p values for Dimension V (Concern for Undergraduate Learning) GROUP ‘ . N M S.D. S.E. t p Franklin 92 8.40 2.07 .22 Essex 97 8.04 2.11 .21 1.19 .24 There was no significant difference between perceptions of Essex County residents and Franklin County residents with regard to Dimension V: ‘£(187) = 1.19,,p<.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis was retained. Thus, no significant difference of perception existed between Essex County resi- dents and Franklin County residents with regard to concern for undergraduate learning at NCCC. 147 Ho-2f: Democratic Governance (Dimension VI) This dimension reflects the extent to which individuals in the NCCC community, who are directly affected by a deci- sion, have the opportunity to participate in making the decision. Table 4.18 Means, Standard Deviations, Standard Errors, and yfTest E and‘p values for Dimension VI (Democratic Governance) GROUP N M S.D. S.E. t p Franklin 92 8.09 2.55 .27 Essex 97 7.44 3112 .32 1.50 .052 There was no significant difference between perceptions of Essex County residents and Franklin County residents with regard to Dimension VI: ‘£(187) - 1.50,,p<.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis was retained. Thus, no significant difference of perception existed between Essex County residents and Franklin County residents with regard to involvement in decision making at NCCC. 148 Ho-2g: Meeting Local Needs (Dimension V;;) This dimension refers to an institutional emphasis at NCCC on providing educational and cultural opportunities for all adults in the surrounding area, as well as meeting needs for training manpower on the part of local businesses and government agencies. Table 4.19 Means, Standard Deviations, Standard Errors, and ‘EfTest.£ and p values for Dimension VII (Meeting Local Needs) GROUP N M S.D. S.E. t p Franklin 92 9.93 2.13 .33 Essex 97 9.24 2.67 .38 1.34 .19 There was no significant difference between perceptions of Essex County residents and Franklin County residents with regard to Dimension VII: ‘£(187) - 1.34, pK.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis was retained. Thus, no significant difference of perception existed between Essex County residents and Franklin County residents with regard to NCCC's institutional emphasis on providing educational and cultural opportunities for adults in the surrounding community, as well as fulfilling the local needs for trained manpower. 149 Ho-Zh: Self-Studygnd Planning:(Dimension VIII) This dimension has to do with the importance college leaders attach to continuous long-range planning for the total institution, and to institutional research needed in formulating and revising plans. Table 4.20 Means, Standard Deviations, Standard Errors, and ‘E-Test E and‘p values for Dimension VIII (Self-Study and Planning) GROUP N M S.D. S.E. t p Franklin 41 6.37 2.76 .43 Essex 50 6.24 2.83 .40 .21 .83 There was no significant difference between perceptions of Essex County residents and Franklin County residents with regard to Dimension VIII: .£(89) - .21, pfi.05. Thus, no significant difference existed between the residents of Franklin and Essex County with respect to the concern for Self-Study and Planning. Therefore, the null hypothesis was retained. 150 Ho-Zi: Concern for AdvancingyKnowledge (Dimension IX) This dimension reflects the degree to which NCCC — in its structure, function, and professional commitment of faculty emphasizes research and scholarship aimed at extend- ing the scope of human knowledge. Table 4.21 Means, Standard Deviations, Standard Errors, and ggTest g and p values for Dimension IX (Concern for Advancing Knowledge) GROUP N M S.D. S.E. t p Franklin 92 2.15 1.46 .23 Essex 97 2.84 1.98 .28 -1.92 .058 There was no significant difference between perceptions of Essex County residents and Franklin County residents with regard to Dimension IX: ‘£(187) a -1.92, ‘p<.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis was retained. Thus, no significant dif- ference of perception existed between Essex County residents and Franklin County residents with regard to institutional concern for advancing knowledge at NCCC. 151 Ho-2j: Concern for Innovation (Dimension X) This dimension refers to NCCC's institutionalized commitment to eXperimentation with new ideas for educational practice. Table 4.22 Means, Standard Deviations, Standard Errors, and ‘E-Test g and p values for Dimension X (Concern for Innovation) GROUP N M S.D. S.E. t p Franklin 92 6.56 2.56 .40 Essex 97 7.06 2.38 .34 -.96 .34 There was no significant difference between perceptions of Essex County residents and Franklin County residents with regard to Dimension X: ‘£(187) = -.96, p<.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis was retained. Thus, no significant dif- ference of perception existed between Essex County residents and Franklin County residents with regard to NCCC's institu- tionalized commitment to experimentation with new ideas for educational practice. 152 Ho-2k: Institutional Esprit (Dimension XI) This dimension refers to a sense of shared purpose and high morale among constituent groups at NCCC. Table 4.23 Means, Standard Deviations, Standard Errors, and ‘E-Test g and p values for Dimension XI (Institutional E8prit) GROUP N M S.D. S.E. t p Franklin 92 10.02 2.09 .33 Essex 97 9.48 3.01 .42 1.01 .31 There was no significant difference between perceptions of Essex County residents and Franklin County residents with regard to Dimension XI: 3(187) = 1.01, p<.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis was retained. Thus, no significant difference of perception existed between Essex County residents and Franklin County residents with regard to the level of institutional esprit at NCCC. 153 Tables 4.24A and 4.24B display Franklin County and Essex County Mean Scores. Table 4.24C displays and compares County Mean Scores. 154 m n O 18 M Table 4.24A NCCC - IFI COUNTY SUMMARY MEAN SCORES '—Frank1i Lu” E sex C ountg H Coun ty 5 f F 9 F '18 . 11 Dimensions 155 2.621 IEI I LEI fiI E Table 4 . 24B NCCC - IFI ssex County Mean Scores I"""'E sea: Countg a I.“ -......- .... I f I v1 if A" \ - A; a? 47 § iKH-§ J p F A. I I K I d IA Is If I ’a Ha I W; 'Ps § " A ng I I' a I" 3 I. i I l 2 3 d1 5 5 I? S 9 13 11 Dimensions 156 Ilfi O 1 I-f If] I IE: IS: a Table 4.24C ‘NCCC - IFI FRANKLIN COUNTY MEAN SCORES — Fr ard-:1 i r. Countg f: I-'- HI 5 0‘. T" Dimensions 157 CO '43 ll Summary This chapter contained a detailed analysis of. data, organized and presented through a display of tables. The data was collected through a survey questionnaire (the Insti- tutional Functioning Inventory Survey). The survey question- naire was administered by the researcher in face-to-face Contact with college students, faculty, administrators, trustees, and county legislators of North Country Community College in New York State. The tables enclosed in this chapter display various mean scores, standard deviations, standard errors, ANOVAS, and post-hoc comparisons, where appropriate, for each respondent group for each of the appropriate 11 dimensions. (Students were excluded in dimensions VII through XI) Also, means, standard deviations and E-statistics were shown for percep- tions of the respondents by county on appropriate IFI dimen- sions. Tables were shown separately for each of the 11 dimensions. The descriptive statistics and mean scores for each dimension were presented in summarizing form. The statistics were calculated from the responses to the items of the IFI. 158 Chapter V Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations In this chapter, a summary of the study is presented including conclusions and recommendations for further re- search. It features the following sections: 1) A brief review of the study, 2) Summary of the findings, 3) Con- clusions and discussion, and 4) Recommendations. A Brief Review of the Study In a small/rural community college such as North Country Community College (NCCC), institutional self study hés become an important source of data for decision making and management of limited human and fiscal resources. In NCCC's published mission statement, there is reflected a great responsibility for helping to solve existing social problems, meeting the local needs of its service area, and assisting in the realization of the potentiality and aspira- tions of students from all walks of life and economic back— grounds. Thus a constituent oriented, utilitarian insti— tution of higher education is needed to meet the diverse needs and demands of Franklin and Essex Counties college students. The mission and purpose of small/rural community col- leges may have become so complex and costly that one must ask: should any small/rural college attempt to do all things? 159 McGrath (in Peterson et a1 1983), maintains that "some specialization of functions is indispensable if available resources are to be most economically used and if the needs of various kinds of students are to be effectively met." He posits that more must be known about colleges than is typi- cally revealed through research of institutional goals, publicized purposes, academic preparation of faculty or admission test scores of students. College decision makers and researchers should have more precise data and inform- ation about the structure and flexibility of policy making machinery, the ability of the college to adapt to changing needs of society, how policies must be modified to adjust the college programs, and as McGrath puts it, "a host of other factors inherent in any effective institutional plan- ning." In this research effort, the purpose was to measure perceptions of institutional functions at a small/rural community college and to illuminate those functions for institutional self study and review. It was not intended to tell NCCC what it ought to be or what it ought to do. The researcher's intention was only to help determine essen- tially what NCCC is, throngh measurement of constituent perceptions which is what McGrath (in Peterson et a1, 1983) maintains is a necessary step in any intelligent institu- tional plan for change. The research study was designed to measure and analyze the perceptions of faculty, students, administrators, trus- tees, and county legislators of various institutional 160 functions at NCCC, as well as to ascertain whether county residency affects perception of institutional functioning. The conceptual framework in the review of the literature dealt with broader issues of community college history, organizational theory and measurement, and institutional goal and function research. The researcher conducted a survey with a distribution of N - 229 questionnaires to five constituent groups of faculty, students, administrators, trustees, and county legislators in order to study views or perceptions of var- ious institutional functions at the college. The setting for the research was NCCC, a small/rural community college located in upstate New York. The sig- nificance of the study lies in that, to the best knowledge of the investigator, it was the first research study under— taken at a small/rural community college which sought to obtain perceptions Of students, faculty, administrators, trustees and county legislators, concerning various in- stitutional functions measured by the Institutional Functioning Inventory (IFI) Survey. The study provides basic information to educational decision makers and planners and researchers interested in upgrading curricular activities and programmatic features of NCCC. It also provided pertinent information for further research, institutional self study and planning for small/rural community colleges. The survey methodology chosen to gather data was the IFI 161 Survey. The survey was developed under the auspices of the Educational Testing Service (ETS) in Princeton. It was de- signed primarily as an instrument of self study for American universities. The IFI Survey consists of 132 multiple choice questions for all non-student respondents and 72 multiple choice items for student respondents, yielding scores on 11 dimensions or scales comprised of 12 items each. Brief descriptions of the 11 dimensions are contained in Chapter I. Scoring of the IFI Items is on a unit (0 - 1) basis. The keyed answer is scored 1 and the opposite is scored 0. A "no" response (or ?) is treated as an omit. The dimension score of each respondent ranges from 1 to 12. From these individual scores an average is calculated to provide an institutional mean score for each dimension. Means and standard deviations are also calculated separately for the five constituent groups. Of the N = 229 questionnaires distributed, a total of N = 195 (85 2) were returned, thus reaching the pre—determined, sufficient return rate needed for data analysis. The responses were tabulated and processed by ETS into a summary data report. The data from this report was then analyzed utilizing a large mainframe computer (CYBER 170/750) at Michigan State University, using the Statistical Packagg for the Social Sciences (Nie et a1, 1975). Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test signifi- cant differences for all 11 IFI dimensions between the appro- priate constituent groups for the hypothesis Number One. 162 Subsequent post-hoc comparisons (Scheffee) of means were conducted for each of the 11 dimensions. The purpose for performing the post hoc procedure was to determine whether or not differences existed between constituent groups. Iftests were utilized to ascertain if significant differences existed between respondents from the two counties (Essex and Franklin) that comprise the service district of NCCC on appropriate IFI dimensions for hypothesis Number Two. Summary of Findings The findings of this study are summarized in this sec- tion. In the analysis of the IFI Survey results, there was congruence among constituent groups perceptions of the IFI dimensions except for: 1. Intellectual-Aesthetic Extracurriculum (Dimension I) where the combined mean scores of trustees and administrators demonstrated a perception of more deliberate institutional efforts at NCCC to afford opportunities for intellectual and aesthetic stimu- lation outside the classroom than did the faculty. 2. Human Diversity (Dimension II) where the faculty group perceived the NCCC community as having more diversity with respect to ethnic and social back- grounds, political and religious attitudes and personal tastes and styles than did the student group. 3. Concern for Improvement of Society (Dimension IV) 163 where the student group and legislator group per- ceived the people at NCCC as having a stronger desire to. apply 'their knowledge and skills in solving social problems and prompting social change than did the faculty. The analysis of data also revealed congruence of per- ception among Essex County respondents and Franklin County respondents with regard to the 11 IFI Dimensions. No sig- nificant difference in perception was found. One clear message should be discerned from the IFI survey results. There is a strong sense of agreement and congruence among the constituent groups of NCCC, regardless of their county of residence. The use of the IFI survey seemed to be an acceptable format for use with county legislators. This study appears to be the first to use the IFI survey with this type of audience. It is also important to note that there was no sig- nificant difference in perception of institutional functioning between residents of Essex and Franklin Coun- ties. Thus, there is similar perception Of NCCC by its constituents regardless of where they reside in the two- county service area. There were two hypotheses under consideration in this study, each with 11 components corresponding to the IFI dimensions. Null Hypothesis Number One was tested using the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and the Scheffée Test. T-tests 164 were used for Null Hypothesis Number Two. The null hypo- theses were stated as follows: Null Ho—l: There are no significant differences of percep- tion with regard to appropriate institutional functioning dimensions as measured by the Institutional Functioning Survey between fac— ulty, students, administrators, college trustees and county legislators. Null Ho-2: There are no significant differences of per- ception with regard to appropriate institutional functioning dimensions as measured by the Insti- tutional Functioning Inventory Survey between select residents of Essex County and select residents of Franklin County. Hypothesis number "1a" was retained when simple con- trasts were conducted, but was rejected based on the results of ANOVA and Scheffée tests of a complex contrast, since it was observed that, in combination, trustees and administra— tors perceived more deliberate institutional efforts to afford opportunities for intellectual and aesthetic stimu- lation outside the classroom than did the faculty. Hypotheses numbered "1c" and "1d" were rejected based on the results of the ANOVA and Scheffge tests. Test re- sults revealed that the faculty group perceived the NCCC community as having more diversity with respect to ethnic and social backgrounds, political and religious attitudes, and personal tastes and styles than did the student groups 165 for "1c." The student group and legislator group perceived the people at NCCC as having a stronger desire to apply their knowledge and skills in solving social problems and prompting social change than did the faculty for "1d." Hypotheses numbers "1b," and "1e" through "1k" were not rejected. There was no significant difference observed in perceptions of faculty students, administrators, trustees and legislators concerning the appropriate IFI dimension. Hypotheses numbers "2a" through "2k" were not rejected. There was no significant difference in perceptions of the 11 IFI dimensions between select residents of Essex County and select residents of Franklin County. Conclusions and Discussion The sense of agreement reflected by study results seems to have a positive effect on college morale, which is high despite a recent financial crisis and changes in academic and administrative deans. The three scales with significant differences point to 1) the need for a better understanding by the college of its intellectual role in the surrounding community, 2) the need for the college to consider whether students need exposure to more diverse ideas and ways of life, and to 3) the need for a better understanding of how the institution might apply its resources in solving and prompting social change. At the beginning of this study, two research questions, each phrased in non-statistical language, were advanced. 166 Based on the findings emanating from this study, each of the two questions is answered and implications for NCCC are discussed in the following section: 1. Is there a difference of perception with regard to appropriate institutional functioning dimensions between students, faculty, administrators, board of trustees, and county legislators as measured by the Institutional Functioning Inventory Survey? ‘2. Does an individual's permanent county of residence affect his/her perceptions of appropriate insti- tutional functioning dimensions as measured by the Institutional Functioning Inventory Survey? Intellectual-Aesthetic Extracurriculum - Dimension I All of the groups scored extremely low on this dimen- sion indicating a perception of relative scarcity of extra- curricular opportunities of an intellectual and aesthetic nature at NCCC. However, there is a significant disparity between faculty (low) versus administrators and trustees (high) with regard to this dimension. If NCCC should be expected to provide cultural opportunities outside of the classroom, then this is clearly one area of college life that merits further study. Since the college is located in a rural setting with limited intellectual and cultural op- portunities, the expansion of these functions would appear to be desirable. NCCC may want to analyze its community with respect to 167 changes that could be made to enhance the opportunity of aesthetic growth outside the sphere of academic and training programs. A fuller achievement of educational objectives may be accomplished through aesthetic-extracurricular pro- grams such as periodic showings of works of art or the scheduling of lectures on subjects of large human interest. The stimulation of discussion groups on matters of scholarly and social concern and a general commitment among the faculty and administration to the development of broad cultural interests among students could contribute to a better educational environment and experience for students as well as to attracting a larger community clientele. County residency did not affect respondents' percep- tions of this dimension; therefore, there is congruence between Essex and Franklin county respondents with regard to Intellectual-Aesthetic Extracurriculum - Dimension I. Freedom - Dimension II All the groups scored in the mid-range of this dimen- sion and there was no significant difference between them. This mid-range rating can be interpreted to imply that, as a valid measure of rules, regulations or other forms of social conformity, there are not considerable restraints in existence at NCCC. Since there is congruence in perception toward this dimension, NCCC may want to examine existing policies with respect to freedom in terms of institutional or educational purposes and the demands of contemporary life. 168 These scores seem to suggest that NCCC is an insti- tution where constituent group members understand insti- tutional social mores and accept them without feeling unduly restrained. County residency did not affect respondents' percep— tions of this dimension; therefore, there is congruence between Essex and Franklin county respondents with regard to Freedom - Dimension II. Human Diveygigyg- Dimension III Although faculty tend to see an even greater hetero- geneity among students, there was no other statistically significant difference between groups with regard to this dimension. Again, the scores are in the mid-range of the 12.0 scale. High scores in this dimension would seem to appro— priate to a public institution that seeks to accommodate students and faculty with diverse ethnic, social, religious and political background. It should be noted that the re- gion could be classified as somewhat homogeneous with regard to social, religious and ethnic characteristics when com- pared to a urban or suburban region in New York State. The faculty perception may be the result of a greater awareness on the part of the faculty of the human diversity in existence at NCCC. It would seem reasonable to assume that faculty, having spent more years at the institution, would be more apt to be aware of the human diversity at NCCC than would the students. In the future, in light of this 169 finding, college decision makers might consider the pos- sibility of developing activities that could serve to broaden the awareness of students with regard to human di- versity. County residency did not affect respondents' percep— tions of this dimension; therefore, there is congruence between Essex and Franklin county respondents with regard to Human Diversity - Dimension III. Concern for Improvement of Society - Dimension IV This dimension measures a desire among faculty and administration at NCCC to apply their knowledge and skill in solving contemporary social problems and prompting social change. There was a significant difference between the perceptions of constituent groups with regard to Improvement of Society — Dimension IV. Analysis specifically revealed that significant differences existed regarding perceptions of faculty versus the perceptions of legislators and stu— dents. Thus, legislators and students perceived the people of NCCC as having a stronger desire to apply their knowledge and skills in solving social problems and prompting social change than did the faculty. If one considers the faculty's primary purpose as teaching course content, it is under- standable that they would see community service and solving contemporary social problems as secondary in their priori— ties. Since it is consistent with the published mission and philosophy of NCCC that the institution should be committed to improving social conditions, faculty may need to be re- 170 minded of the importance of this dimension as an integral part of their instructional role.’ On the other hand, this difference may be attributed to a more idealistic posture of students and legislators toward the mission of NCCC. NCCC decision makers may want to study the relationship of this dimension area to institutional goals and resources. County residency did not affect respondents' percep- tions of this dimension; therefore, there is congruence between Essex and Franklin county respondents with regard to Concern for Improvement of Society - Dimension IV. Concern for Undergraduate Learning - Dimension V The mean score for NCCC is in the high range. NCCC could be expected to score high on this dimension, as it is a student-oriented teaching undergraduate institution. The individual group scores are very similar, indicating agree- ment on the importance of this dimension at NCCC. These scores seem to point to a genuine commitment by all groups to the principle that undergraduate education of superior quality should have high priority among NCCCs institutional purposes. County residency did not affect respondents' percep- tions of this dimension; therefore, there is congruence between Essex and Franklin county respondents with regard to Concern for Undergraduate Learning - Dimension V. Democratic Governance - Dimension VI This dimension measures the extent to which individuals in the NCCC community who are directly affected by a de- 171 cision, feel that they have an opportunity to participate in the decision-making process. Again, we find continuity of scores among the five constituent groups. The scores are in the high-medium range. A similarity of scores at the high-medium range may be interpreted to indicate a reasonable communication level between groups. The scores may also indicate a perception of shared governance and participatory decision making. The top administrators should note that the trustees had the lowest score on the scale, even though no statis- tical significance was found. County residency did not affect respondents' percep- tions of this dimension; therefore, there is congruence between Essex and Franklin county respondents with regard to Democratic Governance - Dimension VI. Meeting Local Needs - Dimension VI; This dimension refers to an institutional emphasis on providing educational opportunities for adults in Franklin and Essex counties, as well as fulfilling local employer needs for trained manpower. Group perceptions of this di- mension demonstrate availability of adult education and job related and remedial education programs. These scores may also be interpreted to indicate acceptable levels of job placement and employer training services. NCCC, by its own published mission and purpose statement, should score high on this dimension, and indeed, did score high. There is very little difference in the dimension scores of the four 172 constituent groups. Consequently, it would appear that there is considerable consensus of perception to this dimen- sion at NCCC. County residency did not affect respondents' percep- tions of this dimension; therefore, there is congruence between Essex and Franklin county respondents with regard to Meeting Local Needs - Dimension VII. Self Study and Planning - Dimension VIII This dimension measures the importance attached to continuous long-range planning by NCCC leaders. It also reflects whether relevant institutional research is being conducted. The college scores for this scale are in the medium range of the 12 point scale and there is no signifi- cant difference of perception between the constituent groups. This would seem to indicate that no group perceives long-range planning and periodic institutional self study as having a high priority. Prior to 1983, little or no insti— tutional self study was conducted at NCCC, a factor that may contribute to the medium range scores. Other factors con- tributing to this perception may be a lack of understanding by faculty, administrators, trustees and legislators toward institutional research and planning, or a lack of dissemi- nation of the result of such studies. If continuous self study and institutional research is to become a high pri- ority for the college, all campus groups need to be kept informed and participate in such research. County residency did not affect respondents' percep- 173 tions of this dimension; therefore, there is congruence between Essex and Franklin county respondents with regard to Self Study and Planning - Dimension VIII. Concern for Advancing_§nowledge - Dimension IX NCCC scores on this dimension fall in the low range, and there is little disparity between the constituent groups. These low scores could be expected from a two year community college, where commitment to research and scholar— ship aimed at extending the scope of human knowledge is low. A high score on this scale might indicate heavy faculty involvement in scientific research and light teaching loads, which is not the case at NCCC. These scores could indicate a common understanding of the community service mission and purpose of NCCC. County residency did not affect respondents' percep- tions of this dimension; therefore, there is congruence between Essex and Franklin county respondents with regard to Concern for Advancing Knowledge - Dimension IX. Concern for Innovation - Dimension X This dimension refers to an institutionalized commit- ment to experimentation with new ideas for educational prac- tices. Again, there is little disparity between the con- stituent group scores, all of which fall in the medium range. This would seem to indicate that there has been some interest in instructional innovation at NCCC. The responses at the mid-range (rather than high range) could be related to severe financial constraints placed on the college fac- 174 ulty due to a recent financial crisis, which may explain the perception of limited experimentation by the groups. The group perceptions toward this dimension seem to suggest a need for greater emphasis on instructional innovation at NCCC. Decision makers may want to assess current allocation of financial and human resources, as well as administrative receptiveness to new ideas and innovation. County residency did not affect respondents' percep- tions of this dimension; therefore, there is congruence between Essex and Franklin county respondents with regard to Concern for Innovation - Dimension X. Institutional Esprit - Dimension XI This dimension measures the perception of morale at NCCC. The high scores on this dimension indicate that the constituent groups share common goals and work openly as well as together for the benefit of all. They can also be interpreted to show loyalty to the college and pride in its work. Again, what is significant for NCCC is the similarity of scores among constituent groups and the extremely high scores despite a recent fiscal crisis that resulted in a faculty retrenchment and the prospect of future austerity. The trustees' and legislators' high scores reveal a com- mitment to NCCC at the policy-making level. McGrath (1983) feels that no feature of life on a campus is more crucial in determining the total effectiveness of an institution than the spirit with which members of the academic community go about their daily activities. This dimension shows that 175 when NCCC faculty, administrators, trustees and legislators are given an opportunity to express their opinion on a num- ber of institutional characteristics, they do so in a way that characterizes NCCC as a pleasant place to work, per- sonally satisfying and professionally rewarding. The IFI survey sensitively measures local morale and the dynamics of community basic to continuous commitment and renewal. It is very significant that despite the recent financial problems, the scores of the respondents are high. County residency did not affect respondents' percep— tions of this dimension; therefore, there is congruence between Essex and Franklin county respondents with regard to Institutional Esprit - Dimension XI. Recommendation The following recommendations can be posed based on the findings and conclusion of this study: 1. The results of this study should be made available to college constituents including the board of trustees, county legislators, college and government planners, SUNY Central Administration, local media, and the college Regional Evaluation Team. 2. A similar research effort, using the framework outlined in this study, should be undertaken in other rural community colleges located in other 176 Without strator, regions to determine if findings of this study can be generalized across geographic areas. 'Future research studies at small/rural community colleges should strive for high and/or perfect return rates when encountering small groups N's to ensure accurate measurement of college conditions. Most small/rural colleges will have small group ‘N's except for students. A comparison of the findings of recommended stu- dies between small/rural community colleges should be made, so that generalizable conclusions might be made. The population used in further studies should include county legislators if they play a part in the governance or financing of community colleges. The 11 dimensions identified should become speci- fic areas of attention of the colleges ongoing planning and articulating of its mission and pur- pose. NCCC should consider periodic administration of the IFI survey as part of its continuous planning and institutional research effort. systematic measurement of faculty, student, admini- trustee and county legislator perception of small/ rural community college characteristics, institutional plan- researchers and decision makers will continue to de- velop policy and set institutional goals on the basis of 177 little more than limited opinion, experience, and common sense. When decisions of significant educational impact are made using data gathered by the use of the IFI, the decision making and planning method is influenced more by systemati- cally derived evidence than by speculation. The value of this research (and of the recommendations for further con— sideration) is that it provides small/rural community col- lege decision makers, planners, and researchers with the initial elements of an empirically derived data bank for constituent perception of college conditions. What remains if for continued efforts by researchers focusing on small/ rural community colleges to build upon this beginning. 