IN F O R M A T IO N T O USERS

This dissertation was produced from a m icrofilm copy o f the original document.
While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this
document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of
the original submitted.
The following explanation o f techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1.

T h e sign or "target" fo r pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the
missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with
adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and
duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity.

2.

When an image on the film is obliterated w ith a large round black
mark, it is an indication th a t the photographer suspected that the
copy

may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred

image. You will find a good image o f the page in the adjacent frame.
3.

When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part o f the material being
p h o to g rap h ed

the

photographer followed

a definite

method

in

"sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the
upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from
le ft to

right in equal sections w ith a small overlap. If necessary,

sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and
continuing on until complete.
4.

T h e majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest
value,

however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be

made from
dissertation.

"photographs" if essential to the understanding o f the
Silver

prints

of

"photographs"

may

be

ordered

at

additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog
number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced.

University Microfilms
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
A Xerox Education Company

I

73-5419
KOVACH, Robert Vincent, 1944A STUDY OF MICHIGAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE
ATMINISTRATOR ATTITUDES REGARDING THE DESIRED
FORMAL QUALIFICATIONS OF COMJNITY COLLEGE
FACULTY MEMBERS.
Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1972
Education, teacher training

University Microfilms, A XEROX Com pany, Ann Arbor, Michigan

©

Copyright by
ROBERT VINCENT KOVACH
1972

A STUDY OF MICHIGAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR
ATTITUDES REGARDING THE DESIRED FORMAL QUALIFICATIONS
OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACULTY MEMBERS
By
Robert V. Kovach

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Administration and Higher Education

1972

PLEASE NOTE:
Some pages may have
indistinct print.
Filmed as received.
University Microfilms, A Xerox Education Company

ABSTRACT
A STUDY OF MICHIGAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR
ATTITUDES REGARDING THE DESIRED FORMAL QUALIFICATIONS
OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACULTY MEMBERS
By
Robert V. Kovach

The Purpose
The purpose of this study was to determine the present
attitudes of chief community college administrators concerning
the desired formal qualifications of community college faculty
members.

In order to do so, specific research questions were

posed and relevant data were sought.

The major questions

explored in the study were as follows:
1.

What formal qualifications are considered by community
college administrators in their recruiting and selec­
tion of faculty members?

2.

What do community college administrators consider to
be the minimum formal qualifications, in terms of
educational training and background experiences, that
a prospective teacher must possess in order to be
considered for a teaching position?

3.

What do community college administrators believe to
be the most desirable formal qualifications with
respect to educational training and experience?

Robert V. Kovach
4.

Are community college administrators having diffi­
culty finding faculty members with the formal
qualifications they desire?
The Methodology
The population under investigation consisted of the

chief community college administrators under contract for
the 1971-72 academic year at the twenty-nine operating public
community colleges in the state of Michigan.

The study sam­

ple was composed of the chief administrative, academic,
business, and student personnel officers at each public
community college.

The sample included 170 individuals and

represented the entire population in the study.
Two sources were used to obtain data for the study.
Central records maintained by the Michigan Department of
Education provided the institutional data necessary to clas­
sify each respondent along the following dimensions:

insti­

tutional age, size, setting, proximity to a graduate institu­
tion, full-time faculty, part-time faculty, and part-time
versus full-time faculty.

The "Faculty Qualifications

Survey" was the survey instrument developed for use in the
study.

Of the 170 instruments sent out to administrators,

133 (78.2 per cent) were returned in usable form.
The data obtained for the study were analyzed
through the use of descriptive summaries of item responses,
in terms of frequency counts and percentages.

Selected

further analyses of data were conducted using both para­
metric and nonparametric statistical techniques.

Robert V. Kovach
Major Conclusions
On the basis of the data gathered for this study,
the following major conclusions seem appropriate:
1.

Formal qualifications relating to educational train­

ing at both the graduate and undergraduate levels were rated
as the most important qualifications to consider in prospec­
tive faculty members.

The only types of experience given

important consideration as qualifications were previous com­
munity college teaching experience and nonteaching experience.
2.

Very little consideration was given to the personal

characteristics of age, sex, and race of a prospective teacher
unless administrators were trying to employ individuals to
made their staffs more representative with respect to these
characteristics.
3.

The practice of "balancing" a faculty is accepted

by a large majority of community college administrators.
Respondents indicated that the formal qualifications of age,
sex, and race plus the distribution of master's, doctorates,
and other degrees should be considered in attaining and
maintaining some "balance" of faculty.
4.

Community colleges are having very little difficulty

in recruiting qualified faculty members at the present time,
and will probably experience the same or even less difficulty
in this task in the near future.

The only exception appears

to be in the applied arts area, where institutions are having
some difficulty in recruiting certain types of instructors.

Robert V. Kovach
5.

The master's degree plus at least one professional

course in community college education should be the minimum
educational training required of prospective liberal arts
teachers.

The bachelor's degree plus one professional

course in community college education was established as the
minimum educational training for applied arts teachers; how­
ever, many administrators desired the master's degree as
the minimum academic degree for applied arts instructors.
6.

No real minimum criteria concerning types of experi­

ence were established for prospective community college
teachers, with the exception of three years of vocational/
industrial experience required for applied arts teachers.
7.

Educational training was considered more important

than teaching experience as a qualification for a liberal
arts teacher.

Vocational/industrial experience was con­

sidered to be the most important qualification for an applied
arts teacher.

These qualifications were considered to be

easily found among present community college faculty.

Com­

munity college teaching experience, viewed by many adminis­
trators as the most important type of teaching experience
for a community college teacher, was the qualification most
difficult to find among present community college faculty.
8.

Formal preparation programs for community college

instructors should be different from programs for high school
or senior college teachers.

Many respondents indicated that

they are not satisfied with present preparation programs
for community college instructors.

They also indicated that

Robert V. Kovach
colleges of education are not the most appropriate organizations
to offer preparation programs for community college teachers.
9.

The most desirable degree for a community college

instructor is the master's degree in the subject field in
which he is teaching.

Administrators indicated that advanced

work beyond the master's degree was desirable as long as it
contributed to the faculty member's role as a teacher.

Almost

half the respondents thought community colleges should
encourage faculty to take advanced coursework by paying the
tuition of those who wish to undertake such work.
10.

Community college instructors should not possess

doctoral degrees of either the "teaching" or the subject
field types.

Many administrators indicated that they do

not believe that most Ph.D.'s can be excellent and committed
community college teachers.

They also did not strongly sup­

port the statement that the Doctor of Arts degree is more
appropriate than other doctorates for community college
teachers.
11.

Formal qualifications criteria should be different

for community college liberal arts and applied arts teachers.
However, respondents indicated that formal qualifications
criteria should be the same for full-time and part-time
faculty members in these areas.
12.

The attitudes of administrators concerning the

desired formal qualifications of faculty members at the com­
munity college level were generally very consistent across
types of administrative positions and types of institutions.

To Marilyn
M.T.Y., L.T.T.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author is deeply grateful for the personal
guidance, support, and encouragement in the writing of this
dissertation provided by Dr. Vandel Johnson, his major pro­
fessor, and by Dr. Maryellen McSweeney, who--through her
generous assistance— acted in an unofficial co-director
capacity.

To Dr. Louis Stamatakos and Dr. James McKee, the

writer expresses thanks for their willingness to serve on
his guidance committee and for the assistance and encourage­
ment they provided the writer during the coursework and
dissertation stages of his doctoral program.
The assistance of many other individuals and groups
is also acknowledged here.

The assistance of personnel at

the Michigan Department of Education and those community
college administrators who contributed to this study is
greatly appreciated.

A special "thank you" is extended to

Dr. Max Raines, who provided valuable assistance to, and
enthusiastic support of, this study and its implementation.
Finally,

the writer is very grateful to his wife,

Marilyn, for the love and encouragement she has provided,
and the patience she has shown, to the writer during the
completion of his doctoral program.

This accomplishment

is due, in large measure, to her assistance.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES............................................
LIST OF APPENDICES.................................

vi
viii

Chapter
I.

INTRODUCTION......................................
Statement of the Problem......................
Purpose of the Study..........................
Significance of the Study ....................
Definition of Terms ..........................
Delimitation of the S t u d y ....................
Assumptions Upon Which the Study Is Based . .
Organization of the S t u d y ....................

II.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.........................
An O v e r v i e w ...................................
Community College Faculty: The Need .........
The Growth of Community Colleges...........
The Need for Faculty: Quantity
and Q u a l i t y ..............................
The Formal Qualifications of Present
Community College Faculty Members .........
The Formal Preparation of Community
College Faculty ............................
The Concern Over the Quality of Teachers. .
The Oversupply of Advanced Degree Holders .
Preparation Programs for Community
College Teachers..........................
Academic Degrees for Community
College Teachers..........................
S u m m a r y .......................................

III.

1
1
5
6
8
11
11
12
14
14
16
16
19
24
34
34
40
44
48
56

M E T H O D O L O G Y ......................................

59

Definition of the Population.................
The Sample.....................................
Sources of the D a t a ..........................

59
60
61

iv

Chapter

IV.

Page
Description of the I n s t r u m e n t ..............
Collection of the Data........................
Statistical Treatment of the D a t a ..........
Limitations of the Methodology..............
S u m m a r y .......................................

62
64
66
69
70

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA............................

72

Characteristics of Respondents...............
Respondent and Nonrespondent Analysis . . . .
Presentation and Analysis of D a t a ...........
What Formal Qualifications Are Considered
by Community College Administrators in
Their Recruitment and Selection of
Faculty Members?..........................
What Do Community College Administrators
Consider to Be the Minimum Formal
Qualifications, in Terms of Educational
Training and Background Experiences,
That a Prospective Teacher Must Possess
in Order to Be Considered for a Teach­
ing P o s i t i o n ? ............................
What Do Community College Administrators
Believe to Be the Most Desirable
Formal Qualifications With Respect
to Educational Training andExperience? .
Are Community College Administrators
Having Difficulty in Finding Faculty
Members With the Formal Qualifications
They Desire?..............................
Other Relevant D a t a ........................
Summary of the F i n d i n g s ......................

103
109
115

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS .................................

121

S u m m a r y .......................................
Purpose of the Study........................
M e t h o d o l o g y .................................
Findings of the S t u d y ......................
C o n c l u s i o n s ...................................
Implications...................................
Recommendations ..............................

121
122
124
125
129
133
139

BIBLIOGRAPHY..............................................

141

APPENDICES................................................

155

V.

v

72
76
82

83

88

95

LIST OF TABLES

Table

Page

1.

Summary of Responses to Survey....................

65

2.

Position of Respondent.............................

73

3.

Respondent Community College Experience .........

74

4.

Age of R e s p o n d e n t .................................

75

5.

Highest Degree Earned by Respondent .............

75

6.

Questionnaire Response Rate, by
Administrative Position ........................

77

7.

Consideration of Qualifications . . . .

84

8.

Characteristics to Consider in "Balance"
of Faculty.
...................................

87

Number of Characteristics to Consider in
"Balance" of Faculty............................

87

Minimum Educational Training for Community
College Teachers................................

89

Minimum Experience for Community College
Teachers.........................................

90

Most Desirable Educational Training for
Community College Instructors .................

95

13.

Importance of Qualifications......................

99

14.

Ranking of Qualifications Based on Importance . .

98

15.

Kendall's Coefficients of Concordance ...........

102

16.

Present Difficulty in Recruiting Qualified
Community College Faculty Members .............

104

Future Difficulty in Recruiting Qualified
Community College Faculty Members as
Compared to Present Difficulty.................

105

9.
10.
11.
12.

17.

vi

.........

Page

Table
18.
19.
20.

Formal Qualifications Most Difficult to
Find in Community College Faculty Members . . .

107

Formal Qualifications Least Difficult to
Find in Community College Faculty Members . . .

108

Responses
of Administrators to Each of
Ten Attitude Statements ........................

Ill

vii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix
A.

Page

MICHIGAN'S PUBLIC COMMUNITY COLLEGES
AND THEIR RESPECTIVE LOCATIONS.................

156

CRITERIA USED TO CLASSIFY COMMUNITY
COLLEGES ON INSTITUTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS . . .

159

C.

LETTERS OF CORRESPONDENCE ......................

163

D.

THE SURVEY I N S T R U M E N T ...........................

166

E.

SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF THE
CHI-SQUARE ANALYSES PERFORMED .................

171

CONTINGENCY TABLES ILLUSTRATING
SIGNIFICANT ASSOCIATIONS........................

175

WRITTEN COMMENTS OF RESPONDENTS ................

192

B.

F.
G.

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem
The most striking development in higher education in
the last several decades has been the tremendous growth of
community colleges.

Over 1,000 two-year colleges are already

established in the United States; and during the late 1960's
more were being added at the rate of one new institution per
week.'*'

Today, well over two million students are enrolled in

community colleges in this nation.

Garrison, writing in the

late 1960's, predicted that by 1975 there will exist between
1,200 and 1,300 two-year colleges, enrolling an estimated
3.5 to 4.5 million students.

2

Many, varied explanations are set forth to account
for this phenomenal growth of community colleges.

Among them

are the open-admission policies of most institutions, their
geographical distribution in many states, their low charges
^Clifford G. Erickson, "Recruitment of Faculty for
the Community and Junior Colleges," in In Search of Leaders,
Current Issues in Higher Education, 1967, ed. by G. Kerry
Smith (Washington, D. C . ; American Association of Higher
Education, 1967), p. 249.
2

Roger H. Garrison, Teaching in a Junior College
(Washington, D. C . ; American Association of Junior Colleges,
1968), p. 3.
1

2
for tuition, their varied programs, and their appeal to
students of all ages and commitments.'*'
Because of their popularity, all two-year colleges
in America, but especially the publicly supported two-year
institutions, are facing an increasing number of demands from
their constituencies.

These demands range from calls to

expand continually their existing academic programs and course
offerings, to calls for initiating and implementing extensive
programs of community service.

At the same time, community

colleges are being warned that they will be held accountable—
both financially and academically— for the services they do
provide.^
The solution to meeting the demand for increased
accountability and the key to the development of a quality
educational institution has been— and always will be— the
3

skilled,

fully professional teacher.

As Gleazer so clearly

stated in his book, This Is The Community College;

■'"Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, The OpenDoor Colleges: Policies for Community Colleges (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1970), p. 3.
2

John E. Roueche, George A. Baker, III, and Richard L.
Brownell, Accountability and the Community College:
Direc­
tions for the 7 0 's (Washington, D. C . : American Association
of Junior Colleges, 1971), p. 11; W. A. Harper, "The Commu­
nity and Junior College:
An Overview," The Peabody Journal
of Education, XLVIII (July, 1971), 261.
3
Roger H. Garrison, Junior College Faculty:
Issues
and Problems (Washington, D. C . : American Association of
Junior Colleges, 1967), p. 33. Hereinafter referred to as
Junior College Faculty.

3
. . . No matter how profound the policy statements
of the board or the president, the actual character
of the college will be determined in time by the
teacher in the classroom and laboratory.1
How does the community college teacher feel about
the demands being placed upon his institution and his role
within it?

This is what one faculty member had to say:

I sometimes wonder whether this open-door policy is a
good idea.
If I get any more students to cope with, I
just won't have time to study— or even do a decent job
of preparing the classes I do have. What is the solu­
tion? More teachers? Yes--more good ones.
And where
are they going to come from?2
The questions raised in the above statement begin to
approach the theme of this study.

In the past, there was a

real concern over whether the community college could attract,
enough teachers in the numbers that were needed.

This con­

cern was reflected in writings possessing titles such as:
Wanted:

3

30,000 Instructors for Community Colleges and
4
"College Teachers:
Demand Exceeds Supply."
However, in

recent years the tone of the writing on community college
teachers is changing— from one of worrying about quantity

"^Edmund J. Gleazer, Jr. , This Is The Community Col­
lege (Boston:
Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1968), p. 78.
2
Garrison, Junior College Faculty, p. 42.
3
Council on Cooperation in Teacher Education, Want e d :
30,000 Instructors for Community Colleges (Washington, D. C . :
American Council on Education, 1949).
4
"College Teachers:
Demand Exceeds Supply; Summary of
Teacher Supply and Demand in Universities, Colleges and Junior
Colleges, 1959-60 and 1960-61," N.E.A. Research Bulletin,
XXXIX (October, 1961), 77-84.

4
(and sometimes quality)

to a concern just for the quality

of teachers.^
This alteration in tone has been caused by a change
in the community college's situation with respect to recruit­
ing faculty members.

A shortage of jobs due to economic con­

ditions and an increased number of advanced degree holders in
certain disciplines have led to more individuals applying to
the community college for employment.

2

As a result, many

community colleges are finding themselves in a unique and
advantageous position on the job market:

In many areas, the

supply of new teachers exceeds the demand.
Finding themselves in such a position, community
colleges have the opportunity to start critically reviewing
their formal standards for employment and, if necessary, to
establish new (higher) criteria for selection of faculty
members.

But are they doing this?

What formal qualifica­

tions are necessary for employment as a faculty member in a
public community college today?

What qualifications are

For example, see John E. Roueche and William H.
McFarlane, "Improved Instruction in the Junior College:
Key to Equal Opportunity," Journal of Higher Education,
XL I (December, 1970), 713-722.
2

"Negotiations:
Unionization of Faculty Expected
to Pick Up Speed Because of Tight Money and Ph.D.'s,"
College Management, VI (September, 1971), 38; John W.
Huther, "Small Market for Ph.D.'s:
The Public Two-Year
College," AAUP Bulletin, LVIII (March, 1972), 17.

5
considered as important in an application for employment as
a community college teacher?
In many community colleges throughout the nation,
the chief administrative officers in the community college
still play a major role in the recruitment and selection of
faculty members.

If standards for employment in the commu­

nity college are changing, these administrators should be
aware of and, in many instances, playing a role in, the
development of new standards.

Their desires and attitudes

regarding the criteria to be used in the screening and selec
tion of prospective faculty members are bound to have an
impact upon whatever criteria and procedures are followed
by their respective institutions.
Purpose of the Study
The primary purpose of this study is to determine
the present attitudes of chief community college adminis­
trators concerning the.desired formal qualifications of fac­
ulty members at the community college level.
Specifically, the data sought pertain to the follow*ing questions:
1.

What formal qualifications are considered by commu^
nity college administrators in their recruiting and
selection of faculty members?

2.

What do community college administrators consider to
be the minimum formal qualifications, in terms of

6
educational training and background experiences, that
a prospective teacher must possess in order to be
considered for a teaching position?
3.

What do community college administrators believe to
be the most desirable formal qualifications with
respect to educational training and experience?

4.

Are community college administrators having difficulty
in finding faculty members with the formal qualifica­
tions they desire?

5.

Do the respondents believe that desired formal quali­
fications should be different for the different types
of instructors needed by community colleges?

6.

Are the attitudes of the administrators responding
to this survey consistent across types of administra­
tors and types of institutions?
Significance of the Study
The significance of this study is threefold:

1.

The chief administrators in a community college set

the tone for much of the college.

Their wishes and desires

are generally set forth and followed, either explicitly or
implicitly, by the rest of the institution.

No recent study

has attempted to ask these individuals what they desire in
the way of formal qualifications of faculty.

By attempting

this task in the present study, one may come closer to per­
ceiving the actual conditions that exist in the community
college in the area of faculty qualifications.

7
2.

As a result of renewed interest in the quality of

teaching in higher education, many graduate institutions are
establishing new programs designed for preparing prospective
junior and senior college teachers.

The programs for junior

college instructors are being established at the master's,
doctorate, and intermediate degree levels.

Although the

present study does not go into depth with respect to the
content that such programs should have, it does deal with the
topic of the appropriate degree level for these programs.
The study also indicates the type of experience desired in
prospective faculty members by community college administra­
tors.

Information in both of these areas would be very use­

ful to these graduate institutions in their efforts to counsel
students who wish to pursue careers in community college
teaching, and in their efforts to establish preparation pro­
grams that would be more responsive to the present and future
needs of community colleges.
3.