178 APPENDICES 179 Appendix 1.0 SUNY Network 180 SU NY comprises a network of 64 campuses which bring public higher education within commuting distance of most citizens in the State. '.. v ‘I O ”jg New York and its State University ' o . I .D ’ . .fi . . fl .. . I . *- 0 ‘ 0’ . I * . DC] . I ‘ I *D < o ‘D o 0* .A . . o I ' l l T l l t I 13? 4 C] O University Arts and Health Agricultural Specialized Community Centers Science Science and Colleges Colleges Colleges Centers and Technical Colleges Colleges 181 Appendix 1.1 SUNY Community College Sources of Revenue 182 Operating budgets of Community Colleges are supported from three main sources. MILLIONS $400- $361.1 m Student Revenue _ $107.3 million ’3‘” ‘ 29.7% Sponsor "W " —— $124.2 million 34.4% $100 -1 State Aid -— $129.6 million 35.9% SOURCE: SUNY Oltlcs ol Flnsncs snd Business 183 Appendix 1.2 SUNY Community College Operating Cost and State Aid 184 Over a seven-year period Community College net operating costs have not kept pace with inflation and the state aid funding share has declined. INCREASE 1974-75 to 1981-82 $3000 Higher Education Price Index = 70.8% Net Operating Cost = 54.5% $2,880 State Aid = 42.2% Net Operating Cost $2000 1 FTE $1,034 “000 895 9L7 878 821/ - 789 - 127 7E0 + ' State Aid FTE 0 1974.75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979430 1980-81 1981.82 SOURCE: SUNY Ottiee ol Flnsnce end Business 1 8 5 Appendix 1.3 North Country Community College Service District 186 APPROXI MATE TRAVEL TIME - es- -- . . 1 .0 *3"- con. C”"Nu] | in“, WI... Ira-L. DU... 04' . O l O C’etsee‘ Mao'. 3".. 4 ’ I'Ushlo. l O'C.l~g‘-§~ ~’4~r.3~ ."'HO" 1 l l L. l x i h; h‘“ ' ous-ma. ya I -- I 3 I Witt-g7 sun. 4 CLADA l 'Dlst'~ I PQIGHYO~ ' I ‘- l i l I ‘ 7 J ‘ 1'; ‘O‘ rssm l ' OLYA. 'srsssr Lei ' J i w." m; ' - 5. ‘Tuppe°r Isle [J Mlflhuffllowu u 1 J — - l.- C. ‘ I | ~V~L(~. I 0e. I I \ ,/-‘ I, \ /" \‘ "~IN5A - \. \ I Impus izabethtown :onderoqa Lone lensburg Mileage 37 77 42 78 -‘fl- Travel Time 60 minutes 120 minutes 80 minutes 110 minutes ~e... '. 187 Mi 188 sto~¢ 'h g._ fg3~ '5! wk“ c3~ JO? J-\. v0 H 0 J """m' ’0: V” I - d 70( 050' .0 bum t Huang 1. I 0‘s:- —. u ' “Utroev / .I d f i -—-——~ i i 9'. o N ./ Appendix 1.4 North Country Community College Mission Statement 188 Mission Statement THE MISSION of North Country Community College, as a public community oriented institution of postsecondary education, is to provide all residents of Essex-Franklin Counties. Northern New York and others who are inter- ested and could benefit from them, opportunities to gain the skills and atti- tudes with which to continue to learn and adapt throughout their lives so as to be more productive and enriched members of our society. In carrying out its Mission the College will instill in individuals a concern for excellence, a desire for continuous learning and the ability to adapt to a changing society. In order to allow the college to attain its Mission academic programs are offered in: LIBERAL ARTS AND SCIENCES CAREER PROGRAMS CONTINUING EDUCATION 8: COMMUNITY SERVICE The college will make its services available to individuals by maintaining a strong central campus in Saranac Lake and by reaching out to groups in other communities. In fulfilling its Mission and Goals the college will be accountable by: PROMOTING ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT MAINTAINING AND ENCOURAGING THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE OF THE STAFF IN ALL AREAS OF THE COLLEGE OPERATING IN A MANNER THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ECONOMIC RESOURCES AVAILABLE AND IS AS COST EFFECTIVE AS POSSIBLE. 189 Appendix 1.5 North Country Community College Student Population 190 County Franklin Essex Other NY Outside NY Total TOTAL SEMESTER HEADCOUNT BY COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION 1980 597 445 142 35 1219 Fall Semester 1981 686 378 138 31 1233 1982 735 338 192 45 1310 191 1300 1984 724 482 156 26 1388 1985 742 495 147 31 1415 Appendix 1.6 North Country Community College Financial Aid Profile 192 I INANCIAL AID PROFILE OF NORTH COUNTRY COMMUNITY COLI UIIL SIUOLIIIS 1982-83 FINANCIAL AID PROGRAMS NO. OF AWARDS AMOUNT Pell Grants 594 S 484,205 Tuition Assistance Program 628 335.653 Student Bank Loans 346 662,688 Supplemental Education Opportunity Grant Program 27 11.650 National Direct Student Loan 3 2.100 College Work-Study Program 146 104,865 Institutional Funded Student Work Program 64 15,764 TOTAL 1808 $1,616,925 PERCENTAGE RECEIVING FINANCIAL AID FINANCIAL AID PERCENTAGES BY TYPE OF AID 806 Full-time Student Enrolled Grants 3 831,508 51% 199 Receiving Financial Aid Loans S 664,788 41% 37% Full-time Students Received Aid Employment ‘ s 120,629 % (July 1982 to June 1983) $1,616,925 100% 1983-84 FINANCIAL AID PROGRAMS NO. OF AWARDS AMOUNT Pell Grants 662 $ 564.617 Tuition Assistance Program 749 401,027 Student Bank Loans 496 903,040 Supplemental Education Opportunity Grant 32 14.175 National Direct Student Loan 0 0 College Work-Study Program 133 115,226 Institutional Funded Student Work Program 75 _ 232111 TOTAL 2147 52.021.196 PERCENTAGE RECEIVING FINANCIAL AID FINANCIAL AID PERCENTAGES BY TYPE OF AID 864 Full-time Student Enrolled Grants S 979.819 48% 764 Receiving Financial Aid Loans 903.040 45$ 88'.” Full-time Students Received Aid Employment .. ‘-l_3"8._._3_3.7_ ['33 (July 1983 to June 1984) $2,021,196 100, 193 Appendix 1.7 Student Income Levels 194 Enrolled Eligible Financial Aid Applicants By Income Percent Levels Income Levels 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 5 0 - 5.999 30% 34% 42% 5 6,000 - 11,999 27% 24% 23% $12,000 - 17,999 18% 19% 15% $18,000 - 23,999 14% 10% . 10% 524.000 or over 11% 13% 10% July 1980 to June 1983 Income Levels 1983-84 1984-85 $ 0 - 5,999 37% 42% $ 6.000 - 11,999 24% 23% 312.000 - 17,999 16% 15% $18,000 -_23,999 8% 10% $24,000 or over 15% 10% 195 Appendix 3.0 Descriptions of the IFI Dimensions 196 BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS OF THE ELEVEN SCALES OF THE INSTITUTIONAL FUNCTIONING INVENTORY I. 10. II. Intellectud-Acsthetlc Extrsamienlum (IAE): the extent to which activities and opportunities for intellectual and aesthetic stimulation are available outside the classroom. . Freedom (F): the extent of academic freedom for faculty and students as well as freedom in their personal lives for all individuals in the campus community. . l'luman Diversity (RD): the degree to which the faculty and student body are heterogeneous in their backgrounds and present attitudes. . Concern for Improvement of Society (15): the desire among people at the institution to apply their knowledge and skills in solving social problems and prompting social change in America. .Concssn for Undergraduate Learning (UL): the degree to which the college-in its structure. function. and professional commitment of faculty-emphasizes undergraduate teaching and learning. . Democratic Governance (DC): the extent to which individuals in the campus community who are directly affected by a decision have the opportunity to participate in uniting the decision. .Meeting Local Needs (MLN): institutional emphasis on providing educational and cultural opportunities for all adults in the surrounding communities. . Self-Study and Planning (81’): the importance college leaders attach to continuous long-range planning for the total institution, and to institutional research needed in formulating and revising plans. . Concern for Advancing Knowledge (AK): the degree to which the institution-in its structure. function. and professional commitment of faculty-emphasizes research and scholarship aimed at extending the scope of human knowledge. Concern for Innovation (CI): the strength of institutional commitment to experimentation with new ideas for educational practice. Institutional Esprit (IE): the level of morale and sense of shared purposes among faculty and administrators. 197 Appendix 3.1 IFI Survey Items and Biserial Coorelations 198 IFI ITEMS AND NORMS The Institutional Functioning Inventory Preliminary Technical Manual states that: The item norms are the mean percentages of the 37 norm-group institutions re- sponding to each item alternative. Thus, for example, the mean percentage of the 37 institutions responding "Yes" to item #1 (that is, responding in the keyed direction) was 66. That is, the figures are means of institutions, not of in- dividuals. (As it turns out, however, the data obtained by each of these two techniques are nearly identical.) The item norms are based only on those re- sponding to the items, with omits being excluded. Therefore, the sum of the percentages for the item norms will al- ways add to 100 (or 99 or 101 due to rounding). Two sets of item/scale biserial correlations are provided: the first (bold type) are based on institutional means; the second (regular type) are based on individual responses (N-l,500 depending on how many omitted each item). The biserials enable the reader to ex- amine the correlation of each item with the scale to which it belongs (in the blocked-off columns) and also to compare these correlations to those between the item and the other scales. The correlation of each item with its own scale was computed with the item excluded from the scale, thus avoiding spuriously high part/whole correlations. In gen- eral, of course, items should correlate higher with the scale to which they be- long than with other scales. (PP. 42-53) 199 Intellectual-Aesthetic Scoring Item Norms Item/Scale Extracurriculum (IAE) Key (5) Biserial Correlations Item Yes No 7 IAE 6' 140 IS 01. OS MLN SP AK CI l6 1. There is a campus art gallery In which traveling exhibits or collections on loan are regularly displayed. Y 66 29 06 26 06 U —07 —12 01 19 16 07 06 13 3203170301091610100809 5. Foreign films are shown regularly on or near campus. . Y 67 28 06 63 66 61 66 14 61 11 20 43 66 20 39M366006161126472611 7. This institution attempts each year to sponsor a rich program of cultural .events-Iectures. concerts. plays. art ‘ exhibits. and the like. Y 88 11 01 63 09 01 20 00 26 26 37 30 26 42 6413283617362739373342 10. A number of nationally known scien- tists and/or scholars are invited to the campus each year to address student and faculty groups. Y 74 23 03 s7 17 16 37 -06 16 --09 14 62 26 26 ' 67293247 13340427 57 31 28 14. At least one modern dance program has been presented in the past year. Y 63 26 20 37 47 42 42 06 30 06 16 22 27 —11 60 29 41 39 05 19 —01 10 26 15 -02. 15. Students publisha literary magazine. Y 64 27 09 66 36 12 26 26 46 —02 10 16 26 26 43 36 30 19 12 21 -07 -01 16 11 08 20. At least one chamber music concert has been given within the past year. Y 77 15 08 60 19 19 46 14 43 -06 32 41 46 36 67 24 31 47 06 34 01 19 39 23 18 21. At least one poetry reading, open to the campus community. has been given within the past year. Y 58 22 20 66 69 62 66 14 46 —01 17 43 66 14 - 67 46 66 57 14 30 08 21 43 37 14 25. There are a number of student groups that meet regularly to discuss intellec- tualand/or philosophic topics. Y 60 29 22 63 24 26 66 --09 31 06 20 63 36 22 - 64294457 11 43284052 36. 35 SA A 0 SD 31. Little money is generally available for inviting outstanding people to give ' public lectures. 0-60 18 32 34 16 69 14 10 31 06 23 -19 34 66 43 45 45 23 20 28 13 25 -04 20 39 29 27 56. The student newspaper comments reg- ularly on important issues and ideas (in addition to carrying out the more cus- tomary tasks of student newspapers). SAoA 19 47 26 09 63 42 34 66 03 40 06 14 52 36 27 47 33 36 43 10 35 14 30 42 34 28 66. Many opportunities exist outside the classroom for intellectual and aesthetic self-expression on the part of students. SA-A 20 47 27 07 77 36 33 71 26 64 06 36 46 61 36 61 39 46 55 36 50 20 37 35 48 no 200 Scorln Item Norms Item/Scale Freedom ('1 Key ‘ ($1 Blserlsl Correlations Item Yes No 7 IAE F I40 IS UL DO MLN SP Alt Cl 1! 6. There are no written regulations regard- ing student dress. Y 45 47 06- 26 63 70 47 —12 24. 12 -14 41 27 —19 13 29 38 20-14 02 02-08 27 09-10 16. In the past two years. administrators or the governing board have counter- manded one or more invitations from student groups to controversial speakers. N 066923 -12 14—03-29 36 12-11 11-36 11 14 2336231614071517161717 22. The institution imposes certain restric- tions on off-campus political activities ' by faculty members. N 06 81 13 13 46 11 26 16 33 06 -10 -11 11 —09 124016192029-0319—012324 6A A 0 SO ‘30. An essentially free student newspaper exists on this campus (with account- ability mainlyto its readership). SA-A 37 4613 06 66 67 29 34 16 61 02 04 22 34 69 4344282823440421242633 39. Religious authority has meant some curtailment of academic freedom for faculty and students. 0-80 03 08 31 68 26 67 62 19 —01 22 11 09 19 34 -06 2649612214240712233616 47. Certain radical student organizations. such as Students for a Democratic So. ciety. are not. or probably would not be. allowed to organize chapters on this campus. 0-50 07 22 4130 60 67 71 66 01 44 00 01 42 60 -14 335444420318-0106322602 64. Certain highly controversial figures in public life are not allowed or probably would not be allowed to address stu- dents. 0-50 0618 43 34 69 67 66 62 14 60 06 16 32 61 03 4161514512290818293616 65. Eccentric convictions and unpopular beliefs among faculty members are generally not frowned upon by senior administrators or governing board members. SA-A 1146 36 07 36 64 74 66 12 67 02 20 33 67 06 2466524420380825274127 61. Faculty members feel free to express radical political beliefs in their class. rooms. SA-A 20 66 2103 46 66 69 66 31 64 -10 14 19 69 12 2767363617320016183022 64. The governing body (e.g., Board of Trustees) strongly supports the princi- ple of academic freedom for faculty and students to discuss any topic they may choose. SA-A 34 51 13 02 66 77 47 60 40 71 -03 32 20 66 31 4064424838671444295662 71. Institutional authorities have repri- manded faculty members who have publicly registered their dissent con- cerning policies of the state or federal government. 0-50 03 10 59 27 40 66 23 43 22 56 -—09 20 26 46 23 10 31 12 16 14 21 -01 11 16 26 20 72. idiosyncratic or nonconformist student personal styles and appearances (e.g., beards. long hair) tend to be viewed with disfavor by institutional authori- ties. OoSO 08 39 39 I3 42 43 77 63 12 66 06 10 26 47 03 2650623912260617232913 201 Scorln Item Norms Item/Scale Numan Olverslty (HO) Key ‘ (1) Biserial Correlatlons Item Yes No 7 IA! 6' ND l6 Ill. 00 NLN SP All Cl l6 2. There are provisions by which some number of educationally disadvantaged students may be admitted to the insti- tution without meeting the normal en- trance requirements. Y 62 22 26 13 32 66 43 ~03 20 20 ~04 12 29 ~16 1009293311121718102409 11. This institution deliberately seeks to admit a student body in which a variety of attitudesand values willbepresent. Y 38 38 26 31 66 46 46 43 49 ~23 14 06 49 06 4043636640410731274034 13. When this institution is looking for new faculty. it goes primarily to a few nearby graduate schools. N 07 81 12 11 10 17 26 ~06 fl ~06 “ 27 23 ~fl 2222192212200818282919 19. A concerted effort is made to attract students of diverse ethnic and social backgrounds. Y 344223 43 66 as 64 26 46—23 16 21 60 07 4842606536430731363830 23. One of the methods used to influence the flavor of the college is to try to se- lect students with fairly similar person- alitytraits. N 08 72 21 11 67 67 30 ~29 16 26 ~12 21 19 ~16 2761602907322321233930 SA A 0 SD 28. This institution tends to attract stu- dents from a somewhat restricted range ofsocioeconomic backgrounds. 0-50 27 42 21 10 17 14 46 19 ~29 06 31 11 33 12 ~01 .2616422504273524252419 35. A visitor to this campus would most-cer- tainly notice the presence of poets. painters. and political activists. SA-A 10 18 36 36 60 66 63 66 22 63 02 19 29 49 04 3637604918301219263010 40. When recruiting new faculty. care is taken to seek candidates with a partic- ular set of personal values. 0-80 09 37 40 14 22 61 76 46 ~42 14 21 ~10 46 21 ~36 32 39 66 29-0116 2111 29 27 06 42. Awide variety of religious backgrounds . and beliefs are represented among the faculty. SA-A 30 48 17 05 07 46 66 16 ~26 ~01 23 ~11 29 10 ~33 38 30 61 22 03 I8 2214 321914 43. A wide variety of religious backgrounds and beliefs are represented in the stu~ dentbody. SA-A 25 46 23 07 16 43 66 10 ~19 06 16 ~06 26 06 ~16 2937524008231519282914 53. Compared with most other colleges. fewer minority groups are represented on this campus. 0-80 14 40 33 13 33 60 63 61 ~17 23 14 06 40 26 ~21 15.39 37 20~I9 09 03 0125 20~05 66. Students or faculty members whose rec. ords contain suggestions of unusual characteristics-cg. bizarre dress. un- popular ideas—are not encouraged to remain here. 0-80 06 30 49 15 60 69 76 71 07 69 09 17 41 66 06 3767554617320924334020 202 Concern for improvement Scoring item Norms item/Scale of Society (16) Key (fl) Biserial Correlations item YesNo f M! 6 ND is til. DGNLN SP Alt Cl it 3. There are programs and/or organiza- tions at this institution which are di- rectly concerned with solving pressing social problems. e.g., race relations. . urbanbiighhmraipoverty. Y 662911 66 47 43:64 11 61 66 26 46 66 19 664266'7321361729464216 4. A numberof professors have been in- " volved in the past few years with eco- nomic planning at either the national. regionai.orstate level. Y 26 44 27 61 46 62 62 ~33 26 16 N 76 31 13 69364966-63362126743626 9. Professors from this institution have been actively involved in framing state or federal legislation in the areas of health. education.orwelfare. Y 23 48 26 64 44 46 63 ~37 34 26 66 79 36 13 62284667.63462233673836 12. Quite a number of students are asso- ' ' ciated with organizations that actively ' seek to reform society in one way or another. . Y 44 42 16 62 66 62 66 12 46 ~67 14 46 43 66 6641 63 73-264667 264437 21 16. This institution. through the efforts of individuals and/or specially created in- stitutes or centers. is actively engaged in proiects aimed at improving the qualityof urban life. Y 51 37 13 66 46 61 66 66 46 19 19 66 46 17 ""674647m26362231664423 24. A number of faculty members or ad- ministrators from this institution have gone to Washington to participate in planning various New Frontier. Great Society. and subsequent programs. Y 14 63 23 41 32 63 66 ~46 16 22 67 66 26 ~62 47274868~13282631793212 6A A D 60 27. Many faculty members would welcome the opportunity to participate in laying plans for broad social and economic - reforms in American society. SA-A 16 63 26 64 46 61 62 66 66 46 16 19 37 46 ~61 29 28 31.64_,18 2116 22 24 29 12 34. Application of knowledge and talent to the solution of social problems is a mis- sion of this institution that is widely supported by faculty and adminis- ‘ . trators. SA-A 13 37 36 14 36 41 42 63 26 62 69 31 26 49 19 3636396736492442366636 62. The notion of colleges and universities assuming leadership in bringing about social change is not an idea that is or would be particularly popular on this campus. 0-60 66 27 46 22 63 64 66 66, 26 67 ~63 31 36 66 21 414444.69‘384616 37266336 66. Senior administrators generally sup- port (or would support) faculty mem- bers who spend time away' from the campus consulting with governmental agencies about social. economic. and . related matters. SA-A 19 62 16 02 62 66 46 67 61 62 12 37 66 66 39 3736364920461841384942 69. Most faculty on this campus tend to be reasonably satisfied with the status quoofAmerican society. 0-60 66 41 41 11 33 63 61 12 32 46 ~26 26 22 63 16 22 3133?“; 26 27—04 2417 3314 76. The governing board does not consider ' ‘ active engagement in resolving major social ills to be an appropriate institu- tional function. 0-50 66 33 48 13 46 66 67 66 69 66 16 24 36 67 66 zsraasg'zsrznarzersao 203 204 Concern for Undergraduate Scoring item Norms item/Scale i.e'a rning (UL) Key ($1 Biserial Correlations item Yes No 7 M! F NO iS UL 136 MLN SP AK Ci it 6. There are established procedures by which students may propose new courses. Y 31 62 17 46 63 66 66 24 64 ~16 13 27 63 66 4237446629426326283920 17. Faculty promotion and tenure are based primarily on an estimate of teaching effectiveness. Y 37 44 16 69 22 66 66 61 47 ~21 19 ~46 43 34 1116 13 13 66 3102 26-23 26 31 6A A D 60 32. Generally speaking. there is not very much contact between professors and undergraduates outside the classroom. 0-50 66 25 38 31 63 ~64 ~32 ~16 I 39 ~41 26 ~47 31 63 08 63—61 66 63 26—13 18-23 26 36 33. Senior professors seldom teach fresh- manor sophomore courses. 0-60 06 16 41 44 ~11 14 ~16 ~16 61 26 ~26 ~66 ~61 66 14 ~(5 04—64 014616-12 64-2614 16 37. Either tutorials or extensive indepen- ' dent studies are important features of ‘ '- the undergraduate curriculum. SA-A 18 27 40 16 36 43 27 46 .61" 44 ~49 16 w 62 19 36 36 32 411.46"31.-11 24 12 34 26 46. How best to communicate knowledge ' to undergraduates is not a question that seriously concerns a very large - ./ proportion of the faculty. 0-80 66 18 42 34 19 62 ~16 67 77 46 ~26 39 ~33 44 49 09 171118 64.27 67 26~m 31 29 49. Professors get to know most students 1 in their undergraduate classes quite '. well. SA-A 26 44 24 67 ~31 ~17 ~37 ~37 .277 67 ~36 69 ~76 ~61 22 ~10~06~04~64 64‘ 26-03 18-37 16 26 51. Most faculty members do not wish to spend much time in talking with stu- dents about students' personal in- terests and concerns. 0-60 05 22 61 22 ~16 ~36 ~61 ~27 71 11 ~26 26 ~66 69 39 0208051262261428-192631 . 68. Because of the pressure of other com- mitments. many professors are unable to prepare adequately for their under- graduate courses. 0-50 06 22 56 17 ~17 ~62 ~12 ~22 42 on ~13 13 ~36 N 26 0312 03 03 3618 03 20~09 19 31 69. Most faculty members are quite sensi- tive to the interests. needs. and aSpira- tions of undergraduates. SA-A 25 56 17 03 ~67 ~17 ~39 ~20 66 27 ~23 22 ~69 14 46 04 09 0516 72 3412 32—17 36 46 63. in recruiting new faculty members. de- partment chairmen or other adminis- trators generally attach as much impor- , tance lo demonstrated teaching ability as to potential for scholarly contribu- tion. SA-A 26 61 17 07 ~63 ~69 ~26 ~16 61 33 ~26 19 ~64 17 36 03 07 ~03 11 66 32 02 20 ~32 24 32 68. Capable undergraduates are encour- aged to collaborate with faculty on re- search proiects or to carry out studies olihcnown. SA-A 22 53 21 04 66 31 10 34 62 43 ~40 26 26 66 44 4230254042430241274643 Democratic Scoring item Norms item/Scale Governance (06) Key ($1 _ Biserial Correlations Item sa A u so In: I no is m. us run sr Alt Cl it 26. in general. decision making is decen- tralized whenever feasibleorworkabie. SA-A 19 46 23 13 49 36 26 46 31 63 14 66 23 64 69 31 26 27 37 36 73‘ 26 46 23 61 66 29. Meaningful arrangements exist for ex- pression of student opinion regarding institutional policies. SA-A 24 62 17 66 67 46 23 61 43 74 ~66 36 24 62 46 46 39 36 47 42 66. 19 44 26 63 66 36. in dealing with institutional problems. attempts are generally made to involve interested people without regard to their formal position or hierarchical status. SA-A 13 44 30 12 26 46 26 46 66 76 ~16 34 ~14 63 43 24 32 28 5 46 66 18 46 16 47 49 36. This institution tends to be dominated bya single "official" point of view. 0-60 13 24 44 19 63 79 61 64 11 74 16 13 33 66 16 42 48 44 42 23 66 11 33 33 49 46 41. Power here tends to be widely dis- persed rather than tightly held. SA.A 08 36 38 19, 43 64 46 66 26 67 66 29 27 63 39 36 31 32 46 28 73 14 36 24 44 46 44. Serious consideration is given to stu- dent opinion when policy decisions af- fecting students are made. SA-A 19 61 23 07 47 49 21 66 47 ‘74 ~69 33 12 66 46 40 37 37 46 41 66 22 46 26 63 49 46. in reality. a small group of individuals tends to pretty much run this institu- tion. 0-60 20 36 34 10 63 44 32 64 23 67 66 37 36 66 61 34 29 29 38 36 76, 16 44 29 47 64 48. Governance of this institution is clearly in the hands of the administration. 