Although the present study does not test the similar­

ity of attitudes held by community college administrators and
individuals representing the other "governing" groups

(fac­

ulty, trustees, and students) within the institution or
external to the institution, the results of this research can
serve as a starting point for determining the attitudes held
by these various other groups.

The survey instrument itself—

with only minor modifications— could easily provide a means
of ascertaining the attitudes of these other groups.

8
Definition of Terms
For clarity of understanding, the following terms
are defined either because of their specialized meaning or
because of the operational definition which is used in this
particular study.
Administrator— For the purposes of this study, the
term administrator is used to designate the chief adminis­
trative, academic, business, and student personnel officers
under contract for the 1971-1972 academic year at each pub­
lic community college

(and each campus thereof, in the case

of multicampus institutions)

in the state of Michigan.

Attitude--The sense in which this general term is
used follows the definition set forth by Thurstone:

the

intensity of positive or negative affect for or against a
psychological object.^

A psychological object is any person,

symbol, phrase, institution, ideal, or idea toward which
people can differ with respect to positive or negative affect.
In psychology literature, the term affect is used inter­
changeably with the word feeling.

Hence a person having a

positive affect or feeling for some psychological object is
said to like the object and have a favorable attitude toward

■*"L. L. Thurstone, "Comment," American Journal of
Sociology, LII (July, 1946), 39.
2

Allen L. Edwards, Techniques of Attitude Scale
Construction (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc.,
1957), p. 2.

9
In this study, the psychological object is the idea
or actual existence of persons possessing different formal
qualifications and seeking employment, or already being
employed, as faculty in a public community college.
Faculty members— For the purposes of the present
study, this term is used to denote those persons who perform
teaching functions for a community college.

Personnel whose

primary function is counseling students are also included
in this designation.

Faculty members may be employed either

full time or part time by the institution.
In this study, community college faculty members are
classified into two main groupings:
arts faculty.

liberal arts and applied

Liberal arts faculty is used as a general

designation of faculty members teaching or counseling in the
areas of Arts and Sciences, and Developmental and/or General
Education.

Applied arts faculty designates those faculty

members teaching or counseling in the areas of Applied Arts
and Sciences, Vocational/Technical Education, and/or Occupa­
tional Education.
Throughout the study, the terms instructors and
teachers are used as synonyms for the term faculty members.
Formal qualifications--The formal qualifications of
an individual are defined as those aspects of the background
of an individual which would be included in a written employ­
ment application or personnel record.

In general, these

formal qualifications are objective statements about certain
demographic characteristics of the individual

(for example,

10
age and sex), and about the person's present and previous
educational and occupational experiences or activities.
In many instances, these formal qualifications are
used almost exclusively during the initial screening and
consideration of candidates for a teaching position.

They

comprise the main criteria upon which decisions are made,
determining which of the prospective candidates will remain
under consideration for a position and will be personally
interviewed.

These formal qualifications, along with the

administrators' evaluation of the informal qualifications
(for example, personality and mannerisms) of the individual
during the personal interview, are used by administrators
in their decisions whether to recommend a particular indi­
vidual for employment as a community college teacher.
Public community colleges--This term refers to those
Michigan junior community colleges which are actually regis­
tering and teaching students during the 1971-1972 academic
year, and are considered by the State Department of Education
to be public
institutions.

(as opposed to private or church-supported)
Twenty-nine of these institutions are oper­

ating in 1971-1972, as listed in the 1971-1972 Directory of
Institutions of Higher Education, published by the Michigan
Department of Education.'*'

~*~1971-72 Directory of Institutions of Higher Educa­
tion (Lansing, Michigan:
Michigan Department of Education,
1971), pp. 9-13.

11
Delimitation of the Study
The study is based on a sample of chief community
college administrators in the state of Michigan.

The sample

includes only those administrators designated as the chief
administrative, academic, business, and student personnel
officers at each public community college, as set forth by
the Michigan State Department of Education in its 1971-72
Directory of Institutions of Higher Education.^
Hence, while implications for future community col­
leges do exist, one must understand that this study is focused
upon public community colleges within the geographical limits
of Michigan.

Therefore, the transfer of generalizations to

other geographical regions should be made only by the reader
who is willing to take upon himself the responsibility for
the validity of such extended generalizations.
Assumptions Upon Which the Study Is Based
The following assumptions are made as the limiting
factors for the purposes of this study:
1.

A satisfactory survey instrument was devised for the
purpose of determining the attitudes of community
college administrators regarding the formal quali­
fications they desire community college faculty
members to possess.

2.

The community college administrators responding to
the survey instrument were able to understand the
■*"Ibid.

12
intent of the instrument and its contents, and
responded in a manner truly representing their views
on the subject.
3.

The community college administrators responding to
the survey instrument were representative of the
chief community college administrators within the
state of Michigan.
Organization of the Study
In this study the present attitudes of the chief

community college administrators in the state of Michigan are
determined, concerning the desired formal qualifications of
community college faculty members.
The general plan of the study is organized into
five chapters:
A statement of the problem and the purpose and sig­
nificance of the present study are set forth in Chapter I.
In Chapter II, a review of the literature and research
related to community college faculty and their formal qual­
ifications is presented.
The methodology for the study is set forth in
Chapter III.

This chapter also contains a definition of the,

population used in the study, a description of the survey
instrument, and a discussion of the statistical procedures
used in the analysis of data.
The analysis of the data and the findings of the
study are presented in Chapter IV.

13
Finally, th6 summary of the study and major conclu­
sions, implications, and recommendations are contained in
Chapter V.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

An Overview
.The public community college is unique among the
institutions of American higher education.
uniqueness lies in its diversity.

In essence, its

The public community col­

lege means many different things to different people.

Com­

munity colleges differ in their student bodies, their physi­
cal facilities, the communities they attempt to serve, and
their educational goals.
The differences among community colleges also extend
to the types of teaching staffs employed by these institu­
tions.

Preparing teachers for the community college is a

difficult task because no one has been able to provide a
simple definition of what a community college is, or what a
community college teacher is— or should be."*- Because of this
difficulty in generalizing about the community college and
its teachers, the task of securing qualified faculty members
in the numbers needed has been, and will continue to be,

^“Preparing Two-Year College Teachers for the 70's
(Washington, D. C . : American Association of Junior Colleges,
1971) , p. 7. Hereinafter referred to as Preparing Two-Year
College Teachers.
14

15
one of the critical problems facing the community col­
lege .
In surveying the literature dealing with community
college faculty, one reaches two conclusions.

First, most

of the literature on this topic is speculative in nature.
Very few research studies have been conducted in the area of
2
community college faculty members and their qualifications.
3
Of the research studies that have been conducted, many have

dealt with a descriptive analysis of the qualifications of
existing faculty members, without attempting to determine
whether, in fact, these qualifications were considered
desirable in community college faculty.
The second conclusion that may be drawn from a search
of the literature in this area is that there appears to have
been a revival of interest in the problem of securing quali­
fied faculty for the community college.

Although several

significant writings were published earlier, renewed interest
really began to be noticeable in writings appearing in the
■^"Recruiting Problems in Booming Junior Colleges,"
Phi Delta Kappan, LI (February, 1970), 334-335.
2

This conclusion was also reached by Florence B.
Brawer in her 1968 review of the literature on college and
university faculty in Personality Characteristics of College
and University Faculty:
Implications for the Community Col­
lege (Washington, D. C . : American Association of Junior
Colleges, 1968), p. xvi.
Hereinafter referred to as Person­
ality Characteristics.
3
For example, see Paul Parker, Characteristics of
Full-Time Public Community Junior College Instructors:
The
Kansas Profile (Pittsburg, Kansas: Kansas State College,
1970) (ERIC Document No. ED 052777).

16
latter half of the 1 9 6 0 's.

In the early 1970’s, the interest

came into full bloom in the form of a major emphasis on the
formal qualifications of community college faculty members.
Development of interest in the formal qualifications
of community college faculty members is traced in the litera­
ture review.

However, because of the impact of changes that

have taken place in the labor market in the last two to three
years, the review of literature is focused upon the litera­
ture that has appeared in the last three years.
The review of the literature includes a discussion
of the following topics:
faculty,

(1) the need for community college

(2) the formal qualifications of present community

college faculty members, and (3) the formal preparation of
community college faculty.
Community College Faculty:

The Need

The Growth of Community Colleges
As stated above, the community college means many
different things to different people.

Some people view the

community college as a solution to their educational and
personal needs.

The proof that American community colleges

have met and are meeting the needs of the nation was spec­
tacularly demonstrated in the 1960's, when enrollments more
than doubled.'*'
■^Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, The OpenDoor Colleges: Policies for Community Colleges (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1970), p. 5. Hereinafter referred to
as Open-Door Colleges.

17
By 1969, community college students accounted for
nearly 30 per cent of all undergraduates and over 25 per cent
of all students in higher education in the nation.^-

The

Carnegie Commission projected that enrollments will again
double in the current decade, to the point that by 1980 they
2
will exceed four million students.
The growth in the number of two-year colleges has
been equally spectacular.

Slightly more than seventy years

have elapsed since the first public junior colleges were
established.
leges.

By 1960, there were 656 public two-year col­

This number nearly doubled in the decade of the 1960's,

to the point where, in 1970, there were over 1,100 of these
3
public institutions.
Based on its estimates of growth
trends, the Carnegie Commission projected a need for an addi4
tional 230 to 280 new public community colleges by 1980.
Two-year colleges are now located in every state of
the nation."’

However, the growth in the number of colleges

in the nation as a whole has been uneven.

Seven states have

^Ibid. , p. 3.
2
Leland L. Medsker and Dale Tillery, Breaking the
Access Barriers; A Profile of Two-Year Colleges (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1971), p. vii. Hereinafter referred
to as Access Barriers.
^Ibid. , p. 17.
4
Carnegie Commission, Open-Door Colleges, p. 36.
’’Roger Yarrington, ed. , Junior Colleges:
50 States/
50 Years (Washington, D. C . : American Association of Junior
Colleges, 1969).

18
been identified as "pacesetter" states, in which public com­
munity colleges have thrived considerably better than in
other states because of favorable legislation, fiscal poli­
cies, and broad public support.

Michigan is one of these

states.'*'
Michigan established thirteen new community colleges
during the decade of the sixties, bringing its total number
of public community colleges to twenty-nine in 1970.

2

The

enrollment in Michigan's two-year institutions rose from
26,403 students in 1960 to 127,629 students in 1970.

This

was an increase of over 380 per cent.

Most of this growth
3
occurred in Michigan public two-year colleges.
There are plans to establish thirty-two community
college districts in Michigan, which will completely cover
the state.

This process will involve the creation of new

community college districts or the expansion of existing
districts, and the establishment of more multicampus institutions.

4

The Carnegie Commission estimated that, m

order to

meet the rising demand for and enrollments in community
^Medsker and Tillery, Access Barriers, p. 25.
2

Philip J. Gannon, "Fifty Years of Community Involve­
ment in Michigan," in Junior Colleges: 50 States/50 Years,
ed. by Roger Yarrington (Washington, D. C . : American Assoc­
iation of Junior Colleges, 1969), p. 113.
31971 Junior College Directory (Washington, D. C . :
American Association of Junior Colleges, 1971), p. 9.
4
State Board for Public Community and Junior Colleges,
A Recommended Community College Districting Plan (Lansing:Michigan Department of Education, 1968).

19
colleges, the state of Michigan will need to create eight
or nine new public community colleges by 1980.^
More than 132,000 students were enrolled in Michigan
public community colleges for the fall, 1971, academic
term.

2

By 1980, the enrollment figure has been projected
3
to be approximately 200,000 students.
There is also a

trend which indicates that an increasing proportion of these
students will be enrolling in career or occupational pro4
grams, as opposed to transfer programs.
The Need for Faculty:
Quantity and Quality
The phenomenal growth in enrollments and in the num­
ber of public community colleges has created an urgent need
for new faculty members.

Writing in 1967, Gleazer predicted

a need for 100,000 additional community college teachers by
5
1977.
The Carnegie Commission, in its report, The Open-Door
Colleges:

Policies for Community Colleges, published just

three years later (in 1970), estimated that nearly 200,000
new teachers, including replacements would be needed in

■^Carnegie Commission, Open-Door Colleges, p. 64.
2
Higher Education General Information (HEGIS) Survey
1971-72, OE Form 2300-2.3-1, for Michigan.
3
Carnegie Commission, Open-Door Colleges, p. 62.
4
Medsker and Tillery, Access Barriers, p. 62.
"’Edmund J. Gleazer, Jr., "Preparation of Junior Col­
lege Teachers," Educational Record, LXVIII (Spring, 1967),
147. Hereinafter referred to as "Preparation."

20
community colleges by 1980.'*'

The Commission went on to

report that it believed at least 10,000 new professional
counselors would also be needed by the end of the 1970's.
To discuss whether the above estimates on the number
of new faculty members needed by public community colleges
in the next eight to ten years are high or low is beyond
the scope of the present study.

The point on which there

should be ready agreement is that public community colleges
will have a need in the future for a number of new faculty
members.
However, the most important staffing problem facing
community colleges in the near future is not whether they will
be able to fill the additional teaching positions that will
be created, but whether they will be able ". . . t o recruit
the right people so that the community college can deliver
2
on its commitments."
Who are the right people?
easily answered.

This question is not

Vairo, writing in 1965, believed that:

Unless the two-year college has an instructional staff
of qualified teachers, its objectives cannot be
achieved. . . . Since it is in the classroom, under
the guidance and leadership of the teacher, that the
minds of American students are developed, the qualifi­
cations of the teacher are of paramount importance.3

"'‘Carnegie Commission, Open-Door Colleges, p. 43.
2

Medsker and Tillery, Access Barriers, p. 102.
3
Philip D. Vairo, "Faculty Quality: A Challenge to
the Community College," Journal of Higher Education, XXXVI
(April, 1965) , 217.

21
Agreeing with Vairo's argument, Thornton stated:
It is true that teaching is the prime function of the
community junior college and deserves every encourage­
ment.
Careful preparation and selection of teachers
and encouragement to employed teachers to be constantly
alert to improve their classroom effectiveness are essen­
tial elements in discharging this obligation. . . . Uni­
versities may become great through research, through
publication, through opportunities for graduate study,
but the community junior college can attain its local
renown and the affectionate esteem of its alumni only
through the effectiveness of its educational program. 1
Either it teaches excellently, or it fails completely.
O'Connell added that
A curriculum, after all, is what goes on in the class­
room, not what is written in a catalog.
Administrators'
fiats notwithstanding, the faculty determines what
really goes on in the c l a s s r o o m . 2
On the subject of community college faculty, Moore,
Maul, Blocker, and Cohen and Brawer
similar to those set forth above.

3

also expressed thoughts

The biggest problem con­

fronting today's community colleges is that of finding
faculty members who will be able to implement the educational
^James W. Thornton, Jr. , The Community Junior College
(New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966), p. 41.
2

Thomas E. O'Connell, Community Colleges: A Presi­
dent's View (Chicago:
University of Illinois Press, 1968),
p. 123.
Hereinafter referred to as Community Colleges.
3
William Moore, Jr., Against The Odds (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, Inc., Publishers, 1970), p. 229; Ray C. Maul,
"The Biggest Problem:
Finding Good Teachers," Junior
College Journal, XXXVI (December, 1965), 5; Clyde E. Blocker,
"Are Our Faculties Competent?" Junior College Journal, XXXVI
(December, 1965), 12; Arthur M. Cohen and Florence B. Brawer,
Confronting Identity:
The Community College Instructor
(Englewood Cliffs, N. J . : Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972),
p. 121.
Hereinafter referred to as Confronting Identity.

22
programs of the community college and relate to the types
of students— from the high-risk student to the highly advanced
student— who make up the diverse student constituencies of
these institutions.

The task of finding qualified faculty

is one of the biggest problems facing the new occupational
programs that are being established in many community col­
leges .^
How does one go about recruiting and selecting fac­
ulty members who are qualified and competent to teach in a
community college?

Charles and Summerer, writing in 1959,

presented a general guide that they found useful in building
a junior college faculty.

Below are several factors which

they recommended considering in evaluating a prospective
faculty member:
1.

Is the individual sincerely interested in teaching?

2.

How much preparation has he had in his field?

3.

Does the individual have a positive attitude toward
student activities?

4.

How much professional educational training has the
individual had or what is his attitude toward it if
he has had none?

5.

What are the personal traits--character, personality,
and stability— of the individual like?

"'"Jack L. Bottenfield, "Problems of Organizing
Vocational-Technical Programs in Public Junior Colleges,"
Indiana University, 1970.
Abstract in Dissertation Abstracts,
XXXI (December, 1970), 2698A.

23
6.

Another factor to consider in building a faculty is
balance in age, training, and experience.'*'
Roger Solomon, also writing on the topic of commu­

nity college teachers, stated that
Characteristics which many educators believe make for
success in the field are:
(1) a well-adjusted person­
ality; (2) interest in teaching rather than research;
(3) a good cultural background; (4) interest in the sub­
ject matter taught; (5) adequate professional training;
(6) good habits of citizenship, including active partici­
pation in community activities; and (7) mature profes­
sional attitude (loyalty to the institution, interest in
professional activities, and sound professional e t h i c s ) . ^
Brawer set forth a slightly different list of quali­
fications that should be considered in screening prospective
faculty members:
Relevant characteristics of teachers are ability, knowl­
edge, attitudes, values, and other traits of personality;
and such physical and social attributes as sex, age,
training, experience, social class and ethnic b a c k g r o u n d . 3
She hastened to add that "criteria for the 'effective teacher'
4
have never been stabilized."
Each community college appears
to have its own set of informal criteria to be used in judg­
ing present and potential teaching effectiveness.
According to the above listings, the formal qualifi­
cations for prospective faculty members appear to be quite
Searle F. Charles and Kenneth H. Summerer, "Building
a Junior College Faculty," Junior College Journal, XXIX
(March, 1959), 421-422.
Hereinafter referred to as "Building."
2

Roger Brumley Solomon, "Preparation for Teaching m
Two-Year Colleges," Improving College and University Teaching,
XVI (Spring, 1968), 125.
3
Brawer, Personality Characteristics, p. 52.
4

Ibid. , p. 23.

24
impressive.

They are so impressive that one must logically

ask the following question:

How close do present community

college faculty members, as a group, come to possessing
the "ideal" formal qualifications set forth or implied in
these listings?

In attempting to answer this question,

one should consider the results of several recent studies
of community college faculty members.
The Formal Qualifications of Present
Community College Faculty Members
In the literature on the topic of community college
faculty qualifications, one can find a number of studies
whose major purposes are to provide a descriptive analysis
of the characteristics and qualifications of the community
college faculty members included in the respective studies.
The majority of these studies have used as samples only the
faculties of community colleges located within some particu­
lar state or slightly larger geographical region.

Very few

studies have been conducted using a national sample of com­
munity college faculty members.
Probably the most recent national study of community
college faculty and their qualifications was conducted by
Medsker and reported in his new profile of the community
college, entitled Breaking the Access Barriers.'*'

Medsker

studied the faculty members employed at a stratified sample
of fifty-seven community colleges located throughout the
^Medsker and Tillery, Access Barriers.

25
United States.

He collected information on more than 4,000

staff members working at these institutions.

From the

analysis of this information, Medsker and Tillery were able
to make the following generalizations concerning the quali­
fications and characteristics of community college faculty
members:
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

—

The community college staff is composed primarily
of those in the 31- to 50-year-old age bracket.
Fewer than 18 percent in the study were under 30,
only 23 percent were over 50.
The master's degree is the highest one held by most
members of the staff. Of those in the national
sample, 77.7 percent held a M.A. or M. S. degree.
Only 8.6 percent held a doctorate.
Slightly more
than 10 percent had earned only a bachelor's, and
only 3.5 percent were working on less than a
bachelor's. . . .
Community college faculty are recruited from a wide
variety of sources. . . . By far the largest number—
almost one-third of the total came from the public
school system. . . . The n£xt JLargest group, approx­
imately 22 percent, were directly from graduate
school.
Next in line was the group, accounting for
11 percent of the total, who were recruited from
four-year institutions.
Approximately 10 percent
came from business or industry and the remainder
from a variety of other sources. . . .
A high proportion of community college faculty mem­
bers are new to their institutions, . . . over 46
percent of the staff members of the 57 established
institutions had been employed by their college for
a period ranging between one and three years.
Nine­
teen percent fell within the range of four to six
years.
Only a minority of community college staff members
were oriented to the institution by reason of having
once been students in such institutions or by having
completed a course or courses dealing specifically
with community colleges. In the national study
approximately 8 percent had once been students in the
community college for one year or less, and another
20 percent had been students for more than one year.
When asked whether they had completed a course or
courses on the community college, only one-third
responded affirmatively.

26
6.

No specific data are readily available, but a general
impression exists that relatively few junior college
faculty members are from minority ethnic groups and
that the social class background of many white staff
members makes it difficult for them to relate to
students from various ethnic groups.^Medsker and Tillery's generalizations on the quali­

fications of community college faculty members are generally
supported by the findings of other past studies.

Phair,

in his 1969 study of new community college faculty members
in ninety-two California community colleges, found that most
new faculty were in the twenty-seven to forty age group.

He

also found that 70.6 per cent of these individuals were men.

2

These recent findings agree quite closely with the findings
of various studies conducted seven to ten years ago.
Graybeal reported that in 1965-66 the percentage of male
full-time faculty members in junior and community colleges
3
was approximately 72.8.
Siehr, Jamrich, and Hereford, in
their 1963 national study of problems facing new faculty in
community colleges, found that over 59 per cent of these new
teachers at public institutions were in the thirty to forty4
nine age group, and that over 72 percent of them were male.
^Ibid. , pp. 87-90.
2

Thomas S. Phair, "A Profile of California Community
College Faculty," (1971), (ERIC Document No. ED 049760), p. 7
Hereinafter referred to as "A Profile."
3

William S. Graybeal, "Salaries in Junior Colleges—
1965-66," Junior College Journal, XXXVI (May, 1966), 12.
4
Hugo E. Siehr, John X. Jamrich, and Karl T. Hereford
Problems of New Faculty Members in Community Colleges (East
Lansing, Michigan:
Michigan State University, 1963), p. 10.
Hereinafter referred to as Problems.

27
In studying the faculty members in Michigan's fifteen commu­
nity colleges in the fall of 1957, Jamrich reported that over
74 per cent of them were men, and that their average age was
41.1 years.1
In their study conducted in the early 1960's, Siehr,
Jamrich, and Hereford found that almost three-fourths of new
community college faculty are married.

This finding agrees

quite closely with the more recent findings of Phair and
2

Eckert and Williams — that approximately 80 per cent of
present community college faculty members are married and
generally have children.
Medsker and Tillery's conclusion that approximately
78 per cent of community college faculty members hold a
master's degree corresponds closely with the statement by
Phair that 75 per cent of the 1,781 new faculty members he
surveyed in 1969 had a master's degree, and about 5 per cent
3
held the doctorate.
Graybeal also reported that nationally,
in 1969, only about 16 per cent of public two-year college

John X. Jamrich, Faculties of the Michigan Institu­
tions of Higher Education, Staff Study Number Ten of the
Survey of Higher Education in Michigan (Lansing: Michigan
Legislative Study Committee on Higher Education, 1958),
pp. 15-18.
Hereinafter referred to as Faculties.
2

Phair, "A Profile," p. 7; Ruth E. Eckert and Howard Y.
Williams, Jr., The Career Motivations and Satisfactions of
Junior College Teachers— A Second Look (University of Min­
nesota, 1971), (ERIC Document No. ED 054773), p. 2.
^Phair, "A Profile," p. 6.

28
faculty members held less than a master's degree and only
about 6 per cent held a doctor's degree.
When one compares these results with the results of
studies conducted in the early 1 960's, the recent findings
show slight increases in the percentage of faculty possess­
ing master's degrees.

Medsker discovered that only 64.6 per

cent of the 3,283 junior college teachers he surveyed in a
national study in 1960 held a master's degree, while about
2
9.6 per cent held a doctorate.
Siehr, Jamrich, and Hereford
found that 7.1 per cent of their national sample of new pub­
lic community college teachers held the doctorate, and
3
slightly over 75 per cent held a master's.
Jamrich, writing
in 1958, stated that almost 18 per cent of Michigan community
college faculty members did not possess an advanced degree,
while only about 5 per cent possessed the doctorate.

4

Vaccaro, in his 1963 study of faculty recruitment in
Michigan's community colleges, reported that the desired
training for teachers of applied arts subjects is the

William S. Graybeal, "Faculty and Administrative
Salaries, 1969-70," Junior College Journal, XLI (August/
September, 1970), 9.
2
Leland L. Medsker, The Junior College: Progress
and Prospect (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1960),
p. 172. Hereinafter referred to as The Junior College.
^Siehr, Jamrich, and Jereford, Problems, p. 10.
4
Jamrich, Faculties, p. 70.

29
bachelor's degree.^

Other authors have stated that teachers

of "nonacademic" subjects do not generally hold graduate
2
degrees.
However, more recent research has indicated that
many instructors of technological subjects are pursuing
advanced degrees.

3

In his study of faculty members at twenty

seven public community colleges in New York state, Birnbaum
found that over 61 per cent of the applied arts faculty
members at these institutions held the master's degree.

4

The sources from which teachers come to the commu­
nity college are many; and they vary from state to state.
Medsker and Tillery stated that nationally, the largest
number of teachers— about one-third of the total--had come
from public school positions.

In California's community

colleges, slightly more than 33 per cent of new faculty

"'’Louis C. Vaccaro, "Faculty Recruitment by Commu­
nity Colleges," Michigan Education Journal, XLI (February 1,
1964),13.
2

Arthur M. Cohen, Focus on Learning: Preparing
Teachers for the Two-Year College, Junior College Leadership
Program Occasional Report Number Eleven (Los Angeles:
Uni­
versity of California, 1968), p. 11. Hereinafter referred
to as Focus on Learning.
3
William George Burkert, "A Study of the Technologi­
cal Subjects Instructors in the Junior and Community Colleges
in the Eastern United States," Indiana University, 1970.
Abstract in Dissertation Abstracts. XXXII (August, 1971),
748A. Hereinafter referred to as "Technological Subjects
Instructors."
^Robert Birnbaum, "Background and Evaluation of Fac­
ulty in New York," Junior College Journal, XXXVII (November,
1966), 35. Hereinafter referred to as "Background and Eval­
uation. "

30
members had come from this source.'*'

Erickson reported that

about 40 per cent of the full-time teachers in Illinois
public junior colleges in 1966 had come from high school
2
positions.

In discussing the sources of community college
teachers, Gleazer stated that
Reports from Florida show that in 1964-65, of every 100
new community college teachers, thirty-six came from the
graduate schools of the universities, fourteen from
college and university teaching, twenty-seven from high
school teaching, and ten from a business occupation.
The remainder were from miscellaneous s o u r c e s . ^
Graduate schools appear to be the second major source
of community college teachers nationally, although this may
not be the case in certain states.

Siehr, Jamrich, and

Hereford reported that over 20 per cent of the teachers in
4
their national study had come from graduate schools;
however, Erickson reported that only 10 per cent of Illinois
5
community college teachers had come from this source.
In general, four-year college teachers provide the
next largest source of community college teachers, with the
'*'Phair, "A Profile," p. 5.
2

Clifford G. Erickson, "Recruitment of Faculty for
the Community and Junior Colleges," in In Search of Leaders,
Current Issues in Higher Education, 1967, ed. by G. Kerry
Smith (Washington, D. C . : American Association for Higher
Education, 1967), p. 249.
Hereinafter referred to as
"Recruitment of Faculty."
3
Edmund J. Gleazer, Jr., This Is The Community College
(Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1968), pp. 113-114.
4
Siehr, Jamrich, and Hereford, Problems, p. 12.
^Erickson, "Recruitment of Faculty," p. 249.

31
percentages reported ranging from 11 per cent, reported by
.Siehr, Jamrich, and Hereford,1 up to around 16 per cent,
2
reported by Phair.
The nonteaching sources of business and
industry provide the remaining sources of any appreciable
size, with anywhere from 10 to 15 per cent of community
college faculty members coming from these combined sources.

3 4
'

Community college faculty in the applied arts areas account
for many of the individuals coming to the community college
5
from these nonteaching sources.
Medsker and Tillery stated that about 65 per cent
of the community college teachers in their study had been
employed six or less years by their institutions.
other researchers have reached similar conclusions.

Many
Kent,

in a national study of English instructors in community and
junior colleges, discovered that nearly 70 per cent of the
respondents to his study had been in their present positions
£
less than four years.
In his study of technological sub­
jects instructors at community colleges in the eastern United

1Siehr, Jamrich, and Hereford, Problems, p. 12.
^Phair, "A Profile,"1 p. 5.
^Ibid.
4
Siehr, Jamrich, and Hereford, Problems, p. 12.
^Birnbaum, "Background and Evaluation," p. 35.
Thomas Henry Kent, "A Study of the English Instruc­
tors in the Junior and Community Colleges," Indiana Univer­
sity, 1971.
Abstract in Dissertation Abstracts, XXXII (July,
1971), 200A.

32
States, Burkert found that just under 60 per cent of these
instructors had been employed in their present positions
for three years or less.'*'
The Medsker and Tillery finding that only about 28
per cent of today's community college faculty members have
ever attended a community college as students corresponds
closely to what Medsker reported in his 1960 national
study--that only 27 per cent of the group he surveyed had
2
once attended a junior college.
Good also found that only
about one-third of the community college teachers he sur­
veyed in Kansas had had a course dealing specifically with
3
the two-year college.
Medsker and Tillery stated that they were not able
to find any data to support their last generalization--that
minority groups are underrepresented on community college
faculties.

The present writer was able to find only one

recent study that considered the characteristic of race in
describing faculty members; it was a study reported by Bayer
in 1970.

Bayer included in his study of college and univer­

sity faculty a sample of faculty members from fifty-seven
two-year colleges located throughout the nation.

He reported

that 98.4 per cent of the community college faculty respondents
^■Burkert, "Technological Subjects Instructors,"
p. 748A.
2

Medsker, The Junior College, pp. 172-173.

3
Wallace E. Good, Faculty Profile: Kansas Community
Junior Colleges (Kansas State Teachers College, 1968) , (ERIC
Document No. ED 042425), p. 5.

33
to his survey were classified as "white" with respect to

1
race.
In the past, certain authors, such as Charles and
2
Summerer,
have suggested that community college staffs
should be "balanced" with respect to the formal qualifica­
tions of age, training, and experience.

O'Connell added

that staffs should include individuals from different geographical regions and from different socioeconomic groups.

3

In a recent study he conducted, Scott discovered that the
practice of "balancing" staffs is increasing, and that
recruiters are starting to consider other variables, such as
race and sex, in their attempts to maintain a balanced
4
teaching staff.
As the past several pages have indicated, a commu­
nity college faculty member can possess many different formal
qualifications.

The individual teacher has no control over

some of these qualifications, such as age, sex, and race.
However, there are other formal qualifications over which
the community college faculty member can have a large degree
of control.

One of them is the type of educational program(s)

1Alan E. Bayer, College and University Faculty: A
Statistical Description, American Council on Education Research
Reports, V (June, 1970), (ERIC Document No. 042425), p. 12.
2

Charles and Summerer, "Building," pp. 423-424.
3
O'Connell, Community Colleges, p. 118.
4
David C. Scott, "Balance of Staff by Junior College
Recruiters" (Seminar paper, December, 1969), (ERIC Document
No. ED 035412).

34
the individual pursues in order to become qualified as a
.teacher in the community college.
The Formal Preparation of Community
College Faculty
In the last several years there has been a renewed
interest in the educational preparation of community college
faculty members.

This situation has two major causes.

The

first is that the whole spectrum of teaching in higher edu­
cation has come under critical evaluation with respect to
its effectiveness and efficiency.

The second major reason

for renewed interest in preparation programs for community
college teachers has been the possible over-production of
doctoral degree holders occurring at a time when the labor
market for these individuals appears to be quite restricted
in certain areas.

In this section, both of these causes are

discussed in detail.
The Concern Over the
Quality of Teachers
The concern over the quality of college teaching is
not really a recent phenomenon.

Tead, writing in 194 9,

implied that the issue was quite well publicized then:
Everyone familiar with the present state of college
teaching realizes that a condition of ineffectuality
exists to a greater degree than is usually acknowledged.
I am of those who believe that this condition is subject
to significant correction.1

^Ordway Tead, College Teaching and College Learning
(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1949), p. v.

35
During the 1960's, the American educational system,
.as a whole, came under increasing criticism.

Writing in the

Saturday Review, Cass summarized the reasons for such
criticism:
During the sixties the schools were challenged increas­
ingly not only for their contemporary failures, nor even
for the fact that they have always failed the poor and
the dispossessed, but because they were positively
destructive influences for many of the children entrusted
to their care.
Questions were raised as to whether any
institution that enjoys a virtual monopoly can remain
sensitive and responsive to the changing needs of its
diverse clientele.
And some of the more radical critics
were questioning the traditional concept of schooling
itself in an age when knowledge is accessible from so
many different sources.
Clearly, at the end of the
decade, the nation was experiencing a crisis of confi­
dence in its schools.1
Community colleges grew tremendously during the
1960's because they came to be viewed as the primary means
for social and economic advancement for the lower two-thirds
of the society.

However, very few community colleges have

been able to live up to the bright promises of their "open2
door" philosophy.
Out of the realization that something was wrong with
the educational system in the United States, came the concept
of educational accoutability.

This concept was extended to

the community college and its teachers through the writings
^■James Cass, "The Crisis of Confidence— and Beyond,"
Saturday Review, LIII (September 19, 1970), 61.
2
John E. Roueche, George A. Baker, III, and Richard
L. Brownell, Accountability and the Community College:
Directions for the 7 0 's (Washington, D. C . : American Associa­
tion of Junior Colleges, 1971) , p. 11. Hereinafter referred
to as Accountability.

36
of such authors as Cohen and Roueche.^

As Roueche, Baker,

.and Brownell pointed out, "The promise of the "open door" will
never be realized until teachers change their attitudes and
accept the professional responsibility of becoming accountable
for students."

2

Moore extended the concept of accountability to
include all students in the community college, even the highrisk student, when he wrote:
One need remains constant.
Always, regardless of the
changes, students need instructors dedicated to the duty
to make other human beings better than they were— and
the high-risk students who make up a considerable part
of the community college population need those practi­
tioners more desperately than ever.
Providing enough
good teachers can help the community college fulfill
its mission of a quality education for all.
This is
because it is at the eyeball-to-eyeball, gut-to-gut
level where the high-risk student will really be
helped.^
Medsker reported in 1960 that one reason why many
community colleges have not realized their potential is
because the typical community college faculty member is not
in complete accord with the generally acknowledged goals of
4
the community college.
He and Tillery also found that a

Arthur M. Cohen, Dateline *79:
Heretical Concepts
for the
Community College (Beverly Hills, Calif.:
Glencoe
Press, 1969), hereinafter referred to as Dateline *79;
John E .
Roueche, Salvage, Redirection, or Custody? (Washing­
ton, D. C . : American Association of Junior Colleges, 1968).
2

Roueche, Baker, and Brownell, Accountability, p. 12.

^Moore, Against The O d d s , p. 229.
4
Medsker, The Junior College, p. 185.

37
similar condition exists among present community college
.teachers.'*'

Medsker set forth a "reference group" theory to

account for this lack of faculty agreement with community
college goals and objectives.

He contended that

. . . the attitudes of junior college teachers may
reflect the educational values or attitudes of teachers
in four-year colleges and universities.
Another possi­
bility is that the relatively new and inexperienced
teacher in the junior college will retain a close iden­
tity with the graduate school or department from which
he recently came and thus visualize the role of the
junior college in terms of graduate standards and pro­
cedures.
Still another possibility is that junior col­
lege teachers who once taught in high school may retain
that perspective after they transfer to junior college
teaching.
This possibility would suggest that junior college
teachers not committed to the two-year college as an
institution with distinctive purposes may be more likely
to evaluate it in the light of the activities of schol­
ars in their teaching field or in terms of the values
associated with the older, more familiar, and higher
prestige-carrying senior college.^
A study conducted in 1969 presented support for
Medsker's theory.

In that study, Tolley found that a sub­

stantial percentage of Oklahoma junior college faculty mem­
bers did orient themselves to the senior college, with over
43 per cent classified in the senior college reference group.
This group of faculty consistently supported the more

^"Medsker and Tillery, Access Barriers, p. 91.
2
Medsker, The Junior College, pp. 173-174.

38
traditional liberal arts aspects of the junior college,
and tended to reject the comprehensive functions.^
Several recent studies have attempted to determine
whether community college faculty members agree with the
goals of their institutions, and what factors seem to be
related to their attitudes in this area.

Evans conducted

such a study on a national sample of 1,585 community college
faculty members in 197 0.

He reported that faculty who were

former junior college students and faculty who had taken a
course or more on the junior college were shown to have sig­
nificantly greater agreement with the community college phil­
osophy than did their colleagues who had not had such
experiences.

In addition, faculty who had had both of these

experiences had a higher level of agreement than those with
2
only one experience.
Tolley also found that faculty
members who had not attended a junior college rejected more
3
of the objectives of the comprehensive community college.
In his 1969 study of Colorado community college faculty,
Williams concluded that the attitude differences that do
"'‘Charles Howard Tolley, "The Relationship of Junior
College Faculty Reference Group Attitudes Toward the Multi­
purpose Functions of the Junior College," University of Tulsa,
1969. Abstract in Dissertation Abstracts, XXX (February,
1970), 3261A.
Hereinafter referred to as "Reference Group
Attitudes."
2

Arthur Haines Evans, Jr., "Faculty Agreement With
the Community College Philosophy as Related to Previous
Education and Experience in the Junior College," University
of California, Berkeley, 1970.
Abstract in Dissertation
Abstracts, XXXII (August, 1971) , 751A-752A.
3
Tolley, "Reference Group Attitudes," p. 3261A.

39
exist are not along liberal arts versus applied arts faculty
-lines.

He also found that more than one-fourth of his

respondents preferred to teach in a four-year college or
university.^
California has one of the most advanced community
college systems in the nation.

Yet Park, in his 1971 study

of 238 faculty members located at three community colleges
in California, concluded that a good number of these instruc­
tors rejected, or did not understand, the basic rationale for
the unique and specialized teaching tasks they were performing.

2

In discussing the high-risk, or educationally dis­
advantaged, student in the community college, recent authors
have expressed even more pointed concern over the attitudes
of community college teachers.

As Moore stated,

In spite of their verbal pronouncements to the contrary
the negative attitudes of teachers toward their students
are well documented.
The data indicate that their
adverse attitudes affect their expectancies, the quality
of their instruction, the feelings students have about
them, and many other factors.
The research further
reveals that more teachers than we would expect are
ethnocentric, provincial, and bigoted in their atti­
tudes .3
James Walter Williams, "A Comparison of Faculty
Attitudes Toward Stated Purposes of the Community College,"
Colorado State College, 1969.
Abstract in Dissertation
Abstracts, XXX (November, 1969), 1761A.
2

Young Park, Junior College Faculty: Their Values
and Perceptions (Washington, D, C . : American Association of
Junior Colleges, 1971), p. 48.
3
Moore, Against The O d d s , p. 163.

40
Roueche and McFarlane summarized the feelings of many authors
when they contended that
. . . it has become evident that the major obstacles
to instructional improvement in junior colleges consist
largely of negative faculty attitudes toward disad­
vantaged students and teacher-training programs which
are unresponsive to the pedagogical needs of instructors
who must teach these students.-1The fact is that few community college instructors
have had any preparation for teaching in that particular
type of institution.

2

This point is made evident as one

reviews the formal qualifications of present community col­
lege faculty members, as set forth earlier in this chapter
(see pages 24-34).