0-50 26 36 33 06 36 61 46 47 24 62 ~62 21 12 69 26 26 28 27 33 18 66 03 27 16 36 34 66. in arriving at institutional policies. at- tempts are generally made to involve all the individuals who will be directly ; affected. SA-A 17 47 26 16 33 36 13 31 66 66 ~66 46 ~66 64 66 - 36 24 22 38 46 ‘61 16 63 16 64 66 67. There is wide faculty involvement in important decisions about how the in- . stitution is run. SA~A 16 38 33 14 49 61 29 46 44 66,-62 42 13 66 66 - 36 28 29 42 37 .61; 10 46 23 49 69 62. Students. faculty and administrators . 2‘s all have opportunities for meaningful ‘ ‘ involvement in campus governance. SA-A 17 48 26 09 62 47 26 63 44 91 67 46 12 66 66 43 33 34 42 38 66 24 49 27 56 60 67. A concept of “shared authority" (by .-..f. .5 which the faculty and administration " , arrive at decisions jointly) describes . ‘ fairly well the system of governanceon - ‘ this campus. SA-A 14 43 30 13 44 44 26 39 39 I ~67 41 16 61 67 36 3128 38 34»67,16 66 26 63 63 205 Scorin item Norms item/Scale Meeting Local Needs (MLN) Key ‘ (g) Biserial Correlations item Yes No 7 ME 6 ND is til. 06 NLN 6P AK Ci it 73. This institution operates an adult edu- cation program. e.g.. evening courses ~ 6 open to local area residents. Y 66 42 63 17 63 16 14 ~36 ~61 ;' 72. 11 21 62 ~01 14 07 16 14 ~16 68 "166 ‘21 18 14 12 76. Courses are offered through which local gr? area residents may be retrained or up. {ff-‘7 ' graded in their job skills. v 34 55 11 oz 11 23 as -43 -os 5m 2 or 16 -os -1z . 66 07 20 12 ~07 13 {.74 21 13 09 11 77. Counseling services are available to ' adults in the local area seeking infor- mation about educational and oceupa- tional matters. Y 26 66 24 16 16 23 26 ~26 ‘ ~' 17 21 69 69 21 10 26 27 12 {273:}; 37 24 22 28 80. There is a lob placement service {Wig through which local employers may -... ., hire students forfuil-orpart-time work. Y 76 11 13 42 36 22 36 ~10 1 61 26 26 11 42 11 27 26 68 -§31 31 24 27 83. Facilities are made available to local ~ groups and organizations for matings. p ' short courses. clinics. forums. and the “ like. Y 71 16 13 26 16 09 12 ~13 22 5‘96 31 16 26 27 26 10 16 26 16 26 i-.}49_ 37 19 25 36 86. There are a number of courses or pro- 5' ‘ grams that are designed to provide ~j manpower for local area business. in- 3' .' dustry.orpublic services. Y 27 66 13 61 16 26 13 ~43 63 63 ~64 16 ~09 ~16 10 09 22 16 ~01 14 72 20 16 06 18 87. Courses dealing with artistic expres- sion or appreciation are available to all adults in the local area. Y 36 47 17 66 ~03 64 ~04 ~27 ~02 71 17 11 01 06 16 12 22 16 02 11 64 29 17 17 17 91. The curriculum is deliberately designed to accommodate a great diversity in student ability levels and educational- vocational aspirations. Y 42 61 07 02 19 36 19 ~16 11 69 19 06 16 ~10 16 14 27 22 18 26 49 38 69 27 22 96. Attention is given to maintaining fairly close relationships with businesses and industries in the local area. Y 38 37 25 00 ~12 ~16 ~17 ~16 60 6‘7 10 ~03 ~66 10 11 ~02 11 09 16 20 66 39 09 20 32 6A A D so 119. There are no courses or programs for students with educational deficiences. i.e.. remedial work. 0-60 68 27 48 16 ~12 ~13 19 12 ~36 ~16 46 04 10 ~06 ~21 04 01 21 14 ~03 11 39 21 10 17 04 128. The location of this campus makes it easily accessible to students who live at home and commute. SA-A 21 48 20 11 ~12 01 02 64 ~33 ~02 62 ~63 64 ~20 ~13 ~04 ~06 02 02 ~09 02 38 12 03 06 12 130. This institution considers its most valu- able service lo lie in educating the upper ten percent or so of secondary ' school graduates. 0-50 10 19 48 24 ~40 ~30 ~21 ~31 ~34 ~33 60 05 —34 ~24 ~17 ~33 ~17 ~13 ~22 ~09 ~10 38 10 ~30 ~01 ~02 206 Scorin item Norms item Scale 3667-3604, and Planning (8') “.7 ' ‘fi’ m,” cfi'm'm item Yes No 7 ME 6‘ ND l6 til. 60 ILN SP Alt Cl it 76. There is a long-range plan for the lnsti~ tution that is embodied in a written document for distribution throughout . theinstltutlon. Y 36 42 20 17 ~61 66 16 ~11 16 17 " 76. Reportsofvarlous institutional studies ;~. are announced generally and made ' " available to the entire teaching and administrative staff. Y 67 24 09 66 26 13 36 24 29 64 ,. 39 22 22 40 34 42 27 ' a» 81. One or more individuals are presently '.-,_ engaged in long-range financial plan- ~_ ‘12; nlng for the total institution. v n or 22 s: 19 u 39 u 46 12 2"}, n 46 46 49 17 27 37 26 42 39 if.) 31 46 so 84. The institution has a long-range plan *5? based on a reasonably clear statement . L of goals. Y 66 28 16 69 ~24 ~19 ~11 ~61 . 22 46 24 68 20 23 23 44 63 88. At the present time. there is greater emphasis on departmental planning thanon institution-wide planning. N 29 48 22 ~09 ~11 ~16 ~66 36 16 31 -01 -02 «~01 66 23 23 26 92. Analyses of the philosophy. purposes. and objectives of the institution are frequently conducted. Y 41 42 17 16 64 62 21 46 46 46 ‘ 28 27 39 42 52 49 93. Planning at this institution is contin- uous rather than one-shot or com- pletely nonexistent. Y 64 19 17 37 12 10 16 24 64 66 33 24 32 41 32 67 62 SArrA Ii 60i 103. The change that has taken place at this institution in recent years has been more the result of internal and external influences than of institutional pur- poses (and deliberate planning based thereon). 0-50 14 43 36 67 09 ~66 ~66 02 34 44 66 16 16 17 26 36 49 53 108. Currently there is wide discussion and debate in the campus community about what the institution will or should be seeking to accomplish five to ten years in the future. SA-A 16 41 34 07 66 19 63 29 26 16 03 17 20 18 33 28 36 24 110. Most administrators and faculty tend to see little real value in data-based insti- tutional self-study. 0-60 04 22 63 11 32 06 ~01 26 16 60 44 17 17 16 27 26 47 40 126. There is an institutional research agency at this institution which does more than simply gather facts for the . -- administration. SA-A 04 26 61 18 32 16 36 27 ~22 01 26 21.. 36 26 ~64 30 23 34 38 08 30 31 .37_,-, 39 41 19 132. Laying plans for the future of the insti- - ; tution is a high priority activity for many senior administrators. SAoA 12 62 29 06 207 201619272335 Concern for Scoring item Norms item/Scale Advancing Knowledge (AK) Key (57 Biserial Correlations item Yes No 7 ME 6 ND is til. 06 MLN 66' AK Cl it 74. Government or foundation research grants comprise a substantial portion ofthelnstitution'sincome'. Y 26 61 13 16 16 41 44 ~66 ~06 26 ~01 63 06 ~20 27 21 29 45 ~24 16 16 20 71 26 08 79. A number of departments frequently -. hold seminars or colioquia in which a visiting scholar discusses his ideas or ' '. research findings. Y 53 41 06 71 26 27 44 ~06 20 ~16 16 73 36 26 59 38 44 46 08 27 12 25 67 35 25 82. Quite a number of faculty members have had books published in the past twoorthroe years. Y 33 54 13 69 41 63 66 ~26 27 06 N '77 .24 09 59 39 66 67 ~12 30 13 17 .62 30 21 85. There are a number of research pro- - fessors on campus. i.e.. faculty mem- _ . bers whose appointments primarily - entail research rather than teaching. Y 15 79 66 39 24 44 37 ~61 66 27 09 63 22 ~09 40 26 36 47 ~35 18 25 20 84 26 08 89. The average teaching load in most de- partmentsis eight credit hoursorfewer. Y 16 76 09 43 33 46 63 ~23 20 ~64 26 66. 44 12 33 24 34 44 ~19 16 ~01 16 69 ' 26 11 90. Faculty promotions generallyare based . primarily on scholarly publication. Y 14 76 10 39 27 40 44 ~69 06 27 ~01 64,. 14 ~10 35 21 33 32 ~61 02 10 02 .64 10 ~03 94. Extensive laboratory facilities exist for research in the natural sciences. Y 42 46 12 64 26 17 39 ~23 25 ~63 03 71 32 24 46 21 18 33 ~02 30 ~05 16 66 26 29 99. in general. the governing board is com- mitted to the view that advancement of knowledge through research and scholarship is a major institutional purpose. SA-A 13 37 38 11 61 23 23 46 ~40 13 16 10 63 26 12 34 16 22 38 ~03 22 15 25 61 29 27 6A 60 102. Few. if any. of the faculty could be re- garded as having national or interna- tional reputations for their scientific or scholarly contributions. 0-50 23 44 22 10 64 37 62 69 ~33 29 06 06 67 29 10 44 29 41 53 ~07 31 13 24 75 38 26 109. Professors engaged in research that re- quires use of a computer have easy access to such equipment. SA-A 19 40 25 16 34 06 13 16 ~26 ~02 11 ~02 62 12 16 28 24 27 20 ~13 07 13 04 48 16 10 115. One or more important scientific break. ' ' throughs have been achieved at this institution in the past five years. SA-A 06 43 39 33 21 37 63 ~63 13 26 65 62 19 ~01 31 19 31 46 ~19 25 23 22 I79 27 22 129. Senior administrators do not consider advancement of knowledge through re- search to be an important institutional purpose. 0-50 08 26 45 20 69 32 31 64 ~34 24 20 16 74 29 17 42 30 30 44 04 35 19 32 59 42 37 208 ..-- -. .- , Scoring item Norms item/Scale Concern for innovation (Cl) Key (%, 33“,“. Correlations item sa A o so far: r no is ur. oc MLN se Akvci'ic 96. There is a general willingness here to experiment with innovations that have shown promise at other institutions. SA-A 23 65 17 04 66 66 34 62 36 67 ~63 60 24 90 86 40483961225631 its-Z: 98. in the last few years. there have been a number of major departures from old ways of doing things at this institution. SA-A 26 50 20 04 36 16 01 26 22 37 02 43 12 63 37 24 26 27 37 20 37 15 47 21 61 1: 106. A sense of tradition is so strong that it is difficult to modify established pro- ceduresorundertake new programs. 0-60 08 22 51 18 34 70 66 47 20 64 24 32 13 66 15 2835423928432341196735 101. High-ranking administrators or depart- ment chairmen generally encourage professors to experiment with new courses and teaching methods. SA-A 18 64 23 05 49 49 37 ~03 60 17 66 :8 8 105. it is almost impossible to obtain the necessary financial support to try out a new idea for educational practice. 0-50 10 29 53 07 60 24 26 43 12 34 ~07 47 59 66 47 41 32 31 39 23 421142 44 67 41 107. There have been few significant changes in the overall curriculum in the past five years. 0-50 09 26 40 26 27 16 26 40 60 03 49 12 76 46 36 2224253328371746165734 113. Proposed curricular changes seem to , be accepted or rejected more on the basis of financial considerations than of assumed educational merit. . 0-50 10 23 51 16 61 23 16 31 23 37 ~12 66 36 61 SS 3326213623441241376148 114. The curriculum committee of the col- lege concerns itself with basic curricu- lum issues rather than. for example. merely approving or disapproving new courses. SA-A 14 63 26 07 17 20 06 21 37 49 ~14 33 04 60 46 13 12 14 25 28 35 13 42 16 39 37 118. Almost all ideas for innovations must receive the approval of top-level ad- ministrative officials before they can betried out. 0-80 13 41 38 07 62 60 66 60 17 72 60 30 61 71 32 . 2631353115430824294133 120. This institution would be willing to be among the first to experiment with a novel educational program or method if it appeared promising. SA-A 16 41 34 09 41 62 63 63 36 62 60 46 14 76 24 3546426334472252266641 124. There is an air of complacency among many of the staff. a general feeling that most things at the college are all right as they are. 0-80 05 36 49 10 26 62 46 66 26 50 ~61 27 64 66 ~05 20 26 ' 31 38 23 32 10 31 14 43 18 127. in my experience it has not been easy for new ideas about educational prac- ties to receive a hearing. 