Only about 25 per cent of community

college faculty members have attended a community college as
a student, and only one-third of them have taken courses
dealing with the nature of this unique institution and its
students.
The Oversupply of
Advanced Degree Holders
The other major cause for renewed interest in the
formal preparation of community college faculty members is
that, although there is still a substantial need for new
faculty members at the community college level, the supply
of potential faculty members in certain areas is beginning
"^John E. Roueche and William H. McFarlane, "Improved
Instruction in the Junior College: Key to Equal Opportunity,"
Journal of Higher Education, XLI (December, 1970), 717.
2
Cohen, Dateline '79, p. 45.

41
to equal or exceed the demand.1

This situation has been

caused, in part, by a general economic decline.

However,

it has mainly been caused by an overproduction of Ph.D.'s
2
by our colleges and universities.
Writing in the early 1960's, Kerr hinted at the pos­
sibility of a surplus of Ph.D.'s by stating that "By 1970,
also, the personnel deficit of today may be turning into
the surplus of tommorow as all the new Ph.D.'s roll into
3
the market."
Seven years ago, Cartter, writing m the
Educational Record, actually predicted the declining job
market in many disciplines for holders of doctoral degrees.

4

Mayhew recently reviewed the annual production of
doctorates in the United States during the last decade.
This production expanded from 9,800 doctoral degrees awarded
in 1960 to 26,100 actually conferred in 1968-69.

Mayhew

estimated that by 1980, if present trends continue,

John J. Connolly, "Will the Community College Sur­
vive the Ph.D. Surplus?" Educational Record, LII (Summer,
1971), 267.
Hereinafter referred to as "Ph.D. Surplus."
2

"Helping the Job Hunters," College Management, V
(June, 1970), 14; A. Stephen Higgins, "Quantity and Quality
of Doctoral Overproduction," Educational Record, LII (Summer,
1971), 262.
3
Clark Kerr, The Uses of the University
Harper & Row, Publishers, 1963), p. 110.

(New York:

4

Allan M. Cartter, "A New Look at the Supply of
College Teachers," Educational Record, XLVI (Summer, 1965),
267-277.

42
institutions of higher education will be awarding somewhere
between 60,000 and 70,000 doctorates annually.'*'
The present predicament in the doctoral labor market
was summarized by Kerr, writing in the foreword to Mayhew's
book, Graduate and Professional Education, 1 980;
We now face a new situation of a balanced supply in
most of the highly trained professions (except those
related to health), and some present and prospectively
increasing surpluses.
The students, however, keep
applying for advanced graduate work, and more and more
institutions seek to offer it. The number of Ph.D.'s
turned out tripled from 1960 to 1970, and could well
triple again by 1980 if present trends continue.
By
then, there might be a real crisis of oversupply.2
Huther, in a more recent article, stated the problem more
bluntly:
The central issue in Ph.D. production is no longer
whether or not there will be a surplus.
Rather, it is
how large the surplus will be and how the unneeded
production will be e m p l o y e d . 2
The leaders of institutions producing these doctor­
ates assume that these surplus doctorates, the majority of
which are Ph.D.s, would be easily absorbed into the teaching
staffs of the growing community colleges in the nation.

4

Wolfle and Kidd contended that estimates of the need for

*"Lewis B. Mayhew, Graduate and Professional Education,
1980 (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1970), p. 1.
2
Ibid., p. v.
^John W. Huther, "Small Market for Ph.D.'s: The
Public Two-Year College," AAUP Bulletin, LVIII (March,
1972), 17. Hereinafter referred to as "Small Market."
4Connolly, "Ph.D. Surplus," p. 267.

43
future Ph.D.'s include the assumption that 62 per cent of
newly appointed faculty at two-year colleges will hold doc­
torates.^- As Connolly pointed out,
There is no doubt that most academic deans and depart­
ment chairmen in two-year colleges have more applica­
tions crossing their desks from Ph.D.'s this year than
ever before.2
But do community colleges want Ph.D.'s or other doc­
torates on their faculties?

The whole question of what

formal qualifications and, in particular, what amount of
formal academic preparation, are necessary for reasonable
success in community college teaching assignments takes on
added importance in view of the increasing competition for
teaching positions.

Those personnel charged with the respon­

sibility for recruiting and selecting prospective faculty
members for the public community college must constantly be
seeking standards with which to judge the adequacy of prepara­
tion of those who desire to teach in this

institution.

3

Hence, because of the increasing demand that the
community college and its teachers be held accountable for
the learning of students, and because of the influx of
advanced degree holders competing for teaching positions,

■^Dael Wolfle and Charles V. Kidd, "The Future Market
for Ph.D.'s," AAUP Bulletin, LVIII (March, 1972), 7.
2

Connolly, "Ph.D. Surplus," p. 267.
3
Thomas S. Phair, "California Colleges Look at Their
New Faculty," Junior College Journal, XXXIX (December, 1968/
January, 1969), 48.

44

there has been an increased interest in the educational
preparation of community college faculty members.
Preparation Programs for
Community College Teachers
What sort of academic preparation is the most desir­
able for a community college faculty member?

This question

has been answered in many different, and, in some instances,
very opposing, ways.

This writer will not attempt to pre­

sent a unique answer to this question.

Rather, he will

explore some of the many various writings on this important
topic in order to provide the reader with a feeling for the
issues that exist in this area.
Several points of general agreement are found in
the writings on the subject of preparation programs for com­
munity college faculty.

One point is that present community

college faculty members are not totally satisfied with the
type and quality of preparation programs they received.
The major reason for this dissatisfaction is that very few
college or university programs have been designed especially
to prepare teachers for junior and community college instruc­
tion. ^
In reviewing the formal qualifications of present
community college faculty members set forth above (see pages
24-34), one finds that only about one-third of these teachers
^"Gleazer, "Preparation," p. 148.
2

Cohen, Focus on Learning, p. 11.

45
took a course or more dealing with the community college.
Yet writers on this topic contend that "an understanding of
the broad sweep of junior college education during the
teacher's formal preparation is of critical importance.""*'
Authorities believe that there are differences in
teaching at the university, four-year college, two-year
2
college, and high school levels.
However, Gordon and
Whitfield stated that
Historically, the community colleges have hired staff
members largely from high schools or from the graduate
programs of our universities, but neither the high school
teacher nor the professor receives preparation for the
unique duties and challenges of community college
instruction.3
This belief regarding the uniqueness of teaching at the
community college level has led to the establishment of sep­
arate preparation programs for community college teachers.
Kelly and Wilbur summarized the development of these pro­
grams :
Junior college teacher training programs did not appear
until after 1950.
In that year, not a single college
or university offered a preparation program for junior
college teachers.
By 1955, at least 23 institutions
were reportedly offering such programs.
In 1969, at
least 100 extensive programs were offered in various
institutions.^
^Gleazer, "Preparation," p. 148.
^win Kelly and Leslie Wilbur, Teaching in the Community
Junior College (New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1970),
p. vi. Hereinafter referred to as Teaching.
^Shirley B. Gordon and Raymond P. Whitfield, "A Formula
for Teacher Preparation," Junior College Journal, XXXVII (May,
1967), 26.
^Kelly and Wilbur, Teaching, p. 49.

46
Under the thrust provided by the Education Profes­
sions Development Act of 1968, programs for the preparation
of community college instructors received an additional
boost.

By 1970, more than 200 colleges and universities

indicated interest in establishing preparation programs for
teachers at the community college level.^
However, some authors have not been very satisfied
with the quality of these preparation programs.

Cohen voiced

his opinion of many of the programs:
The special preparation of community college instructors
typically approximates the training in "methods" of
secondary-school teacher programs; it may come close to
the university scholar's total lack of teacher-training.2
One of the first considerations in faculty prepara­
tion should be the goals and functions of the institution
3
in which the individual eventually hopes to teach.
However,
the goals and functions of community colleges throughout the
nation are so diverse that it is highly improbable that any
one program would be acceptable on a national level.

A

national conference, meeting in late 1968, addressed the
topic of preparing two-year college teachers for the 1970's.
The conference participants discussed eight specific models
of teacher preparation, and considered a variety of other
possibilities.

However, they finally concluded that:

1-Cohen and Brawer, Confronting Identity, p. 149.
^Cohen, Dateline *79, p. 124.
^Arthur M. Cohen, "Teacher Preparation:
Rationale
and Practice," Junior College Journal, XXXVII (May, 1967),
21

.

47
. . . the demands created by the diversity and flexi­
bility of two-year colleges were so great that none of
the models could be entirely eliminated— that no one
could identify, now at least, a single answer.^
It is not the intent of this study to deal in any
depth with the subject of the general content of preparation
programs for community college faculty.

This area has been

addressed by various authors, such as Garrison, Cohen, and
Cashin.

Medsker and Tillery reviewed the writings on the

topic of what elements should be included in a preparation
program for community college teachers and concluded that:
Among those that seem particularly relevant are the
following:
the history of the two-year college and
its place in American higher education; modern learning
theory, including the uses and limits of educational
evaluation, testing, and measurements; the character­
istics and values of the diverse student population at
today's junior colleges; an opportunity for supervised
teaching or internship at a two-year college; a knowledge
of modern media and new techniques of instruction.3
The emphasis in such programs should be on breadth, not
4
depth, of subject matter knowledge.
One method of accom­
plishing this would be to include in preparation programs
courses that are interdisciplinary in content and instruction.
“^Preparing Two-Year College Teachers, p. 9.
^Roger H. Garrison, Junior College Faculty:
Issues
and Problems (Washington, D. C . : American Association of
Junior Colleges, 1967), pp. 70-74, hereinafter referred to
as Junior College Faculty; Arthur M. Cohen, "Developing
Specialists in Learning," Junior College Journal, XXXVII
(September, 1966), 21-23; H. John Cashin, "Some Attitudes
Toward Instructor Preparation," Junior College Journal,
XXXIX (March, 1969), 31-34.
^Medsker and Tillery, Access Barriers, p. 99.
^O'Connell, Community Colleges, p. 25.
^Garrison, Junior College Faculty, p. 73.

• -

48
Academic Degrees for
Community College Teachers
The academic degree that would be appropriate as
the terminal degree for the community college teacher has
also been a question of much controversy.

On this subject

there has been very little agreement, except on the point
that the Ph.D. degree, as it is presently structured and
earned by most of the individuals adding to the surplus in
this area of the job market, is not an appropriate degree
for community college faculty members.^
For a number of reasons, many two-year colleges have
resisted the temptation to hire Ph.D.'s.

Among these reasons

is that, first and foremost, these Ph.D.'s were not trained
to teach in the community college.

Considerable concern also

has been expressed about whether the research, or specialist,
orientation acquired in most Ph.D. programs can be adapted to
meet the generalist, teaching orientation desired of faculty
members in the community college.

2

Community college presi­

dents, responding to an October, 1971, survey, also indicated
that doctorates would not be hired because of ". . . the cost
3
of the degree to the institution in terms of salary."
Young
"'’Larry A. Van Dyne, "Many 2-Year Colleges Resist
Hiring Ph.D.'s; Doubt Their Teaching Skill," Chronicle of
Higher Education, VI (January 24, 1972), 1, 4.
2
Gary Ragsdale, "Teaching in the Junior/Community
College," Journal of Business Education, XLV (May, 1970),
343.
^Huther, "Small Market," p. 19.

49
people with doctorates, then, could present a financial
problem to community colleges, and the potential for a morale
problem among older faculty.
Connolly is representative of the authors opposed
to using the traditionally trained Ph.D. in the community
college.

He expressed his desire that:

It is hoped that these colleges will, in large measure
reject traditionally trained Ph.D.s who have not pre­
pared themselves for or committed themselves to the
two-year college except as an alternative to unemploy­
ment. 1
If the Ph.D. degree is not acceptable, what academic
degree is the most desirable and appropriate for the commu­
nity college teacher?

Many individuals and institutions

participating in the establishment of preparation programs
for community college instructors appear to have different
answers to this question.
The Carnegie Commission recommended the development
of the Doctor of Arts degree as the appropriate degree for
teachers in higher education.

The Commission believed that

"The rapid growth of community colleges and comprehensive
colleges will create a ready demand for persons with the
degree."

2

Strong supporting cases for the Doctor of Arts

^Connolly,
2

"Ph.D. Surplus," p. 268.

Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, Less T i m e ,
More Options: Education Beyond the High School (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1971), p. 18.

50
degree were set forth by Dunham,^ representing higher edu2
cation in general, and Wortham,
representing the community
junior college.

Dunham stated that higher education needs

. . . a new teaching degree as an alternative to the
research Ph.D. . . . It is not the shortage of Ph.D.'s
but a surplus of inappropriately trained college teach­
ers that prompts this p r o p o s a l . ^
Wortham concluded that, without the creation of the Doctor
of Arts degree for community college faculty, "There is gen­
erally no higher degree available that is fully relevant to
4
their college teaching careers."
Shell, in his survey of 107 public community college
within the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools,
found that administrators generally favored the Doctor of
Arts degree over the Ph.D. or the Ed.D., and concluded that
this degree would generally be accepted as meeting the needs
5
of the community college instructor.
Koenker, in his 1970
review of institutions offering or planning preparation
programs for community college faculty, reported that a
•*-E. Alden Dunham, "Rx for Higher Education:
Doctor
of Arts Degree," Journal of Higher Education, XLI (October,
1970), 505-515.
Hereinafter referred to as "Rx for Higher
Education."
^Mary Wortham, "The Case for a Doctor of Arts Degree
A View from Junior College Faculty," AAUP Bulletin, LIII
(December, 1967), 372-377.
Hereinafter referred to as "The
Case."
3Dunham, "Rx for Higher Education," p. 513.
^Wortham, "The Case," p. 373.
^Edwin Taylor Shell, "An Investigation of the Doctor
of Arts Degree for the Junior College Instructor," Sp.Ed.
Dissertation, Northwestern State College, 1969.
(ERIC
Document No. ED 031199).

51
total of 76 institutions throughout the nation are offering,
planning to offer, or considering the possibility of offer­
ing, the Doctor of Arts degree.1
Many sixth-year degree and nondegree programs

(mini­

mum of 60 semester hours) have been established for prepar­
ing prospective community college instructors.

An example

of these types of programs is the Diplomate in Collegiate
Teaching, a degree program initiated by the University of
Miami in 1969.

This program extends two years beyond the

bachelor's degree and one year beyond the master's.

Miami

Dade and other Florida community colleges are working closely
with the University of Miami in an advisory capacity and in
2
providing teaching internships for the program.
The sixth-year degree programs generally award the
Specialist in Education or the Master of Arts in College
Teaching degrees or degrees with similar titles.

The sixth-

year nondegree programs generally award a Certificate for
Advanced Graduate Study.

In 1970, twenty-seven institutions

were offering sixth-year degree programs, ten institutions
were offering sixth-year nondegree programs, and seventeen
other institutions were planning to offer sixth-year degree
1Robert H. Koenker, "Status of the Doctor of Arts and
Sixth-Year Degree and Non-Degree Programs for Preparing
Junior College and College Teachers" (Ball State University,
1970), (ERIC Document No. ED 040691), p. 4. Hereinafter
referred to as "Status."
2

S.
L. Besvinick and T. W. Fryer, Jr., "Miami Begins
the Diplomate in Collegiate Teaching," Junior College Journal,
XXXIX (February, 1969), 48, 56.

52
and nondegree programs for preparing junior college and/or
college teachers.^
The other graduate preparation programs offered
generally culminate in the awarding of an "enriched" Master
of Arts degree.

These programs are similar to the one pro-

posed by the community college teachers in Garrison's study.
Much of the controversy regarding the academic prep­
aration of community college faculty members has focused on
the sixth-year and doctoral preparation programs being
established by colleges and universities, and the need for
such special programs.

Some authors have contended that

these programs are not "special," in that they still center
around traditional course and practice components.

Not

offering anything that is new, these programs may not become
respectable and acceptable.

3

Phair, in reviewing the present state of community
college faculty preparation,

concluded:

The pre-service training of instructors will continue
on a minimum basis and be engaged in by only a few pro­
spective instructors.
Exceptions will be at colleges
who are involved in a high degree of innovative pro­
grams and new techniques of teaching.^
Cohen contended that

graduate institutions have

traditionally ignored the needs of community colleges in
'*'Koenker, "Status," p. 5.
2

Garrison, Junior College Faculty, pp. 70-74.
3
Cohen and Brawer, Confronting Identity, p. 150.
^Phair, "A Profile," p. 14.

2

establishing preparation programs for community college
teachers, and believed that most graduate institutions are
incapable of changing their procedures rapidly enough to
meet the preparation needs of even future community college
instructors.^

Hence, when he discussed his model community

college of 1979, Cohen predicted that:
The college has developed its own preparation program
because teaching is its main function; it cannot wait
for other institutions of higher education to recognize
and appreciate its concrete goals.2
Brawer believed that, if graduate institutions are
to be involved in the preparation of teachers for the commu­
nity college, the community colleges themselves must take the
lead in encouraging the development of truly responsive preparation programs.

3

Gleazer agreed with this idea, and

stated that:
We in the junior college have the responsibility
of specifying in detail and forcefully, what our current
and future needs for faculty will be; how they should
be trained for our particular kinds of colleges; and
what kinds of programs will adequately prepare teachers
for junior college instruction.
Singer felt that one way for community colleges to provide
this type of leadership would be through the establishment

■^Cohen, Dateline '79, pp. 124-125.
^Ibid., p. 126.
3

Brawer, Personality Characteristics, p. 34.
4
Gleazer, "Preparation," p. 152.

54
of a community college institute to prepare future teachers
for the community college.^
The Doctor of Arts degree has received the brunt
of much of this recent criticism.

Some authors, such as

Howell, have argued that the creation of a new degree is not
the solution to the two problems of the community college's
need for qualified faculty, and the present overproduction of
2
Ph.D.'s.
The views of these authors about the real solution
to these problems were succinctly summarized by Richardson,
during a speech he gave at the recent 1972 Annual Conference
of the American Association on Higher Education.

He stated:

I am particularly concerned about the emphasis placed
upon new degrees such as the Doctor of Arts.
I do not
believe that the issue of preparing faculty for commu­
nity colleges will be solved by establishing new names
for old practices.
Produce a Ph.D. who is truly con­
cerned about teaching and about students, and who is
interested in lower division instruction, and you will
not have to find a new label in order to secure his
ready acceptance by community c o l l e g e s . 3
Other individuals and groups, such as the Association
of American Colleges, have also started to express views that
a revised and restructured Ph.D. would be more preferable
Derek S. Singer, "Do We Need a Community College
Institute?" Junior College Journal, XXXIX (October, 1968),
36-40.
2

John M. Howell, "A Brief Against the Doctor of Arts
Degree," Journal of Higher Education, XLII (May, 1971),
392-399.
3
Richard C. Richardson, Jr., "The Future of Higher
Education"
(Reaction to an address presented at the Third
General Session of the Twenty-Seventh National Conference
of the American Association for Higher Education, Chicago,
Illinois, March 8, 1972), p. 2.

55
than the Doctor of Arts degree for the college teacher.1
Garrison also found that, with respect to the comments he
received from community college faculty members on how to
improve their preparation programs,
Most teachers making these recommendations felt
strongly that no "new" degree was necessary for such
a program.
Rather they asserted that it would "make
the M.A. respectable a g a i n . "2
It is too early to determine the final outcome of the
controversy over the questions of what academic program or
degree is the most appropriate for the community college
faculty member.

The following 1969 statement by the Faculty

Development Project of the American Association of Junior
Colleges probably best summarizes the current situation and
hints at what its outcome(s) might be:
A variety of different approaches exist in the
structure, content, duration, and emphasis of graduate
programs to prepare two-year college instructors. . . .
Considering the broad scope and plurality of objec­
tives at "democracy's colleges," it seems both proper
and inevitable that the methods and content of programs
to prepare instructors also should be flexible and
varied.
Experimentation, diversity, and pragmatism are
hallmarks of the community junior college movement.
The same qualities should be evident in programs to
provide professional preparation for its new faculty
members.^

1Larry A. Van Dyne, "A Revised Ph.D. Found Preferable
to New Degree," Chronicle of Higher Education, VI (January 17,
1972), 1.
2

Garrison, Junior College Faculty, p. 74.