0-60 06 18 57 19 66 46 33 46 46 71 ~11 46 27 63 60 31 37 33 35 40 62 15 45 26 70 SS 209 Scorin item Norms item/Scale institutional “"1”." Key ‘ ($1 Biserial Correlations item SA A 0 60 ME 6 ND is UL 043 NLN SP AK Ci it: 97. Most faculty members consider the senior administrators on campus to be able and well-qualified for their posi- tions. SA-A 16 64 22 07 36 11 02 16 29 46 62 47 17 46 62 26 21 20 31 32 56 19 50 26 47 79 104. Generally speaking. topolevel adminis- trators are providing effective educa- ' tional leadership. SA-A 12 60 27 11 26 ~61 ~11 09 31 43 12 63 64 60 66 - 23 18 19 30 34 69 .29 66 22 53 .78 106. Generally speaking. communication ‘ between the faculty and the adminis- tration is poor. 0-50 13 24 45 17 37 21 66 27 46 73 ~16 62 66 .67 79 30 27 27 34 37 76 16 54 23 68 77 111. Staff infighting. backbiting. and the like seem to be more the rule than the - ' exception. 0-50 06 14 67 23 27 ~66 ~14 66 31 34 ~66 36 09 33 74 ' 18 22 16 23 46 42 16 36 18 47 72 112. The institution is currently doinga suc- ' ' cessful job in achieving its various goals. SA-A 15 58 21.07 26 ~16 ~21 62 19 .29 16 46 11 36 63 26 22 22 24 33 63 34 65 24 50 78 116. Close personal friendships between administrators and faculty members - ' '° ' ‘ are quite common. SA-A 18 49 26 07 24 N ~62 24 27 61 ~64 46 ~61 36 66 21 16 17 28 25 51 18 40 16 38 52 117. in comparison with most other institu- tions. faculty turnover hero appears to be somewhat high. 0-60 08 21 59 11 40 16 ~07 19 66 29 11 21 26 21 44 30 26 24 16 14 36 18 26 29 29 62 121. Although they may criticize certain practices. most faculty seem to be very loyal to the institution. SA-A 26 60 10 03 36 ~64 ~24 69 46 29 ~12 33 ill 26 ‘79 22 29 16 24 47 44 17 39 12 40 81 122. There is a strong sense of community. a feeling of shared interests and pur- poses. onthis campus. SA-A 12 43 34 10 09 ~27 ~42 ~64 64 26 ~26 49 ~23 27 76 16 11 10 21 46 61 13 48 06 43 66 123. in general. faculty morale is high. SA-A 11 54 26 08 26 ~09 ~13 67 31 37 ~17 44 16 39 66 30 23 23 26 37 67 18 61 27 48 67 126. The faculty in general is strongly com- mitted to the acknowledged purposes and ideals of the institution. SA-A 14 62 21 03 36 ~06 ~16 16 66 43 ~26 60 07 40 63 22 22 18 29 47 48 20 61 16 49 74 131. Most faculty would not defend the in- stitution against criticisms from out- siders. ° 0-50 04 16 55 27 31 07 ~66 24 36 36 ~07 40 16 44 76 23 22 20 24 37 38 11 34 19 39 60 210 Appendix 3.2 IFI Coefficient Alpa Reliabilities 211 Coefficient alpha reliabilities. means. standard deviations. and standard errors of measurement (based on faculty means at 37 institutions) E Scale prfil Mean s.o. se meas. lAE .99 9.49 2.1 1 .73 F .90 9.05 1.49 .47 HD .90 7.11 1.90 .57 is .95 9.75 2.39 .54 UL .92 9.19 1.79 .so 06 .99 9.99 1.77 .35 MLN .92 9.99 2.25 .94 SP .99 7.33 1.32 .49 AK .99 4.50 2.74 .55 or .92 7.95 1.49 .41 lE .92 ,- 9.51 1.29 .39 1.91. 4.2 Coefficient alpha reliabilities (based on student means at 17 institutions and administrator means at 22 institutions) Scale Students Administrators lAE .91 .88 F .93 .86 H0 .96 .86 is .90 .92 UL .87 .88 06 .96 .93 MLN 89 SP .83 AK .94 Cl 37 is 90 212 Appendix 3.3 Correspondence Used with the Survey 213 NORTH COUNTRY COMMUNITY COLLEGE M E M O R A N D U M TO: Ail'Administration and Faculty . FROM: David W. Petty, President ' RE: Institutional Research at NCCC for 1985-86 DATE: September 19, 1985 As part of our on-going program of institutional research, the College will be asking its staff to complete and return a survey form. The Institutional Functioning inventory. This nationally recognized survey form deals primarily with people's perceptions of how the College functions. The analysis of these perceptions enables the College to fine tune both its planning and its marketing. Charles Barletta, Dean of our Malone Campus, will be supervising this study as part of his doctoral program at Michigan State. I urge you to have your response included in this study by returning the enclosed form to Peg Kelly by October 7, 1985. A detailed report and a summary of the findings will be made available at the conclusion of the study. In advance, i thank you for your help. pk Encs. 214 T0: Supeauiaoaa/Legiatatoaa -FROM: Chaatea K. Bantett DATE: Septembea 16, 7985 Thanh you 60a agaeeing to panticipate in Noath Countag Community Coiiege'a inatitutionai Functioning Inventony Pianning and Re— aeaach Paoject. Voua input wiii be a big heip to the cotiege 604 pianning and maaheting. Voua neAponaei aae Ataictig confiidentiai and you aae not aequined on athed to identifiy youaaeifi. Pieaae tahe about 20 minutea to aeéiect on the queationt contained in the queAtion boohtet. Voua neiponaea Ahouid be aeconded on the Inititutionai Functioning Inuentong anawea sheet which is attached. Pieaae one the encioaed ii2 leaded pencii. Do not use ink on bait- point pen. The iaat queation ii a tocai option queation which Ahouid be necoaded in the Aubgnoup tection undea instinctionA-— iocai option question A. Thanh you again. we wiii be in touch in the neat gutuac aegaading the neauiti 06 thia pnoject. CKB/cm 215 DIRECTIONS: 7) Use a '2 leaded pencil only in (illing out question.sheet. Question booklet contains specifiic diaections negaading item 2) section. 3’ Ritalin question sheet only £0: Chm“ K. Buzetta' Dgan NCCC College Avenue Malone. New Yeah 72963 as soon as possible. 4) Maize Act/LC to ensure/i. local option question A. 5) Thank you 504 gout coopeaation in this planning paaject. 216 REFERENCE L IST 217 Allport, F. H. (1955). Theories of perception and the Concepg‘of structure. New York: John Wiley and Sons. American Psychological Association. (1966). Standards for educa- tional and psychological tests and manuals._TWashington, DC? Afithor. Armore, S. J. (1966). Introduction to statistical analysis and inference for psychologyand evaluation. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Arter, M. (1981). Use of the Community College Goals Inventory as an impetus for change in a ruralicommunity college. Paper presented at the Eleventh AnnualTConference of CAIR, San Francisco, CA. Asher, W. (1976). Educational research and evaluation methods. Boston: Little-Btown. Baldridge, J. V. (1971). Environmental pressurel professional autonomy, and coping strategies in academic organizations. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University, Center fErCResearCh and Development in Teaching. Baldridge, J. V. (1971). Academic governance: Research on institutional politics and decision making. *Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishihg Corporation. Baldridge, J. V. (1971). Power and conflict in the university. New York: John Wiley andCSons. Barton, A. H. (1961). Organizational measurement and its bearing on the study of college environments. New York: College EntrancegBoard} Beckhard, R. (1969). Organization development: Strategies and models. Reading, MA: Addison4wesley. Bennis, W. (1966). Changing organizations. New York: McGraw Hill. Blau, P. (1970). A formal theory of differentiation in organiza- tions. American Sociological Review, :5, 203-217. Bloom, K., Gillie, A., 6 Leslie, L. (1971). ’Goals and ambivalenCe: Faculty values and the community college philosophy (Report No. 13). UniversityTPark: Pennsylvania State University, Center for the Study of Higher Education. Breneman, D.W., & Nelson, S.C. (1981). Financing community col- ' leges: An economic perspectiVEH Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute: 218 Brubacher, J., G Rudy, W. (1976). Higher'education in transition. New York: Harper and Row. Bushnell, D. S. (1973). Organizing for change: New priorities for community colleges; ’NewCYork: MCGraw Hill. Campbell, D. T., 6 Fiske, D. W. (1959). Covergent and discriminant validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. (1970). The open door colleges: Policies for community colleges. New York: McGraw. Hill. Cartwright, D., G Zander, A. (1960). Group dynamics: Research and theory (2nd ed.). New York: Harper andiRow. Carzo, R., & Yanouzas, J. (1969). Effects of flat and tall organizational structures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 11 (2), 178-191. Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Clark, B. (1971). Faculty organization and authority. In L. Baldridge (Ed.), Academic governance. Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Corporation. Clark, B. (1960). The open door college: A case Study. New York: McGraw Hill. Cohen, A., 6 Brawer, F. (1972). Cdnfronting identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Cohen, A., G Brawer, F. (1982). The American community college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Conrad, C. F. (1974). University goals: An operative approach. Journal of Higher Education, 35, 504-516. Corson, J. (1975). The governance of colleges and universities. New York: McGraw’Hill. Cross, K. P. (1981). Community colleges on the plateau. Journal of Higher Education, 52. Danforth Foundation. (1969). A report: College goals and gover- nance (Danforth News and Notes). Durkheim, E. (1947). The division of labor in society (G. Simpson, Trans.). Glencoe, IL: *The Free Press. (Original work pub- lished 1893) Etzioni, A. (1961). A comparative analysis of complex organiza- tions. New York: Free Press. 219 Etzioni, A. (1964). Modern organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Eaton, J. (1982). Judging community colleges: Look at student success. Community and Junior College Journal, 1; (1), 16-21. Feldman, K., & Newcomb, T. (1969). The impact of college on students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Festinger, L. (Ed.). (1950). Social pressures on informal groups. New York: Harper and Brothers. Forehand, G., G Gilmer, B. (1964). Environmental variations in studies of organizational behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 62, 361-382. Frey, J. H. (1977). An organizational analysis of university- environment relations. *Las vegas, NV: ’Ufiiversity Press of America. Fuldauer, L. B. (1978). An analysis of organizational goals and climate at George Peabody College for Teachers with managerial implicationsifor higher education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nashville, TN, George Peabody College for Teachers. Gilmer, B. V. (1971). Industrial and organizational_psychology. New York: McGraw Hill. Gladieux, L. (1983). The issue of equity in college finance. In The crisis in higher education. Montpelier, VT: Academy of Political Science. Glass, G. V., G Stanley, J. C. (1970). Statistical methods in education and psychology. Englewood Cliffs,iNJ3 Prentice- Hall. Good, C. (1973). Dictionary of education. New York: McGraw Hill. Greenleaf, R. (1977). Servant leadership: A_journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New—York: Paulist. Gross, E., G Grambsch, P. (1974). Changes in university organiza— tion, 1964-71. A report prepared'for the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. New York: McGraw Hill. Grusky, 0., G Miller, G. (1970). The sociologypof organizations. New York: Free Press. Haas, J. E., 8 Drabek, T. E. (1973). Complex organizatiOns: A sociological perspgctive. New York: ’MacMillan. 220 Hage, J., & Aiken, M. (1967). Relationship of centralization to other structural properties. Administrative ScienCe Quarterly, 12 (1). Hall, R. H. (1977). Organizations: Structure and process (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hampton, D., Sumner, C., 6 Wilber, R. (1968). Organizational behavior and the practice of management. Glenview, IL: SEott, Foresman. Hart, M. T. (1985). A survey of the reading coordinator's role as perceived by elementary schooliprincipals, classroom teachers, and readingcoordinators. Unpublished doctoral diSsertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Hefferlin, J. B. (1969). Dynamics of academic reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. House, R. J., 6 Rizzo, J. R. (1972). Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a model of organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1, 46745-5. Isaac, S., 6 Michael, W. B. (1971). Handbook in research and evaluation. San Diego, CA: Knapp Puhlishing‘Company. Kahn, R. L., Wolf, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., G Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Opganizational stress: Studies in role con- flict and ambiguity. Neinork: John Wiley anthons. Katz, D., 5 Kahn, R. (1966). The social psychology of organiza- tions. New York: John Wiley and*Sons. Kerlinger, F. (1973). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and’Winston. Lawrence, P., & Lorsch, I. (1967). Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and integration. CamhridgeziiHarvard GradUate School of Business Administration. Lazarsfeld, P. P., 8 Thielens, W. (1958). The academic mind. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Lazarsfeld, P. F., G Menzel, H. (1960). On the relation between individual and collective properties. In A. Etzioni (Ed.), Reader in Organizational Analysis. New York: Henry Holt. Lima, L.(l985). Perceptions of Brazilian educatiOnal participants concerning goals for higher education. iUnpublishdd doctoral dissertation, Michigan State UniverSity, East Lansing, MI. Lipset, S., Trow, M., & Colman, J. (1956). Union democracy. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. 221 Lombardi, J. (1973). The department/division struCture in the community college. lTopical paper No. 38. Los Angeles: ERIC Clearing House for Junior Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 085 051) Lynn, R. L. (1973). An investigation of institutiOnal goal congruence: Intention andypractiCe in ayprivate four-year colle e. ’Unpuhlished doctoralldissertation, University of Oklahoma. MacLaury, B. K. (1981). Foreward, in Financing the community college. Washington, DC: The Broohingsilnstitute. Martin, W. (1969). Conformipy: Standards and change in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Maxwell, N. (1984). An examination of the_perceptions of the goals for community colleges’by—internal and external constituent groups from selected Washington State community chlle es. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oregon State Univer51ty. Mayhew, L. B.,’& Dressel, P. L. (1954). General education: Explorations in evaluation. AmericanlCouncil on Education. McCartan, A. M. (1983). The community college mission: Present challenges and future visions. Journal of Higher Education, 51 (6), 676-692. McGrath, E. J. (1983). Determinants of successful collgges. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Medsker. L. (1960). The junior college, progress and pro§pect. New York: McGraw Hill. Metz, M. (1974). An analysis of the Institutional Functionipg Inventory administeredlto Community college of Denver, North Campus. Prihceton, NJ} Edficational'TESting Service. Millett, J. D. (1974).Strengthening community in higher education. Washington, DC: Academy for EdUcatienal'DevElopment. Millett, J. D. (1980). Manggement, governance and leadership. New York: AMACOM. Miner, J. (1971). Management theopy. New York: MacMillan. Monroe, C. (1972). Profile of the community college. Washington, DC: Jossey-Bass. Morphet, E., Johns, R., G Rellen, T. (1967). Educational organiza- tion and administration. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Morsch, W. (1971). State community college systemsz‘ Their r01e and operation in seven states."New York: Praeger PubliCations. 222 Mossman, G. L. (1976). The relationship of faculty characteristics to institutional goal ambivalence in a selected community col- lEge. Uhpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State niversity, Tempe, AZ. Murray, H. (1938). Explorations in_personality. New York: Oxford Press. Myer, M. W. ( 1972). Size and structure of organizations: A causal analysis. American Sociolpgical Review, 37, 343-440. Nash, P. (1968). The Goals of higher education: An empirical assessment. New YOrk: Columbia University, Bureau of Applied’Social Research. Newcomb, T. M. (1957). Personality and social change. New York: Dryden Press. Nie, N., Hull, C., Jenkins, J., Steinbrenner, K., 6 Brent, D. (1957). Statistical package for the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. Ogilvie, W. K., G Raines, M. R. (Eds.). (1971).. Perspectives on the community-junior college. New York: Meredith Corporation. Oliver, R. L., 6 Brief, A. P. (1977-78). Determinants and consequences of role conflict and role ambiguity among retail sales managers. Journal of Retailing, gg, 47-58. Pace, C. R. (1963). College and Universitnynvironment Scales, second edition: Technical manual. Princeton{lNJ: Educa- fienalllesting Service. Pace, C. R., G Stern, G. B. (1958). An approach to the measure- ment of psychological characteristics of college environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2, 269-277. Pace, C. R., 5 Stern, G. B. (1958). ‘A'criterion'Study'of college environment. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University ResearEh Institute, Psychological Research Center. Palola, E. G., 5 Padgett, W. (1971). 'Planning‘fOr self renewal: A new approach to planned organizational change. Berkeley, CA? ’University of California, Center for Research and Development in Higher Education. Parsons, T. (1958). Some ingredients of a general theory of formal organizations. In A. Halpin (Ed.), Administrative theopy in action. New York: MacMillan. Parsons, T. (1960). Structure and processes in modern sOcieties. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. ‘ 223 Partridge, P. H. (1971). Consent and consensus. New York: Praeger. Peat, Marwick, 6 Mitchell. (1969). The future of the public two year colleges in New York State. New York. Perkins, J. A. (1973). The university as an organization.- New York: McGraw Hill: Perrow, C. (1961). The analysis of goals in complex organiza- tions. American Sociological Review, gg, Peterson, R. E. (1971). College goals and the challenge of effectiveness. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testinngervice. Peterson, R. E. (1973). Goals for California higher education: A survey of 116 college communities. Berkeley, CA: Educational Testing Service. Peterson, R. E. (1974). Organization and administration in higher education: sociological and social-psychological perspectives. Review of Research in Education, 2, 296-347. Peterson, R. E., Centra, J. A., Hartnett, R. T., & Linn, R. L. (1983). Institutional Functioning Inventory preliminapy technical manual. Princeton,iNJ: *EdUCational Testing Service. Peterson, R. E., & Loye, D. E. (1967). Conversations toward a definition of institutional vitality. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Peterson, R. E., G Uhl, N. (1973). Formulating college and university goals: A guide for using the IGl. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Serviee. Phillips, H. (1980). Innovative idea bank. Arlington, VA: Monograph Publishing, Carrollton Press. Photo, J. T. (1976). An operational model using the Institutional Goals Inventory for determining the effecfiveness of a college's adminiStration. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,lUniversity of’Miami, Miami, FL. Piliavin, I. (1962). A study of staff relations in institutions caring for delinquent yputh: New’York: Colfimbia University, New York SChool of social WOrk. Pray; F. C. (1975). A new look at community college boards of trustees and presidents and their relationships: Suggestions for change. washington, DC: AmeriEan Association ofl Community and Junior Colleges. 224 Price, J. (1968). Organizational effectiveness: An inventory of propositions. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin. Pullias, E. (1972). Ten principles of college administration. School and Society, 100, 95-97. Richardson, R. C. (Ed.). (1975). New directions for community colleges: Reformin college governance (No. 107: San Francisco: Jossey- ass. Richardson, R. (1980). Community colleges: Institutional research- ers and the management issues of the eighties. Community College Review, g, 50-57. Richardson, R. (1983). Open access and institutional policy: Time for re-examination. Community College Review, 10 (4), 47-51. - _- Roethlisberger, J. J., 8 Dickson, N. J. (1939). Management and the worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rogers, R. (1969). Max Weber's ideal type theopy. New York: Philosophical Library. Rogers, R. R. (1984). Toward a theoretical model of the integration of organizational development within the administration of higher education. UnpubliShed doctoral dissertation,lMichigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Rowland, C. W. (1974). Furtheripg interinstitutional cooperation: An inventory for goals for three private colleges. iUnpublished doctoral’dissertatiOn, Kent State Uhiversiiy, Kent State University, OH. Sanford, N. (1967). Where colleges fail. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sax, G. (1968). Empirical foundations of educational research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Scott, E. (1956). Leadership and perceptions of organization. Columbus,wOH:' OhidiState'Uhiversity, Bureau of Business Research. Seeman, M. (1953). Role conflict and ambivalence in leadership. American Sociological Review, 18, 373-380. Sowell, E., 6 Casey, R. (1982). Research methods in education. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. State University of New York. (1982). Data resource book. Albany, NY: Author. 225 State University of New York. (1983). Geographic origins of first-time students (Report no. 3-83). Albany, NY: SUNY Central Office of‘lnstitutional Research. Strasser, W. E. (1977). Across new thresholds: Changing dimension of thepresidency of Montgpmerinbllege. Rockville, MD: MOntgomery College. (ERIC’Document ReprodUction Service No. ED 146 982) Taylor, F. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper and Row. Terreberry, S. (1968). The evolution of organizational environ- ments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 590-613. Thorderson, J. (1974). A studyof consensus in institutional functioning in a midwestern suburban communipy college, Unpuhlished doctoral’dissertation, Illinois State University. Thorton, J. W. (1966). The community junior college (2nd ed.). New York: Harper. Titchener, E. B. (1909). Lectures on the experimental psychology of the thoughtprocesses. New York: MacMillan. Trow, M. (1977). Departments as context for teaching and learning. In D. McHenry (Ed.), Academic departments. Washington, DC: Jossey-Bass. Uhl, N. (1973). Identifying institutional goals. Durham, NC: National Laboratory for Higher Education. Vaughan, G. B. (1982). The community college in America: A pocket history. Washington, DC: American Association of Cbmmunity and Junior Colleges. Walker, D. E. (1979). The effective administrator: A practical approach to problem solving, decision making, and campus leadership, San Francisco: Jessey-Bass. Wilson, B. (1979). An analysis of goal congruence in a geo- graphically dispersed uniVersity: ilmplications fer the governance of Antioch University. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,’Boston College, Boston, MA. Winstead, P., 6 Hobson, E. (1971). Institutional goals: Where to go from here? The Journal of Higher Education, 32. Zoglin, M. L. (1976). Power and politics in community college. Palm Springs, CA: ETC Publications. 226 "llllflllllllllllll