3

"AAJC Approach: Preservice Training of Instructors,"
Junior College Journal, XXXIX (May, 1969), 7.

56
Summary
The amount of literature dealing with the topic of
community college instruction and instructors is considerable.
Most of these writings focus on the central theme that quality
instruction makes a quality institution; and the key to qual­
ity instruction in the community college is qualified instruc­
tors .
Much of the literature on the formal qualifications
and preparation of community college faculty is speculative
in nature.

Few research studies have been conducted in this

area; and those studies that have been conducted are gen­
erally descriptive, rather than normative, in nature.

Both

the speculative writings and the research studies in the area
were reviewed in this chapter.

Because of the recent increased

interest in the subject of community college faculty and their
qualifications, the major emphasis of this review of the lit­
erature was placed upon those writings appearing in the last
several years.

The following is a general summary of the

findings of the literature reviewed in this chapter.
The community college movement has grown tremen­
dously— both in terms of the numbers of institutions and in
terms of total enrollments— during the 1960's.

This growth,

according to projections, will continue well into the 197 0 's.
With this growth comes the need for additional, qual­
ified faculty.

Regardless of the actual numbers needed, the

recruitment and selection of qualified instructors in all

57
areas of instruction will remain as an important problem to
be faced by many community colleges in the future.
In reviewing the formal qualifications of present
faculty members, one finds that the master's is the most
frequently held degree.

The percentage of community college

faculty holding the doctorate has remained stable during the
1960's, while the percentage of those holding the master's
degree has increased slightly, with many of the instructors
in the applied arts areas also possessing this degree.
Community college faculty come from many diverse
sources— the two largest sources being the public schools and
the graduate schools of the nation.

The supply of teachers

coming from the former source has decreased slightly, while
at the same time the number coming from the latter source
has slightly increased.

Although many of these faculty

members are recent additions to the community college, many
of them do possess a background in teaching at other levels
of education.
Most of the teachers in the community college are
white males.

However, there appears to be a slight trend

toward a more balanced representation of sex, age, and race
because of the educational value to be gained and because
of recent "equal rights" emphases.
Because of a recent interest in and concern over the
qualifications of community college instructors, a number of
academic programs designed to prepare community college
teachers have been established.

Although there is some

58
general similarity in their core content, these programs are
noted for their diversity— lasting different lengths of time,
with different emphases, and culminating in different aca­
demic degrees.
There has been very little agreement on the question
of the most appropriate or desirable degree for community
college faculty.

Most of the writing in this area is of a

speculative nature, with few research studies having been
conducted.

In particular, no one has recently surveyed

community college administrators for their opinions on this
issue.

The only consensus on the issue of formal prepara­

tion of, or the appropriate academic degree for, community
college faculty is that, because of the many diverse goals
and functions of public community colleges, no one program
or degree is universally possible or desirable.
If this conclusion is even partially correct, grad­
uate institutions and individuals who are concerned with
programs to improve the formal qualifications of community
college faculty must have knowledge of the goals and func­
tions of the community colleges they are trying to assist
and the types of faculty members these institutions are
seeking.

The present study attempts to provide part of this

needed information.
The methodology used in the study is presented in
Chapter III.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Increasing student enrollments, diversified program
offerings, and rising numbers of public community colleges
all contribute to the general problem of recruiting qualified
instructional personnel for community college programs.

An

oversupply of advanced degree holders on the present labor
market and the increasing demands for educational accounta­
bility have provided an opportunity for community college
administrators to re-evaluate their standards for recruiting
qualified faculty members.
The primary purpose of this study was to determine
the present attitudes of chief community college adminis­
trators concerning the desired formal qualifications of
faculty members at the community college level.
Definition of the Population
The population in this study consisted of 170 chief
community college administrators under contract for the 197172 academic year at the twenty-nine operating public commu­
nity colleges in the state of Michigan.

These twenty-nine

public community colleges range in size from 585 total stu­
dents enrolled to 17,640 total students enrolled, or from
59

60
411 full-time equated students to over 10,000 full-time
equated students.

Thirteen of these institutions have been

established since 1960.

Two of the institutions are presently

multicampus institutions, and a third is establishing centers
throughout the metropolitan Detroit area.'*’
The Sample
The sample of community college administrators used
in this study was composed of the chief administrative,
academic, business, and student personnel officers at each
public community college in the state of Michigan, as indi­
cated in the 1971-72 Directory of Institutions of Higher
2
Education.

In the two cases of multicampus institutions,

individuals identified as serving in the above administra­
tive capacities at either a branch campus or the central
coordinating office for the institution were included in the
sample.
The sample consisted of 170 individuals, and repre­
sented the entire population in the study.

The titles of

these chief administrative and academic officers vary from
college to college,

However, with respect to position held,

the sample contained thirty-five chief administrative

*"See Appendix A for a complete listing of Michigan's
twenty-nine public community colleges and their respective
locations.
2
1971-72 Directory of Institutions of Higher Educa­
tion (Lansing: Michigan Department of Education, 1971),
pp. 9-13.

61
officers

(generally designated as Presidents or Provosts),

twenty-two chief academic officers

(most commonly referred

to as Deans of Instruction or Academic Deans), thirty-five
chief business officers

(generally designated as Business

Managers), thirty-five chief student personnel administra­
tors (most commonly referred to as Deans of Students),
twenty-four academic officers in the area of applied arts,
and nineteen academic officers in the area of liberal arts.
Sources of the Data
Data for the study were obtained from two sources:
the central records of the Higher Education Planning and
Coordination Services Division of the Michigan Department
of Education and the responses to a mailed survey instrument
that was sent to the 170 community college administrators
in the study sample.

The central records utilized by the

researcher consisted mainly of HEGIS'*' forms and reports
filled out by each of the public community colleges in the
state of Michigan and centralized by the Higher Education
Planning and Coordination Services Division of the Michigan
Department of Education.

Separate summary reports of the

Division, based on combining the data reported by all twentynine institutions, were also used by the researcher.
The other source of data for the study was the
responses to the "Faculty Qualifications Survey," a
^Higher Education General Information Survey,
1971-72.

62
questionnaire mailed to the 170 chief community college
administrators included in the study sample.

Of the 170

instruments sent out, 133 were completed and returned by
administrators.
Description of the Instrument
A measurement device, entitled "Faculty Qualifica­
tions Survey," was used as the mailed survey instrument in
the study.
The instrument was constructed by the researcher
after he had completed an intensive review and study of lit­
erature on the subject of community college faculty members
and their formal qualifications.
After the first revised draft of the instrument was
completed, it was reviewed by Michigan State University pro­
fessors working in the areas of the community college, higher
education administration, and educational research methods.
Based on their comments and suggestions, the instrument went
through two further revisions.
The completed survey instrument was pilot tested among
faculty members and graduate students in community college
administration at Michigan State University who were consid­
ered to possess characteristics similar to those administrators
included in the actual study.

As a result of pilot testing,

further minor revisions were made to improve the clarity and
simplicity of several questionnaire items.

Based on recommen­

dations resulting from the pilot test, a decision was made to

63
have the "Faculty Qualifications Survey" printed professionally,
on both sides of a single sheet of 9 3/4 x 15 inch, yellow
bond paper, thus making it a single-fold, four-page instrument.
This action was taken in the hopes of increasing the return
rate for the survey instrument by improving the appearance
and "professionalism" of the instrument.
The instrument is divided into two sections.^

In

the first section, the respondent is asked to provide cer­
tain information about himself, his background and experi­
ence.
"Faculty Qualification Data" is the second section
of the instrument and comprises slightly over three pages of
the four-page instrument.

This section includes eleven major

questions designed to seek information about the respondent's
attitude concerning the desired formal qualifications of
community college faculty members.

It includes items deal­

ing with desired training and experience, whether the respon­
dent's institution is having difficulty in recruiting qualified
faculty, what qualifications are considered in screening
applicants, and the respondent's attitudes concerning formal
preparation programs for community college teachers.
The first page of the instrument also contains a
space for a coded number.

These numbers were used in iden­

tifying respondents and nonrespondents.

^See Appendix D.

64
Collection of the Data
The collection of the data used in the study was
conducted in two stages.

In the first stage, occurring

during the last two weeks in March, 1972, the researcher
spent several days meeting with personnel from the Michigan
Department of Education and the Michigan Community College
Association.

During these meetings, the researcher was

given access to the 1971-72 HEGIS reports submitted to the
Michigan Department of Education by the twenty-nine public
community colleges in the state.

From these meetings and

the review of the HEGIS documents, the researcher was able
to obtain information about the various public community
colleges in Michigan.

The information included data regard­

ing the number of total and full-time equivalent students
enrolled, the number of full-time and part-time faculty
members, and the names of administrators at each of the
twenty-nine institutions.

Information concerning the age,

setting, and the proximity of each community college to a
graduate institution was also obtained during these meetings
The above central-records information was used in
classifying each of the twenty-nine public community col­
leges on the following seven dimensions:

age, size, setting

proximity to a graduate institution, full-time faculty, part
time faculty, and part-time versus full-time faculty.1

1See Appendix B.

65
The second stage of data collection was initiated
on April 8, 1972, when letters of introduction and survey
instruments were sent to the 170 administrators comprising
the sample for the study.

Dr. Vandel C. Johnson, Chairman

of the Department of Administration and Higher Education;
Dr. Max R. Raines, Professor in the area of community college
education in the Department of Administration and Higher
Education; and the researcher signed the letter of intro­
duction,^ which explained the purpose of the study and
requested the administrator's cooperation in completing the
enclosed survey instrument.
This initial correspondence with the sample partici­
pants produced eighty-four useable returns.
letters

2

Follow-up

and additional survey instruments were mailed to

the nonrespondents on April 24, 1972.

As a result, forty-

nine additional questionnaires were returned in useable form
by May 17, 1972.

A summary of the responses to the "Faculty

Qualifications Survey" is presented in Table 1.
TABLE 1.— Summary of responses to survey.
Category of Responses

Frequency

Useable Returns
Unuseable Returns
No Response
Total

133
6
31
170

^See Appendix C.
2See Appendix C.

Per Cent
78.2
3.5
18.3
100.0

66
A total of 133 useable returns was obtained from
both sets of correspondence.

This response represents

slightly over 78 per cent of the sample of 170 community
college administrators.

An additional six returns were

classified as unuseable, because they were duplicates or
had not been completed by the administrators in the sample.
Thirty-one individuals failed to respond to the survey.
The responses of administrators who returned com­
pleted, useable survey instruments were coded.

These data,

along with other coded information about the general char­
acteristics

(such as age, size, and setting) of the institu­

tion at which the respective administrators were employed,
were then transferred onto IBM punch cards.

The position and

characteristics of the community colleges at which the
respective nonrespondents to the survey were employed were
also coded and transferred onto IBM cards to be used in a
limited respondent versus nonrespondent data analysis.
Statistical Treatment of the Data
In order to analyze the data in the study, both para­
metric and nonparametric statistical techniques were employed.
The study was essentially concerned with obtaining data that
would be used in answering the following research questions:
1.

What formal qualifications are considered by commu­
nity college administrators in their recruiting and
selection of faculty members?

67
2.

What do community college administrators consider to
be the minimum formal qualifications, in terms of
educational training and background experiences, that
a prospective teacher must possess in order to be
considered for a teaching position?

3.

What do community college administrators believe to
be the most desirable formal qualifications with
respect to educational training and experience?

4.

Are community college administrators having diffculty in finding faculty members with the formal
qualifications they desire?

5.

Do the respondents believe that desired formal qual­
ifications should be different for the different
types of instructors needed by community colleges?

6.

Are the attitudes of the administrators responding
to this survey consistent across types of adminis­
trators and types of institutions?
The survey instrument was designed so that the

responses of the administrators on different parts of the
instrument could be compiled and used as a basis for answer­
ing research questions one through four.

Frequency counts,

percentages, and arithmetic m e a n s , where appropriate, were
computed for each item on the questionnaire by using the
CDC 6500 CISSR Percount Program available at Michigan State
University.1
^-Larry Thiel and Linda Patrick, Percount, Technical
Report No. 18 (East Lansing:
Michigan State University Com­
puter Institute for Social Science Research (CISSR), 1968).

68
Both parametric and nonparametric techniques were
used selectively in order to answer research questions five
and six.

In particular, Multivariate Analysis of Variance,1
2
Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance (W) , Stuart's Test for
Homogeneity of the Marginal Distributions in a Two-Way Classification,

3

the Chi-Square Test for Independence,

4

and the

Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient (rho)^ were employed
in analyzing selected questionnaire responses.

The Chi-

g

Square Test for Homogeneity

was also used in the respondent

versus nonrespondent analysis.

The level of significance

used in analyzing data for relationships was established to
be all those values of the respective test statistics which
were so large that the probability

(p) associated with their

David J. Wright, Jeremy D. Finn's Multivariance—
Univariate and Multivariate Analysis of Variance and Covari­
ance: A FORTRAN IV Program, Occasional Paper No. 9 (East
Lansing: Office of Research Consultation, School for Advanced
Studies, College of Education, Michigan State University,
1970) .
2
Roger E. Kirk, Experimental Design: Procedures for
the Behavioral Sciences (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publish­
ing Co., Inc., 1968), pp. 498-500.
3
Alan Stuart, "A Test for Homogeneity of the Marginal
Distributions in a Two-Way Classification," Biometrika, XLII
(December, 1955), 412-416.
4
John Morris, Nonparametric Chi-Square Tests and
Analyses of Variance, Technical Report No. 42 (East Lansing:
Michigan State University Computer Institute for Social
Science Research (CISSR), 1966).
Hereinafter referred to as
Nonparametric Chi-Square Tests.
^Sidney Siegel, Nonparametric Statistics for the
Behavioral Sciences (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book C o . , Inc.,
1956), pp. 202-213.
g

Morris, Nonparametric Chi-Square Tests.

69
occurrence under an assumed condition of no significant
relationships existing is equal to or less than .05.
Limitations of the Methodology
The following limitations are evident for this study
because of the methodology employed in conducting the study.
1.

Since the study was essentially a survey of existing

attitudes of community college administrators, it was gov­
erned by the restrictions of normative-descriptive research
methodology.

Therefore, to a considerable extent, subjective

analyses and evaluations were employed in order to arrive at
conclusions and produce recommendations.

Where comparative

analysis techniques were used, they were employed in a
causal-comparative sense, as defined by Van Dalen, and were
subject to the limitations of such techniques.
2.

A survey instrument which is used for the first time

is subject to a number of inherent weaknesses that must be
removed in future usage of such an instrument.

In addition,

the selection of item content is always subjected to a cer­
tain amount of investigator bias, which might tend to reduce
the effectiveness of the instrument,
3.

Time and money limitations did not permit conducting

an out-of-state pretest of the instrument, and a decision
was made not to contaminate the domain of the sample by con­
ducting an in-state pretest of the instrument.

However, this

"'"Deobold B. Van Dalen, Understanding Educational
Research (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book C o . , 1966), pp. 220-

:

225

70
limitation has been somewhat diminished by extensively pilot
testing the instrument among individuals who, because of their
graduate study and work in community college administration,
were considered to possess characteristics similar to those
of the administrators in the study sample.
4.

The sampling frame used in the study was published

in the fall of 1971 and was about six months old at the time
the sample was drawn.

This fact introduced the possibility

of missing elements or foreign elements in the frame.

This

limitation was partially alleviated by conducting an exten­
sive review and cross-validation of the frame with the
records of the Michigan Community College Association and
other sources just prior to drawing the sample.
5.

The fact that the survey instrument was mailed to

the administrators in the sample and required that they com­
plete and return it introduced the possibility of nonresponse
bias.

The possibility of such bias still exists, even though

almost 80 per cent of the instruments were returned.
6.

The reporting of one's own ideas, feelings, or

beliefs is always subject to deficiencies because of possible
inability to analyze true apprehensions and attitudes and
report them accurately on a survey instrument.
Summary
The procedures, instrumentation, and methodology
employed in gathering and analyzing data for the study were
described in this chapter.

There were two primary sources

71
of data for the study:

the central records of the Higher

Education Planning and Coordination Services Division of the
Michigan Department of Education and the chief community col­
lege administrators in the state of Michigan who completed
and returned the "Faculty Qualifications Survey."
The survey instrument was constructed by the
researcher and pilot tested on faculty members and graduate
students in community college administration at Michigan
State University.
Both parametric and nonparametric statistical tech­
niques were used in analyzing the data obtained for the
study.

These procedures included the use of descriptive

summaries of item responses, in terms of frequency counts
and percentages, and selected further analysis of data
through the use of such statistical techniques as Multivar­
iate Analysis of Variance, Kendall's Coefficient of Concor­
dance (W), Stuart's Test for Homogeneity of the Marginal
Distributions in a Two-Way Classification, the Spearman
Rank Correlation Coefficient (rho), and the Chi-Square Test
for Independence.
The analyses were carried out on the CDC 6500 and
the CDC 3600 Computers at Michigan State University.

The

results of the various data analysis techniques are presented
in Chapter IV.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OP THE DATA

The purpose of this study was to determine the
present attitudes of chief community college administrators
concerning the desired formal qualifications of community
college faculty members.

In order to do so, specific research

questions were posed and relevant data were sought.
Chapter IV is divided into the following four main
sections:
1.

Characteristics of the respondents to the survey,

2.

Respondent and nonrespondent analysis,

3.

Presentation and analysis of data pertaining to the
research questions posed in the study and other rele­
vant d a t a , and

4.

A summary of the findings of the study.
Characteristics of Respondents
The data presented in this section were obtained from

an analysis of administrator responses to items included in
the "General Data" section of the "Faculty Qualifications
Survey," the survey instrument used in the study.^

^See Appendix D.
72

73
The 133 administrators responding to the survey were
employed during 1971-72 at public community colleges within
the state of Michigan.

At least one chief administrator at

each institution completed and returned a useable survey
instrument.

There were only four institutions at which admin­

istrators did not return at least three useable instruments
per institution, while personnel at twelve other community
colleges returned all questionnaires sent to these respective
colleges.

The distribution of respondents, by administrative

position, is presented in Table 2.
TABLE 2.— Position of respondent.

Number

Percentage of
Total Respondents

Chief Administrative Officer

25

18.8

Chief Student Personnel
Officer

27

20.3

Chief Business Officer

21

15.8

Chief Academic Officer

21

15.8

Chief "Applied Arts" Officer3

21

15.8

Chief "Liberal Arts" Officer*3

18

13.5

133

100.0

Position

Total
a

Chief academic officer in the area of applied arts.
^Chief academic officer in the area of liberal arts.
The community college experience of the survey respon­
dents is presented in Table 3.
A large percentage

(30.1) of the respondents had

served in their present administrative positions for less

74
than two years.

The majority of the remaining administrators

had been in their present positions for three to nine years.
Only 6.8 per cent of the respondents had been working in a
community college setting less than three years, while almost
70 per cent of them had had six or more years of total com­
munity college experience.
TABLE 3.--Respondent community college experience.
Experience in
Present Position

Total Community
College Experience

Number

Per Cent

0- 2 years

40

30.1

9

6.8

3- 5 years

49

36.8

31

23.3

6- 9 years

38

28.6

52

39.1

10-12 years

2

1.5

12

9.0

Over 12 years

4

3.0

29

21.8

133

100.0

133

100.0

Total

Number

Per Cent

The administrators responding to this survey repre­
sented a considerable range in ages.

As indicated in Table 4,

six respondents were over fifty-nine years of age and five
respondents were less than thirty.

The distribution of ages

was quite symmetrical in shape, with the largest portion
(over 45 per cent) of the administrators in the forty to
forty-nine age range.

75
TABLE 4.— Age of respondent.
Range (in years)

Number

Below 30

Per Cent

5

3.8

30 - 39

30

22.6

40 - 49

61

45.9

50 - 59

31

23.3

6

4.5

Above 59
Total

133

100.la

aDoes not add to 100.0 due to rounding procedures
employed.
Every administrator responding to the survey instru­
ment had earned at least a bachelor's degree.

The majority

of the administrators held the master's degree as their high­
est academic degree, although over 32 per cent held a doctor­
ate.

The distribution of highest academic degrees earned by

the respondents is presented in Table 5.
TABLE 5.— Highest degree earned by respondent.
Degree
Bachelor's

Number

Per Cent

6

4.5

75

56.4

8

6.0

43

32.3

None

0

0.0

Other

1

.8

133

100.0

Master's
Specialist
Doctorate

Total

76
Another question in the "General Data" section of the
survey instrument asked the respondents to indicate whether
they had ever attended a community college as students.

Only

21 per cent (n=28) of the respondents answered in the affirma­
tive.
The remaining item of general information supplied by
the respondents was in response to the question:

"Do you

participate in the recruitment and selection of new faculty
members

(or counselors)

for your institution?"

Almost 83 per

cent (n=110) of the administrators responding answered "yes."
Of the twenty-three administrators answering "no" to this
question, seventeen were chief business officers.
Respondent and Nonrespondent Analysis
A limited respondent versus nonrespondent analysis
was conducted, using the data on institutional characteristics
acquired from the records of the Planning and Coordination
Services Division of the Michigan Department of Education.
These data had been used to classify each public community
college on each of the following seven dimensions:

age, size,

setting, proximity to a graduate institution, full-time
faculty, part-time faculty, and part-time versus full-time
faculty.'*'

These classifications were coded and placed on

IBM punch cards for each administrator selected to be in the

^■See Appendix B for a listing of the criteria used
in classifying community colleges on these seven dimensions.

77
study sample.

Hence, these data were available for both

respondents and nonrespondents in the study.
In analyzing the returns of the survey instruments,
it was noticed that different types of administrators returned
completed instruments at different rates.

This phenomenon

becomes clearer when the response rates for the different
types of administrators are presented in tabular form, as in
Table 6.

In order to investigate this association further,

the decision was made to include type of administrative posi­
tion as a variable in the respondent versus nonrespondent
analysis.
TABLE 6.--Questionnaire response rate, by administrative
position.
Number
Returned

Number
Sent

Response
Ratea

Chief Administrative Officer

25

35

71.5

Chief Student Personnel Officer

27

35

77.2

Chief Business Officer

21

35

60.0

Chief Academic Officer

21

22

95.3

Chief "Applied Arts" Officer*3

21

24

87.5

Chief "Liberal Arts" Officer0

18

19

94.7

133

170

78.2

Position

Total

aExpressed as a percentage of the number sent.
^Chief academic officer in the area of applied arts.
cChief academic officer in the area of liberal arts.
The respondent versus nonrespondent analysis was
conducted by using the CISSR ACT Routine available on Michigan

78
State University's CDC 6500 Computer.^

The Chi-Square Test

for Homogeneity was used to determine whether individuals in
different administrative positions responded at significantly
2
different rates;
and Chi-Square Tests for Independence were
used to determine whether response and nonresponse was asso­
ciated with any of the seven institutional characteristics.
Of the eight tests performed, four produced computed chisquare test statistics that were significant at the .05 level.
Response and nonresponse was significantly associated with
institutional size, institutional setting, and institutional
full-time faculty.

The response and nonresponse rates were

also determined to be significantly different for the groups
of individuals in different administrative positions.
Further analyses conducted on these variables revealed
that all the institutional characteristics were significantly
associated in a pair-wise fashion with each other, with the
exception of institutional age and institutional part-time
faculty, which were not significantly associated.

Adminis­

trative position was not significantly associated with any
of the institutional characteristics.
^John Morris, Nonparametric Chi-Square Tests and
Analyses of Variance, Technical Report No. 42 (East Lansing:
Michigan State University Computer Institute for Social
Science Research (CISSR), 1966).
2
For the purposes of this study, individual
administrators— as opposed to community colleges— were the
units of analysis.
3
See Appendix E for a summary of the chi-square
analyses that were performed in the study.

3

79
In studying the contingency tables established to
illustrate significant associations,^" the researcher is able
to make the following statements regarding the respondent
versus nonrespondent analysis:
1.

The response and nonresponse rates were significantly

different for administrators in different positions.

Chief

business officers tended to respond less, while chief aca­
demic officers and academic officers in the liberal arts
area tended to respond more than was expected.
2.

Response and nonresponse was significantly associated

with institutional size, institutional setting, and institu­
tional full-time faculty.

Administrators at small community

colleges tended to respond l ess, while administrators at
medium-sized institutions tended to respond more than was
expected.

Individuals at institutions classified as rural

tended to respond less, while sample personnel at out-state
institutions tended to respond more than was expected.

Sample

personnel at institutions with small full-time faculties
tended to respond less than expected, while administrators
at colleges with medium or large full-time faculties tended
to respond more than was expected.
3.

The fact that almost all institutional characteris­

tics were significantly associated pair-wise with each other
may account for some of the significant associations between
^"Contingency tables illustrating all the significant
associations resulting from the chi-square analyses are pre­
sented in Appendix F.

80
response and nonresponse and the three institutional char­
acteristics of size, setting, and full-time faculty.

For

example, all ten community colleges classified as small in
size were also classified as being rural in setting and
small in terms of full-time faculty.

Hence, the significant

association between response and nonresponse and a particular
institutional characteristic may be related, in part, to
transitive associations existing among the institutional
characteristics and response and nonresponse.
The results of this respondent versus nonrespondent
analysis lead to two major findings.

The first of these

findings is that, although 60 per cent of them returned useable questionnaires, chief business officers appear to be
underrepresented in the group of respondents to the survey
instrument.
It is felt this fact has only a minor impact upon the
present study.

This study is concerned with the formal qual­

ifications of community college faculty members.

The intent

of the study was to survey those chief community college
administrators involved in the recruiting and selection of
community college faculty in order to determine what they
desire in the way of formal qualifications of faculty members
at the community college level.

Of the twenty-one chief

business officers who did respond to the survey, seventeen
(or 81 per cent) indicated they did not participate in the
recruitment and selection of faculty members.

Since admin­

istrative position was not significantly associated with any

81
institutional characteristics or other variables in the
study,^ one would tend to believe that the business officers
who did not respond would participate in the faculty recruit­
ment and selection process to the same degree and would have
attitudes similar to those business officers who did respond.
However, the possibility that such a belief is in error does
still exist.
The second major finding derived from the respondent
versus nonrespondent analysis is that administrators at
small, rural colleges appear to be underrepresented in the
sample of respondents.

These individuals represented 28.2

per cent of the study sample but only 23.3 per cent of the
respondents to the survey instrument.

Although, as indicated

in Appendix E, size and setting of community college did not
seem to be factors that were associated with administrators'
responses, the possibility of biased results does exist if
one attempts to generalize the survey findings beyond the
sample of respondents to the survey instrument.
Hence, in order to account for the possibility of
having obtained an unrepresentative sample of public commu­
nity college administrators in the state of Michigan, all
further discussion is restricted to the respondents in the
study and generalizations are limited to just this group of
administrators.

■*■366 Appendix E.

82
Presentation and Analysis of Data
The data presented in this section were obtained
from an analysis of administrator responses to questions
included in the "Faculty Qualification Data" section of the
survey instrument.

These data were collected in order to

answer the six research questions which were posed in the
study.
1.

They are as follows:
What formal qualifications are considered by commu­
nity college administrators in their recruiting and
selection of faculty members?

2.

What do community college administrators consider
to be the minimum formal qualifications, in terms of
educational training and background experiences, that
a prospective teacher must possess in order to be
considered for a teaching position?

3.

What do community college administrators believe to
be the most desirable formal qualifications with
respect to educational training and experience?

4.

Are community college administrators having diffi­
culty in finding faculty members with the formal
qualifications they desire?

5.

Do the respondents believe that desired formal qual­
ifications should be different for the different
types of instructors needed by community colleges?

6.

Are the attitudes of the administrators responding to
this survey consistent across types of administrators
and types of institutions?

83
The data pertaining to questions one through four
are presented and analyzed separately for each question.
The data collected for use in answering questions five and
six are related to the data used in answering questions one
through four, and are discussed under each of these four
main questions, rather than as separate questions.
What Formal Qualifications Are
Considered by Community College
Administrators in Their Recruit­
ing and Selection of Faculty
Members?
In order to provide data for this question, respon­
dents were asked to rate each item on a list of twenty-four
qualifications of a prospective faculty member, according to
the importance of consideration that they would give each of
these qualifications in their screening of candidates and in
deciding whether to recommend an individual for employment.
The rating scale consisted of the numbers one through four,
with one indicating "very important consideration" and four
representing "no consideration."

The responses of the

administrators are presented in Table 7.
Analysis of the responses of administrators presented
in Table 7 led to several major findings.

Of all the formal

qualifications listed, the group of qualifications dealing
with the formal academic preparation of a prospective com­
munity college teacher received the highest consideration
ratings.

Graduate major(s) or minor(s), at 1.34, received

the highest average rating of any qualification on the list.

84

TABLE 7.— Consideration of qualifications.

Administrator Consideration
la

Qualification

Age

(range)

2

3

4

Average
Rating

6

47

64

14

2.66

6

12

38

74

3.38

12

8

22

88

3.43

Religion

0

0

14

116

3. 89

Marital status

0

11

25

94

3.64

Sex
Race

Previously attended a community
college

3

16

69

42

3.15

Type of undergraduate degree

39

69

19

3

1.89

Undergraduate major(s)

or minor(s)

65

55

11

0

1.59

Undergraduate grade point average

11

74

39

7

2.32

Type of graduate degree

65

48

17

0

1.63

Graduate major(s)

88

41

2

0

1.34

Graduate grade point average

18

75

33

5

2.19

Type, quality of colleges attended

19

69

38

6

2.23

8

41

61

21

2.73

Previous community college
teaching experience

54

58

16

4

1.77

Previous four-year college
teaching experience

10

50

54

18

2.61

Previous "other" teaching experience
(e.g., industrial, armed forces
teaching)

27

75

24

6

2.07

Previous nonteaching experience

31

78

23

0

1.94

Letters of reference

26

59

40

7

2.21

or minor(s)

Previous K-12 teaching experience

Out-of-state colleges attended

5

31

59

36

2.96

Out-of-state work experiences

11

41

54 .

24

2.70

Membership in professional
associations

10

30

73

18

2.76

Scholarly publications

5

22

71

34

3.02

Research activities

7

21

63

41

3.05

Key:

"1" = Very Important Consideration
" 2" =
Important Consideration
"3" = Minor Consideration
"4" = No Consideration

bAverage ratings were obtained by treating the responses of adminis­
trators as numerical, equal-interval data and computing arithmetic means.

85
Of the experiential qualifications listed, previous
community college teaching experience and previous nonteach­
ing experience received the highest average ratings.

Pre­

vious K-12 teaching experience, at 2.73, received the lowest
average rating in this group of qualifications, with almost
63 per cent of the respondents giving it minor or no con­
sideration.

Previous four-year college experience, at 2.61,

had the next lowest average rating.
The last three qualifications listed— membership in
professional associations, scholarly publications, and
research activities— were placed on the list because they are
generally considered important qualifications in a four-year
college or university teacher.

However, at least 70 per cent

of the responding community college administrators gave each
qualification minor or no consideration in their screening
of prospective community college teachers.
The qualification of having previously attended a
community college received an average rating of 3.15, and
only nineteen administrators of the 130 individuals respond­
ing to the item gave it more than minor consideration.

A

Chi-Square Test for Independence revealed a significant asso­
ciation between whether an administrator had himself attended
a community college as a student and his response to this
item.

Further analysis showed that administrators who had

attended a community college themselves tended to give this
qualification more consideration than was expected.

86
The qualifications of age, sex, race, and religion
received very little consideration.

However, the written

comments of several administrators lent importance to these
items.

Two or three respondents wrote that it was unlawful

to consider these qualifications in hiring individuals.
Other administrators wrote that they rated age, sex, and
race as very important considerations in a prospective fac­
ulty member if they felt their institutions' staffs were
underrepresented on these characteristics.
Several respondents also indicated that other formal
qualifications should be considered in their screening pro­
cess and decision whether to recommend an individual for
employment as a community college teacher.

A sample of

these qualifications is presented in Appendix G.
Item number eight of the survey instrument asked the
respondents to indicate which of seven characteristics they
believed their colleges should consider in attempting to
attain or maintain some "balance" of faculty.

The data for

this item are set forth in Tables 8 and 9.
Almost 90 per cent of the respondents believed their
institutions' staffs should be "balanced" with respect to at
least one of the seven characteristics.
of characteristics checked was 2.62.

The average number

The most frequently

selected characteristic to consider in "balance of staff"
was race, chosen by almost 60 per cent of the respondents.
Sex; age; and masters', doctorates, and other degrees— in
that order— were the next most frequently chosen characteristics

87
TABLE 8.— Characteristics to consider in "balance" of faculty.
Should Consider
Characteristic
Sex
Age
Race
In-state vs. out-ofstate work and
living experience
Masters', doctorates,
and other degrees
Marital status
Religion

Should Not Consider

Number

Per Cent

Number

Per Cent

74
69
79

56.1
52. 3
59.8

58
63
53

43.9
47.7
40.2

44

33.3

88

66.7

68
14
1

51.5
10.6
.8

64
118
131

48.5
89.4
99.2

TABLE 9.— Number of characteristics to consider in "balance"
of faculty.
Response

Number of
Characteristics

Number

Per Cent

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

14
23
26
26
23
17
2
1

10.6
17.4
19.7
19.7
17.4
12.9
1.5
.8

132

100.0

Total

to consider in "balancing" a community college staff.

No

other characteristic was endorsed by more than one-third
of the respondents.

However, it is interesting to note that

fourteen respondents believed in "balancing" their staffs
with respect to marital status, and one individual indicated

88
that religion should be considered in "balancing" his public
community college's faculty.
What Do Community College Adminis­
trators Consider to Be the Minimum
Formal Qualifications/ in Terms of
Educational Training and Background
Experiences, That a Prospective
Teacher Must Possess in Order to Be
Considered for a Teaching Position?
The data used in answering this research question were
obtained by asking the respondents what they would establish
as the minimum qualifications for prospective liberal arts
and applied arts teachers with respect to six general cri­
teria.

The data collected on this question are presented

in Tables 10 and 11.
As shown in Table 10, over 94 per cent of the respon­
dents indicated they would require at least a master's degree
as the minimum educational degree for a liberal arts teacher
in the community college.

However, only 24.6 per cent thought

the master's degree should be the minimum degree for applied
arts teachers.

Around 71 per cent of the responding admin­

istrators thought the minimum degree for an applied arts
teacher in the community college should be a bachelor's
degree or less.

Almost 10 per cent indicated there should

be no minimum educational degree for applied arts teachers.
Only one administrator responded that the doctorate should be
the minimum educational training for community college teach­
ers in liberal arts.

89
TABLE 10.— Minimum educational training for community college
teachers.
Liberal Arts
Number

Per Cent

Applied Arts
Number

Per Cent

Educational Training
(in Terms of Degrees)
None

0

0.0

11

9.6

Associate

3

2.5

10

8.8

Bachelor1s

4

3.3

60

52.6

Bachelor's plus

0

0.0

5

4.4

110

90.9

28

24.6

Master's plus

2

1.7

0

0.0

Doctorate

1

.8

0

0.0

Other

1

.8

0

0.0

121

100.0

114

100.0

47

43.1

51

49.0

1- 4

16

14.7

15

14.4

5- 8

23

21.1

21

20.2

9-12

15

13.8

12

11.5

8

7.3

5

4.8

109

100.0

104

Master1s

Total

Professional Courses in
Community College Educa­
tion (in Semester Hours)
0

Over 12
Total

99.9a

aDoes not add to 100.0 due to rounding procedures
employed.

90
TABLE 11.— Minimum experience for community college teachers.
Liberal Arts

Applied Arts

Number

Per Cent

Number

Per Cent

0

69

61.6

71

66.4

1

5

4.5

6

5.6

2

17

15.2

19

17.8

3

10

8.9

5

4.7

4

3

2.7

2

1.9

5

7

6.2

4

3.7

6

1

0.9

0

0.0

Total

112

100.0

107

Average

1.09 years

High School Teaching
Experience (in Years)

100.la

.81 years

Community College Teach­
ing Experience (in Years)
0

53

45.3

68

62.4

1

8

6.8

9

8.3

2

40

34. 2

21

19. 3

3

9

7.7

6

5.5

4

3

2.6

2

1.8

5

4

3.4

3

2.7

Total

117

100.0

109

100.0

Average

1.26 years

.84 years

91
TABLE 11.— Continued.
Liberal Arts

Applied Arts

Number

Per Cent

Number

Per cent

0

86

78.9

89

89.0

1

8

7.3

5

5.0

2

11

10.1

3

3.0

3

0

0.0

0

0.0

4

1

0.9

1

1.0

5

3

2.8

2

2.0

Total

109

100.0

100

100.0

Average

.45 years

Four-Year College Teach­
ing Experience (in Years)

.25 years

Voactional/Industrial
Experience (in Years)
0

72

77.4

9

7.6

1

9

9.7

6

5.1

2

8

8.6

27

22. 9

3

1

1.1

24

20.3

4

1

1.1

17

14.4

5

2

2.2

33

28.0

6

0

0.0

2

1.7

Total

93

100.0

118

100.0

Average

.45 years

3.19 years

Does not add to 100.0 due to rounding procedures
employed.

92
Slightly more than half of the community college
administrators responding to the survey instrument indicated
community college teachers should have, at a minimum, one
or more professional courses in community college education.
However, 43 per cent of the respondents felt there should be
no minimum requirement in this area for liberal arts teachers
49 per cent expressed a similar view for applied arts teach­
ers.

Many respondents indicated a range or interval of

hours as the minimum requirement, rather than a particular
number of hours.

In each of these instances, the minimum

value or the lower bound of the interval was established as
the subject's response to the item.
Chi-Square Tests for Independence were used to deter­
mine whether there were any significant associations between
the minimum qualifications of educational training or pro­
fessional courses in community college education established
by the respondents for prospective community college teach­
ers and selected administrator or institutional character­
istics.

The results of these tests revealed that no signif­

icant associations existed between the minimum qualifications
established by respondents and the administrator character­
istic of highest degree earned or the institutional char­
acteristics of age, size, setting, and proximity to a
graduate institution.

However, a significant association

existed between the total community college experience of
^"See Appendix E.

93
the respondents and the minimum educational training they
established for prospective liberal arts teachers.

No other

significant associations were revealed as a result of these
tests.
Table 11 shows that, with respect to the minimum
experience desired in liberal arts teachers, slightly over
one year of high school teaching or one year of community
college teaching experience was the average minimum experi­
ence requirement established by the respondents."^

Almost

80 per cent of the responding administrators indicated they
would establish no minimum four-year college teaching or
vocational/industrial experience requirements for liberal
arts teachers.

The only criterion for minimum experience

in applied arts teachers which had an average response of
over one year was vocational/industrial experience.

The

average minimum amount of experience desired of applied
arts teachers in this area was over three years.

Almost

45 per cent of the respondents thought a community college
applied arts teacher should have more than three years of
vocational/industrial experience.

Also, over 22 per cent of

the respondents indicated a liberal arts teacher should have
some vocational/industrial experience.
Multi-variate Analysis of Variance was performed on
the average number of years of each type of experience and

■*"If respondents indicated a range or interval of
years as an established minimum requirement, the minimum
value or lower bound of the interval was established as the
response to the item.

94
the average number of semester hours in professional courses
in community college education established by the respon­
dents as minimum requirements for liberal arts and applied
arts community college teachers.

The F-ratio for the multi­

variate test of equality of mean difference vectors equalled
40.67.

At 5 and 78 degrees of freedom, this F-ratio indi­

cated that a significant

(pc.0001) difference exists between

the minimum requirements established on these five criteria
for liberal arts teachers and the requirements established
for applied arts teachers.

Univariate F-ratios indicated

that the average minimum requirements were significantly dif­
ferent for liberal arts and applied arts teachers on each of .
the five criteria under consideration.
Many respondents also wrote in other criteria they
would establish as minimum requirements for prospective
teachers in the liberal arts and/or applied arts areas.

Many

of these criteria pertain to formal qualifications in the
area of coursework in the academic preparation programs of
prospective community college teachers.

However, many of

these criteria pertain to qualifications which are considered
to be of an informal nature.

A sampling of both the addi­

tional formal and the informal minimum qualifications criteria
that these respondents would establish for prospective commu­
nity college teachers is presented in Appendix G.

95
What Do Community College Admin­
istrators Believe to Be the Most
Desirable Formal Qualifications
With Respect to Educational
Training and Experience?
To provide data for this question, the respondents
were asked to indicate which one of a list of seven degrees
they considered to be the most desirable degree for liberal
arts teachers, and which would be the most desirable for
applied arts teachers.

The responses to this item are pre­

sented in Table 12.
TABLE 12.--Most desirable educational training for community
college instructors.

Degrees

In Liberal Arts

In Applied Arts

Number

Number

Per Cent

Per Cent

Bachelor's in
Subject Field

2

1.5

23

19.1

Master's in
Subject Field

42

32.3

36

29.7

9

6.9

8

6.6

58

44.6

44

36.4

3

2.3

2

1.6

11

8.5

2

1.6

Doctorate in
Subject Field

5

3.9

0

0.0

Another Degree

0

0.0

6

4.9

130

100.0

121

Master's in Teaching
Master's in Subject
Field plus advanced
work in Education
Specialist in Education
"Teaching" Doctorate

Total

99.9a

aDoes not add to 100.0 due to rounding procedures
employed.

96
The master's degree in a subject field plus advanced
work in education was most frequently chosen as the most
desirable educational training for both liberal arts and
applied arts teachers at the community college level.

Less

than 15 per cent of the community college administrators
indicated a degree beyond the master's level would be most
desirable for liberal arts teachers, while only 3.2 per cent
thought the most desirable degree for applied arts teachers
was above the master's degree.
The six individuals who specified "another degree"
for applied arts teachers wrote in that no degree or, in one
instance, the associate degree, would be the most desirable.
Generally, they indicated that other criteria, not educational
degrees, were more important considerations.

These individ­

uals ' responses, added to the twenty-three administrators
who indicated that a bachelor's in a subject field was the
most desirable degree for an applied arts teacher, indicated
that almost one-fourth of the respondents felt the most
desirable educational training for a community college applied
arts teacher stopped short of the master's degree level.
Stuart's Test for Homogeneity of the Marginal Dis­
tributions in a Two-Way Classification was used to determine
whether the distributions of responses of administrators
regarding the desired educational degrees for community
college teachers differed significantly for liberal arts and
applied arts instructors.

The computed Q test statistic,

equal to 34.5, was referred to the chi-square distribution

97
with six degrees of freedom.

This comparison indicated that

a significant (p<.01) difference existed between the distri­
bution of responses of administrators selecting the most
desirable degree for liberal arts teachers and the distri­
bution of responses of administrators selecting the most
desirable degree for applied arts teachers.
Chi-Square Tests for Independence were used to deter­
mine whether any significant associations existed between
administrator responses regarding the most desirable degrees
for community college instructors and the administrator char­
acteristics of total community college experience or highest
degree earned, or the institutional characteristics of age,
size, setting, or proximity to a graduate institution.

These

tests revealed no significant associations, with the single
exception of administrator responses regarding the most
desirable degree for applied arts teachers being signifi­
cantly associated with the institutional characteristic of
proximity to a graduate institution.'*'

Further analysis of

this association revealed that respondents whose community
colleges were classified as "near" a graduate institution
tended to choose the bachelor's degree in a subject field
less than expected, while individuals at colleges classified
as "far" from a graduate institution tended to choose the
bachelor's degree in a subject field more than expected—
^"See Appendix E.

98
as the most desirable degree for community college applied
arts teachers.^
To obtain additional data concerning the relative
importance of educational preparation as compared to differ­
ent types of experiences, the respondents were asked to rank
a set of six qualifications in the order that they considered
them to be important as qualifications in a liberal arts
instructor and in an applied arts instructor.

The ranking

consisted of placing a "1" next to the most important quali­
fication, a "2" next to the next most important qualification,
and so on.

The data for these responses are presented in

Tables 13 and 14.
TABLE 14.— Ranking of qualifications based on importance.
Liberal Arts
Qualification

Applied Arts

Average Rank

Ranka

Average Rank

Educational training

1.36

1

2.13

2

High school teaching
experience

4.18

4

4.54

5

Community college
teaching experience

2.26

2

3.11

3

Four-year college
teaching experience

4.27

5

5.38

6

Vocational/industrial
experience

5.07

6

1.44

1

Professional courses
in community college
education

3.82

3

4.30

4

aBased on ranking the average ranks.

Rank

99
TABLE 13.— Importance of qualifications.
Liberal Arts
Qualification

Applied Arts

Number

Per Cent

Number

Per Cent

96
16
11
1
1
0

76.8
12.8
8.8
0.8
0.8
0.0

41
51
21
7
5
2

32.3
40.2
16.5
5.5
3.9
1.6

Total

125

100.0

127

100.0

Average Rank

1.36

Educational Training
1
id 2
M 3
£ 4
« 5
6

2.13

High School
Teaching Experience
2
12
25
31
27
25

1.6
9.8
20.5
25.4
22.1
20.5

0
1
17
44
36
25

0.0
0.8
13.8
35.8
29.3
20.3

Total

122

99.9

123

100.0

Average Rank

4.18

1
2
* 3
a a
(0 ’
« 5
6

4 .54

Community College
Teaching Experience
20
64
27
11
1
0

16.3
52 .0
22.0
8.9
0.8
0.0

5
24
57
32
8
0

4.0
19.1
45.2
25.4
6.3
0.0

Total

123

100.0

126

100.0

Average Rank

2.26

1
2
£ 4
« 5
6

3.11

100
TABLE 13.--Continued.
Liberal Arts
Qualification

Number Per Cent

Applied Arts
Number

Per Cent

Four-Year College
Teaching Experience
1
2
M 3
a 4
« 5
6

2
4
27
34
38
18

1.6
3.3
22 .0
27.6
30.9
14.6

0
0
2
16
38
67

0.0
0.0
1.6
13.0
30.9
54.5

Total

123

100.0

123

100.0

Average Rank

4.27

5.38

Vocational/Industrial
Experience
1
7
11
10
28
65

0.8
5.7
9.0
8.2
23.0
53.3

77
44
6
0
0
0

60.6
34.7
4.7
0.0
0.0
0.0

Total

122

100.0

127

100.0

Average Rank

5.07

1
2
* 3
4
« 5
6

S

1.44

Professional Courses
in Community College
Education
3
21
27
31
31
12

2.4
16.8
21.6
24 .8
24.8
9.6

1
12
24
25
39
25

0.8
9.5
19.1
19.8
31.0
19. 8

Total

125

100.0

126

100.0

Average Rank

3.82

1
2
* 3
§ 4
« 5
6

4.30

aRank values assigned to qualification by respondents.

101
Educational training had the highest average rank
of the qualifications for liberal arts teachers, while it
received the second highest average ranking for applied arts
teachers.

High school teaching experience and four-year

college teaching experience received the lowest rankings of
importance, placing fourth and fifth, respectively, for lib­
eral arts teachers, and fifth and sixth, respectively, for
applied arts teachers.

Vocational/industrial experience was

considered the most important qualification in applied arts
teachers and the least important in liberal arts teachers.
Community college teaching experience, ranking just below
educational training, was judged the most important of the
four types of experience for liberal arts faculty members.
It was also considered the most important type of teaching
experience for applied arts teachers, ranking third overall
behind vocational/industrial experience and educational
training.
Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance

(W) was used

to determine whether the respondents to the survey instru­
ment were in agreement on their rankings of the importance
of these six formal qualifications in a community college
faculty member.

Coefficients of concordance were calculated

for the rankings of qualifications for both liberal arts
teachers and applied arts teachers.
in two ways:

They were calculated

(1) using the individual rankings supplied by

the total group of respondents and (2) using thirty-five
institutional rankings derived from the average rankings of

102
the administrators responding from each institution or cam­
pus of a multicampus institution.

The results of these

computations are presented in Table 15.
TABLE 15.— Kendall's Coefficients of Concordance.
W

Significance

Individual Rankings
Liberal Arts Qualifications
(n=122)

.5554

p < .0001

Applied Arts Qualifications
(n=123)

.6632

p < .0001

Liberal Arts Qualifications
(n=34)a

.7553

p < .0001

Applied Arts Qualifications
(n=34)

.8718

p < .0001

Institutional Rankings

aThe responses of one institution were not used.
All four computed coefficients of concordance were
judged to be significant, indicating that the total group of
administrators responding to this item and institutional
rankings of these qualifications were in significant agreement
on the rankings of importance of these six formal qualifica­
tions for liberal arts and for applied arts teachers.

The

Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient (rho) was used to com­
pare each respondent's ranking and each of the institutional
rankings of the six qualifications with the overall or con­
sensual rankings of these qualifications presented in Table 14.

103
The results of this analysis revealed that none of the indi­
vidual respondent or individual institutional rankings dif­
fered significantly from the consensual rankings of these
qualifications for either liberal arts or applied arts fac­
ulty members.
The Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient was also
used to compare the consensual ranking of the six formal
qualifications for liberal arts teachers with the consensual
ranking of these qualifications for applied arts teachers.
The test statistic, r h o , was computed to be .14 3, and was
referred to a table of critical values of rho found in
Siegel's text."'"

The results of this analysis showed that

the computed rho was not significant at the .05 level.
Hence, there was no significant relationship between the
overall ranking of the six formal qualifications for liberal
arts teachers and their consensual ranking for applied arts
teachers.
Are Community College Administra­
tors Having Difficulty in Finding
Faculty Members With the Formal
Qualifications They Desire?
Part of the data used in answering this question
was obtained by asking the respondents how much difficulty
their respective institutions presently have in recruiting
qualified liberal arts and applied arts faculty members.
■'"Sidney Siegel, Nonparametric Statistics for the
Behavioral Sciences (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc.,
1956), p. 284.

104
The responses of the administrators are presented in
Table 16.
TABLE 16.--Present difficulty in recruiting qualified commu­
nity college faculty members.

Difficulty
None at all
Some
A great deal
Total

In Liberal Arts

In Applied Arts

Number

Per Cent

Number

Per Cent

120

92.3

68

52.3

10

7.7

56

43.1

0

0.0

6

4.6

130

100.0

130

100.0

No administrator reported that his college was hav­
ing a great deal of difficulty in finding qualified liberal
arts instructors.

Less than 5 per cent of the respondents

indicated considerable difficulty in recruiting qualified
applied arts faculty at the present time.

However, almost

half of the respondents indicated their institutions were
having at least some difficulty in recruiting qualified
applied arts teachers.

Over 90 per cent of the respondents

indicated no difficulty in recruiting qualified liberal arts
instructors at the present time.
Chi-Square Tests for Independence were used in deter­
mining whether the indicated degree of present difficulty in
recruiting faculty was associated with the administrative
position or total community college experience of the respon­
dent or with his corresponding institutional characteristics

105
of age, size, setting, or proximity to a graduate institu­
tion.

The results of these tests revealed that there was no

significant association between indicated degree of present
difficulty and position or total community college experi­
ence of the respondent; and no significant associations were
found between indicated degree of present difficulty in
recruiting qualified faculty and the institutional character­
istics of age, size, setting, and proximity to a graduate
institution.
The respondents were also asked to indicate how they
thought the difficulty of their institution's task of recruit­
ing qualified faculty members in the near future would compare
to their institution's present degree of difficulty in this
area.

Their responses are presented in Table 17.

TABLE 17.— Future difficulty in recruiting qualified community
college faculty members as compared to present difficulty.
Liberal Arts

Applied Arts

Future Difficulty

Number

Per Cent

Number

Per Cent

Easier than present

71

54.2

60

45.8

The same as present

58

44.3

59

45.0

Harder than present

2

1.5

12

9.2

131

100.0

131

100.0

Total

Over 98 per cent of the administrators responding to
this item felt their institution's task of recruiting qualified
1See Appendix E.

•'■"Wfp

106
liberal arts teachers in the near future would be of the
same difficulty or easier than at the present time.

Almost

91 per cent of the respondents also believed their future
difficulty in recruiting qualified applied arts faculty would
be easier than or, at most, equal to their present degree
of difficulty in this area.
Chi-Square Tests for Independence were performed in
an attempt to determine whether administrator responses to
this question were associated with administrative position,
total community college experience, or the corresponding
institutional characteristics of age, size, setting, and
proximity to a graduate institution.

No significant asso­

ciations were found between administrator beliefs regarding
their institution's future difficulty of recruiting qualified
faculty and any of the above administrator or institutional
characteristics.
Another item on the survey instrument requested that
the respondents indicate what they would establish as mini­
mum qualifications for liberal arts and applied arts teachers
with respect to six formal qualifications.

The responses of

administrators to this item have been presented as data to
be used in answering research question two.

However, in

order to provide additional data for research question four,
the respondents were also asked to indicate which of the
minimum qualifications they had established was the most
difficult to find among liberal arts teachers and among

107
applied arts teachers at their colleges.

Their responses to

this question are presented in Table 18.
TABLE 18.— Formal qualifications most difficult to find in
community college faculty members.
Liberal Arts
Qualification

Number

Per Cent

Applied Arts
Number

Per Cent

Educational Training

3

3.3

17

17.0

High School Teaching
Experience

3

3.3

3

3.0

Community College
Teaching Experience

39

42.9

23

23.0

Four-Year College
Teaching Experience

6

6.6

1

1.0

Vocational/Industrial
Experience

13

14.3

33

33.0

Professional Courses in
Community College
Education

27

29.6

23

23.0

91

100.0

100

100.0

Total

Administrators responding to this question felt that
community college teaching experience was the most difficult
of the six formal qualifications to find among community
college liberal arts teachers.

The second most difficult

qualification to find among liberal arts teachers was pro­
fessional courses in community college education.

Vocational/

industrial experience was most frequently chosen as the most
difficult qualification to find in applied arts instructors
at the community college level.

108
Administrators were also asked to indicate which of
the six formal qualifications was least difficult to find in
liberal arts instructors and in applied arts instructors at
their community colleges.

The data pertaining to their

responses are presented in Table 19.
TABLE 19.--Formal qualifications least difficult to find in
community college faculty members •
Liberal Arts
Qualification

Applied Arts

Number

Per Cent

Number

Per Cent

Educational Training

82

73.2

43

41.0

High School Teaching
Experience

24

21.4

21

20.0

Community College
Teaching Experience

3

2.7

1

0.9

Four-Year College
Teaching Experience

0

0.0

1

0.9

Vocational/Industrial
Experience

1

0.9

38

36.2

Professional Courses in
Community College
Education

2

1.8

1

0.9

112

100.0

105

Total

99.9a

aDoes not add to 100.0 due to rounding procedures
employed.
Educational training was indicated by 73 per cent of
the respondents as being the qualification least difficult
to find in liberal arts faculty, while high school teaching
experience was considered to be the next least difficult
qualification to find in liberal arts faculty members.

109
Forty-one per cent of the administrators answering this ques­
tion felt educational training was also the formal qualifica­
tion least difficult to find in applied arts faculty at their
community colleges.

In contrast to the thirty-three admin­

istrators who indicated vocational/industrial experience was
the most difficult qualification to find in applied arts
teachers, thirty-eight administrators felt this was the for­
mal qualification least difficult to find among applied arts
instructors at their institutions.
Other Relevant Data
The survey instrument also contained items which,
although they did not pertain specifically to any one of the
six research questions posed in the study, were included
because it was felt they could produce further relevant data
which could be used in determining the attitudes of the sur­
vey respondents concerning the desired formal qualifications
of faculty members at the community college level.
The majority of the additional data was obtained
from a section of the survey instrument which asked the
respondents to indicate their degree of agreement or disagree­
ment with each item in a group of ten statements relating to
the formal qualifications of community college faculty
members.

The respondents were requested to show their

agreement or disagreement with each statement by circling
one of five numbers located to the right of each statement.
The following code was used:

"1" equalled "strongly agree,"

110
"2" equalled "agree," "3" equalled "not sure," "4" equalled
"disagree," and "5" equalled "strongly disagree."

The

responses to each attitude statement were considered sep­
arately and no attempt was made to combine the responses to
several statements to arrive at some overall measure of atti­
tudes on this topic.
Table 20 contains the data obtained by analyzing
the responses of administrators to each of these ten state­
ments .
In analyzing the data presented in Table 20, one
finds that over 75 per cent of the administrators responding
to the first statement indicated they agreed that prepara­
tion programs for community college instructors should be
different from those for high school or senior college
teachers.

There was no other statement with which over half

of the respondents agreed.
Slightly over 49 per cent of the respondents agreed
with the statement, "Faculty members who attended a community
college as students are more likely to understand and agree
with the goals of the community college than are faculty
members who never attended a community college."

A Chi-

Square Test for Independence indicated that there was a
significant association between whether an administrator
had attended a community college as a student and his degree
of agreement with this statement.^"
^See Appendix E.

Further analysis revealed

1
TABLE 20.— Responses of administrators to each of ten attitude statements.9
Number Responding
Strongly
Agree
Statement

N

%b

Agree
N

Not Sure
%

N

%

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

N

N

%

%

Average
Response

Community college instructors should have
preparation programs that are different
than both high school and senior college
preparation programs.

56

42.1

44

33.1

20

15.0

9

6.8

4

3.0

1.95

Community colleges should encourage faculty
to pursue advanced coursework by paying the
tuition of those who choose to undertake such work.

23

17.3

35

26.3

23

17.3

33

24.8

19

14.3

2.92

Many Ph.D.'s are, or at least will be, excellent
and committed community college teachers.

12

9.0

28

21.1

45

33.8

33

24.8

15

11.3

3.08

6

4.5

23

17.3

39

29.3

47

35.3

18

13.5

3.36

Colleges of Education, rather than subject
departments, are the most appropriate organi­
zations to offer preparation programs for
community college teachers.

Ill

It is not economically feasible for community
colleges to employ faculty members possessing
doctorates to teach classes that do not require
such academic preparation.

24

18.1

39

29.3

18

13.5

43

32.3

9

6.8

2.80

Graduate institutions in Michigan are doing a
good job of preparing community college teachers.

3

2.3

31

23.3

51

38.3

36

27.1

12

9.0

3.17

The only true preparation for community college
teaching is practical experience in the classroom.

9

6.8

21

15.8

24

18.0

67

50.4

12

9.0

3.39

In the future, community colleges will begin to
accept more new teachers who have doctoral degrees.

9

6.8

47

35.3

33

24.8

34

25.6

10

7.5

2.92

14

10.5

51

38.4

29

21.8

31

23.3

8

6.0

2.76

5

3.8

36

27.1

68

51.1

15

11.3

9

6.8

2.90

Faculty members who attended a community college
as students are more likely to understand and
agree with the goals of the community college
than are faculty members who never attended a
communi ty college.
The Doctor of Arts degree is more appropriate
than either the Ph.D. or the Ed.D. degrees
for the community college instructor.

a0ne hundred thirty-three administrators responded to each statement,
kper cent of 133.

112
that administrators who had attended a community college as
students tended to agree with the statement more than
expected.^
Almost half of the respondents also agreed with the
statement that it is not economically feasible for community
colleges to hire instructors possessing doctorates.

A Chi-

Square Test for Independence revealed that there was no sig­
nificant association between an administrator's position and
his response to this statement.
Only two other statements received more than 40 per
cent agreement from the respondents.

The statement that

community colleges should encourage faculty members to pursue
advanced coursework by paying the tuition of those who choose
to undertake such work was agreed to by slightly over 43 per
cent of the respondents.

About 4 2 per cent of the adminis­

trators responding in the survey indicated agreement with the
statement that, in the future, community colleges will begin
to accept more new teachers who have doctoral degrees.

A

Chi-Square Test for Independence revealed a significant asso­
ciation between the highest earned degrees of the administra­
tors and their responses to this statement.

Further analysis

revealed that administrators with specialist degrees tended
to disagree with the statement, while individuals with doc­
torates tended to agree with the statement more than expected.

^See Appendix F.

113
Almost 60 per cent of the respondents disagreed with
the statement that the only true preparation for community
college teaching is practical experience in the classroom.
The only other statement with which more than 40 per cent of
the respondents disagreed was the statement that colleges of
education, rather than subject departments, are the most
appropriate organizations to offer preparation programs for
community college teachers.

Almost 49 per cent of the respon­

dents disagreed with the statement, while slightly less than
22 per cent agreed with it.

Over 29 per cent of the respon­

dents were undecided
and chose the "not sure" response.
I
It was quite difficult to analyze the responses of
administrators to the remaining three statements because of
the high percentage of administrators responding "not sure"
to these statements.

Approximately one-third of the adminis­

trators responded "not sure" to the statement that many Ph.D.'s
are, or at least will be, excellent and committed community
college teachers.

Thirty per cent of the respondents agreed

with the statement, while almost 36 per cent disagreed with
it.

A Chi-Square Test for Independence revealed no signifi­

cant association between the highest degrees earned by admin­
istrators and their responses to this statement.
Almost 40 per cent of the respondents indicated they
were "not sure" regarding the statement that graduate insti­
tutions in Michigan are doing a good job of preparing commu­
nity college teachers.

Only one-fourth of the administrators

114
agreed with the statement, while over 36 per cent of them
disagreed with it.
Around 31 per cent of the respondents indicated
agreement with the statement that the Doctor of Arts degree
is more appropriate than either the Ph.D. or the Ed.D. degree
for the community college instructor.

Over 18 per cent of

the administrators disagreed with the statement, while over
51 per cent responded by checking the "not sure" response.
A Chi-Square Test for Independence revealed no significant
association between the highest degrees earned by adminis­
trators and their responses to this statement.
The last question on the survey instrument asked the
respondents whether they believed that formal qualifications
criteria should be the same for both full-time and part-time
faculty.

Slightly more than two-thirds of the administrators

responding (n=89) indicated that qualifications should be the
same for both full-time and part-time faculty members.
The Chi-Square Test for Independence was used to
determine whether there was any association between responses
to this question and the administrator characteristics of
position, highest degree held, or total community college
experience.

Analyses were also performed, using the same

test statistic, to determine whether significant associations
existed between the institutional characteristics of age,
size, setting, proximity to a graduate institution, full­
time faculty, part-time faculty, or part-time versus full-time

115
faculty and the responses of administrators to this question.
No significant associations were found.
The respondents were also asked, if they thought
formal qualifications criteria should be different for full­
time and part-time faculty members, in what ways these qual­
ifications criteria should be different.

This was an optional

response, but thirty of the individuals indicating that qual­
ifications criteria should differ for full-time and part-time
faculty wrote in responses.

A collection of these responses,

edited for grammar and spelling, is presented in Appendix G.
These responses generally indicate that part-time
faculty are used extensively in the applied arts areas and
that they bring to the community college career experience
and knowledge not generally acquired through formal academic
preparation programs.

Of the eighty-nine administrators who

indicated that qualifications criteria should be the same
for full-time and part-time faculty members, only one indi­
vidual wrote in a response.

His comment was, "They do [the]

same job--so qualifications must be the same."
Summary of the Findings
This chapter has been devoted to a presentation and
analysis of data pertaining to the purpose of the study and
the six research questions which were posed in the study.
Data were collected by using a survey instrument
entitled "Faculty Qualifications Survey," which was con­
structed by the researcher and sent to 170 chief community

116
college administrators in the state of Michigan.

One hundred

thirty-three instruments were returned in useable form.
The subjects in the study sample were classified
with respect to certain administrator and institutional char­
acteristics.

The administrator characteristics were position

highest degree earned, total community college experience,
and whether the individual had attended a community college
as a student.

The institutional characteristics were age,

size, setting, proximity to a graduate institution, full-time
faculty, part-time faculty, and part-time versus full-time
faculty.

These classifications were used on a selective

basis in analyzing administrator responses to certain items
on the survey instrument.
The majority of the 133 administrators responding to
the survey instrument were in the thirty to fifty-nine age
range; had earned a master’s or higher degree; had been in
their present administrative positions less than six years,
but possessed more than six years of total community college
experience; had not attended a community college as students;
and were involved in the selection and recruitment of new
faculty members for their institutions.
An analysis of respondents and nonrespondents, using
administrative position and the seven institutional character
istics as variables under consideration, presented the fol­
lowing two findings:
1.

Administrators occupying different administrative

positions responded to the survey instrument at significantly

117
different rates.

Further analysis revealed that, although

60 per cent of the chief business officers in the study sam­
ple completed and returned instruments, chief business
officers, as a group, appeared to be underrepresented in the
total group of respondents.
2.

Administrators from different sizes of institutions

and from institutions in different settings responded at
significantly different rates to the survey instrument.
Further analyses revealed that, although almost 65 per cent
of the administrators at small, rural colleges responded to
the survey instrument, administrators from community col­
leges classified as small and rural appeared to be under­
represented in the total respondent group.
These two findings necessitated restricting the
discussion in the remaining parts of the chapter to just the
group of respondents in the study.
Presentation and analysis of data pertaining to the
questions posed in the study revealed the following major
findings:
1.

Formal qualifications dealing with academic train­

ing received the highest average ratings of respondents in
a list of qualifications considered in the screening of
prospective community college faculty members.

Experiential

qualifications, led by community college teaching experience
and previous nonteaching experience, received the next high­
est set of average ratings.

The average ratings of the per­

sonal characteristics of age, sex, and race indicated they

118
were not given much consideration in the screening process.
However, over half of the respondents indicated their insti­
tutions should attempt to "balance" their faculties by con­
sidering each of these characteristics.
2.

The majority of the respondents indicated they would

establish the master's degree and the bachelor's degree as
the minimum qualifications, respectively, for liberal arts
and applied arts teachers.

A smaller majority would also

require that prospective teachers take at least one profes­
sional course in community college education.

The experi­

ence indicated by respondents as minimum ranged from an
average of 0.25 years to 1.26 years in all categories.

The

only exception was that respondents required an average of
over three years vocational/industrial experience as mini­
mum experience for applied arts teachers.
3.

Most administrators responding to the survey instru­

ment indicated that the most desirable educational training
for community college instructors in either the liberal arts
or applied arts areas was the master's degree.

The master's

degree in a subject field plus advanced work in education
was the most frequently selected degree for both types of
teachers.

Educational training was ranked as the most

important formal qualification for liberal arts teachers,
while it was ranked second in importance to vocational/
industrial experience as a formal qualification for applied
arts teachers.

119
4.

The majority (92.3 per cent) of the community college

administrators responding to the survey instrument indicated
their institutions are presently having very little diffi­
culty in recruiting qualified liberal arts faculty members;
and they envisioned having the same or even less difficulty
in the near future.

Concerning the recruiting of qualified

applied arts faculty, almost half (47.7 per cent) of the
administrators responded that their colleges were having
some trouble in this area; and over half (54.2 per cent)
thought their difficulties in this area would remain the
same or get harder in the near future.
5.

Analyses of administrator responses concerning the

most desirable degrees for community college teachers and
the minimum qualifications the respondents would establish
for prospective community college teachers revealed signifi­
cant differences in responses pertaining to liberal arts and
applied arts instructors.

Analysis of the respondents'

consensual ranking of the importance of six formal qualifi­
cations for community college faculty members revealed no
significant positive or negative correlation between the
rankings for liberal arts teachers and applied arts teachers.
Over two-thirds of the respondents indicated that formal
qualifications criteria should be the same for both full-time
and part-time faculty members.
6.

Selective analyses of data pertaining to responses

to certain items on the survey instrument revealed four sig­
nificant relationships existing between administrator

120
characteristics and their responses on these items.

Whether

the administrators had attended a community college as stu­
dents was significantly associated with the consideration they
indicated they would give to this formal qualification in a
prospective teacher, and with their responses to the statement
that teachers who attended a community college as students
are more likely to understand and agree with the goals of
the community college than are teachers who never attended a
community college.

The total community college experience

of the respondents was also significantly associated with
their responses regarding the minimum educational training
criteria they would establish for liberal arts teachers; and
the highest degree earned by the administrators was signif­
icantly associated with their responses to the statement that,
in the future, community colleges will begin to accept more
new teachers possessing doctoral degrees.
7.

Only one significant association between any of the

institutional characteristics and administrator responses to
the survey instrument was found as a result of analyses of
selected item responses.

This was a significant association

between the institutional characteristic of proximity to a
graduate institution and the respondents' indications of the
most desirable educational training for applied arts instruc­
tors .
The summary of the study and the major conclusions,
implications, and recommendations based on the above findings
are presented in Chapter V.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary
Community colleges have experienced tremendous growth
in enrollments and in numbers of new institutions during the
1960's; this growth has been projected to continue well into
the decade of the 1970's.

As with other areas of higher edu­

cation, community colleges also have experienced increased
public demands for economic and educational accountability.
The increases in enrollments and numbers of new institutions,
coupled with demands for accountability, have created the
need for additional numbers of qualified teachers to staff
community colleges.
The community college's position with respect to
recruiting faculty members has changed in the last few years
because economic conditions and large numbers of advanced
degree holders have led to more individuals applying to the
community college for employment.

In view of the supply of

prospective teachers and the recent increased concern over
quality of education/ have community colleges changed their
formal standards for selection of faculty members?

121

What

122
formal qualifications are considered important and necessary
for employment as an instructor in today's comprehensive
community college?

This study has attempted to provide part

of the information required to answer these questions.
Purpose of the Study
The primary purpose of this study was to determine
the present attitudes of chief community college administra­
tors concerning the desired formal qualifications of faculty
members at the community college level.

Six research ques­

tions were posed in the study:
1.

What formal qualifications are considered by commu­
nity college administrators in their recruiting and
selection of faculty members?

2.

What do community college administrators consider to
be the minimum formal qualifications, in terms of
educational training and background experiences, that
a prospective teacher must possess in order to be
considered for a teaching position?

3.

What do community college administrators believe to
be the most desirable formal qualifications with
respect to educational training and experience?

4.

Are community college administrators having difficulty
in finding faculty members with the formal qualifica­
tions they desire?

123
5.

Do the respondents believe that desired formal qual­
ifications should be different for the different
types of instructors needed by community colleges?

6.

Are the attitudes of the administrators responding
to this survey consistent across types of adminis­
trators and types of institutions?
It was theorized that, in many community colleges

throughout the nation, the chief administrative officers in
the community college still play a major role in the recruit
ment and selection of faculty members.

These administrators

desires and attitudes regarding the criteria to be used in
the screening and selection of prospective faculty members
are bound to have an impact upon whatever criteria and pro­
cedures are followed by their respective institutions.
A review of the literature revealed a great deal of
speculative writing on community college faculty and their
formal qualifications.

Of the research studies that have

been done in this area in the last several years, many have
been limited to a descriptive analysis of the qualifications
of existing community college faculty members, without
attempting to determine whether, in fact, these qualifica­
tions were considered desirable in community college faculty
In particular, no other recent study has attempted to survey
community college administrators for their attitudes and
opinions regarding the formal qualifications that community
college instructors should possess.

124
Methodology
The population under investigation consisted of the
chief community college administrators under contract for
the 1971-72 academic year at the twenty-nine operating public
community colleges in the state of Michigan.

The study sam­

ple was composed of the chief administrative, academic,
business, and student personnel officers at each public com­
munity college.

The sample included 170 individuals and

represented the entire population in the study.
To obtain data relevant to the six research ques­
tions posed in the study, two sources were used:

the central

records of the Higher Education Planning and Coordination
Services Division of the Michigan Department of Education and
the responses to a mailed survey instrument that was sent to
the 170 community college administrators in the study sample.
The central records provided the researcher with the data
necessary to classify each institution along the following
seven dimensions:

age, size, setting, proximity to a graduate

institution, full-time faculty, part-time faculty, and parttime versus full-time faculty.
The "Faculty Qualifications Survey" was constructed
by the researcher and used as the survey instrument in the
study.

It consists of two sections:

in the first section

the respondent is asked to provide certain information about
himself, his background and experience; the second section
includes eleven major questions designed to seek information
about the respondent's attitude concerning the desired formal

125
qualifications of community college faculty members.

Of the

170 survey instruments sent to community college administra­
tors, 133 (78.2 per cent) were returned in useable form.
Both parametric and nonparametrie statistical tech­
niques were employed in analyzing the data obtained for the
study.

These procedures included the use of descriptive

summaries of item responses, in terms of frequency counts
and percentages, and selected further analyses of data through
the use of such statistical techniques of Multivariate Analy­
sis of Variance, Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance

(W),

Stuart's Test for Homogeneity of the Marginal Distributions
in a Two-Way Classification, the Spearman Rank Correlation
Coefficient (rho), and the Chi-Square Test for Independence.
Findings of the Study
In analyzing the data pertaining to the purpose of
the study and the six research questions which were posed in
the study, the following major findings were revealed:
1.

Formal qualifications dealing with academic training

received the highest average ratings of respondents in a
list of qualifications considered in the screening of pro­
spective community college faculty members.

Experiential

qualifications, led by community college teaching experience
and previous nonteaching experience, received the next high­
est set of average ratings.

The average ratings of the per­

sonal characteristics of age, sex, and race indicated they
were not given much consideration in the screening process.

126
However, over half of the respondents indicated their insti­
tutions should attempt to "balance" their faculties by con­
sidering each of these characteristics.
2.

The majority of the respondents indicated they would

establish the master's degree and the bachelor's degree as
the minimum qualifications, respectively, for liberal arts
and applied arts teachers.

A smaller majority would also

require prospective teachers to take at least one professional
course in community college education.

The experience indi­

cated by respondents as minimum ranged from an average of
0.25 years to 1.26 years in all categories.

The only excep­

tion was that respondents required an average of over three
years vocational/industrial experience as minimum experience
for applied arts teachers.
3.

Most administrators responding to the survey instru­

ment indicated the most desirable educational training for
community college instructors in either the liberal arts
or the applied arts area was the master's degree.

The

master's degree in a subject field plus advanced work in
education was the most frequently selected degree for both
types of teachers.

Educational training was ranked as the

most important formal qualification for liberal arts teach­
ers, while it was ranked second in importance to vocational/
industrial experience as a formal qualification for applied
arts teachers.
4.

The majority

(92.3 per cent) of the community college

administrators responding to the survey instrument indicated

127
their institutions are presently having very little diffi­
culty in recruiting qualified liberal arts faculty members;
they envisioned having the same or even less difficulty in
the near future.

Concerning the recruiting of qualified

applied arts faculty, almost half (47.7 per cent) of the
administrators responded that their colleges were having some
trouble in this area; and over half

(54.2 per cent) thought

their difficulties in this area would remain the same or
become harder in the near future.
5.

Analyses of administrator responses concerning the

most desirable degrees for community college teachers and
the minimum qualifications the respondents would establish
for prospective community college teachers revealed signifi­
cant differences in responses pertaining to liberal arts
and applied arts instructors.

Analysis of the respondents*

consensual ranking of the importance of six formal qualifi­
cations for community college faculty members revealed no
significant positive or negative correlation between the
rankings for liberal arts teachers and applied arts teachers.
Over two-thirds of the respondents indicated that formal
qualifications criteria should be the same for both full­
time and part-time faculty members.
6.

Selective analyses of data pertaining to responses

to certain items on the survey instrument revealed four sig­
nificant relationships existing between administrator char­
acteristics and their responses on these items.

Whether the

administrators had attended a community college as students

128
was significantly associated with the consideration they
indicated they would give to this formal qualification in a
prospective teacher and with their responses to the statement
that teachers who attended a community college as students
are more likely to understand and agree with the goals of
the community college than are teachers who never attended
a community college.

The total community college experience

of the respondents was also significantly associated with
their responses regarding the minimum educational training
criteria they would establish for liberal arts teachers; and
the highest degree earned by the administrators was signif­
icantly associated with their responses to the statement that
in the future, community colleges will begin to accept more
new teachers possessing doctoral degrees.
7.

Only one significant association between any of the

institutional characteristics and administrator responses
to the survey instrument was found as a result of analyses
of selected item responses.

This was a significant associa­

tion between the institutional characteristic of proximity
to a graduate institution and the respondents' indications
of the most desirable educational training for applied arts
instructors.
An analysis of respondents and nonrespondents, using
administrative position and the seven institutional character
istics as variables under consideration, presented the follow
ing additional findings:

129
1.

Administrators occupying different administrative

positions responded to the survey instrument at significantly
different rates.

Further analysis revealed that, although

60 per cent of the chief business officers in the study sam­
ple completed and returned instruments, chief business
officers, as a group, appeared to be underrepresented in the
total group of respondents.
2.

Administrators from institutions of different sizes

and from institutions in different settings responded at sig­
nificantly different rates to the survey instrument.

Further

analyses revealed that, although almost 65 per cent of the
administrators at small, rural colleges responded to the
survey instrument, administrators from community colleges
classified as small and rural appeared to be underrepresented
in the total respondent group.
Conclusions
On the basis of the data gathered for this study and
the findings of the data analyses presented in Chapter IV,
the following conclusions concerning the attitudes of those
chief community college administrators who responded to the
survey regarding the desired formal qualifications of faculty
members at the community college level seem appropriate:
1.

Formal qualifications relating to educational train­

ing at both the graduate and undergraduate levels were
rated as the most important qualifications to consider in
prospective faculty members.

The only types of experience

130
given important consideration as qualifications were previous
community college teaching experience and nonteaching experi­
ence.
2.

Very little consideration was given to the personal

characteristics of age, sex, and race of a prospective teacher
unless administrators were trying to employ individuals to
make their staffs more representative with respect to these
characteristics.
3.

The practice of "balancing" a faculty is accepted

by a large majority of community college administrators.
Administrators indicated that the formal qualifications of
age, sex, and race plus the distribution of master's, doc­
torates , and other degrees should be characteristics con­
sidered in attaining and maintaining some "balance" of
faculty.
4.

Community colleges are having very little difficulty

in recruiting qualified faculty members at the present time,
and will probably experience the same or even less difficulty
in this task in the near future.

The only exception to this

statement appears to be in the applied arts area, where
institutions are having some difficulty in recruiting certain
types of instructors.
5.

The master's degree plus at least one professional

course in community college education should be the minimum
educational training required of prospective liberal arts
teachers.

The bachelor's degree plus one professional

course in community college education was established as the

131
minimum educational training for applied arts teachers;
however, many administrators desired the master's degree as
the minimum academic degree for applied arts instructors.
6.

No real minimum criteria concerning types of experi­

ence were established for prospective community college
faculty members, with the exception of three years of
vocational/industrial experience required for applied arts
teachers.
7.

Educational training was considered more important

than teaching experience as a qualification for a liberal
arts teacher.

Vocational/industrial experience was con­

sidered by the respondents to be the most important qualifi­
cation for an applied arts teacher.

These qualifications

were considered to be easily found among present community
college faculty.

Community college teaching experience,

viewed by many administrators as the most important type of
teaching experience for a community college teacher, was the
most difficult qualification to find among present community
college faculty.
8.

Most community college administrators agreed with

the idea that formal preparation programs for community col­
lege instructors should be different from programs for high
school or senior college teachers.

Many indicated that they

are not satisfied with present preparation programs for
community college instructors.

They also indicated that

colleges of education are not the most appropriate organizations
to offer preparation programs for community college teachers.

132
9.

The most desirable degree for a community college

instructor is the master's degree in the subject field in
which he is teaching.

Administrators indicated that advanced

work beyond the master's degree was desirable as long as it
contributed to the faculty member's role as a teacher.

Almost

half the respondents thought community colleges should
encourage faculty to take advanced coursework by paying the
tuition of those who wish to undertake such work.
10.

A large majority of the administrators indicated

that community college instructors should not possess doc­
toral degrees of either the "teaching" or the subject field
types.

Many respondents indicated they do not believe that

most Ph.D.'s can be excellent and committed community college
teachers.

They also did not strongly support the statement

that the Doctor of Arts degree is more appropriate than other
doctorates for community college teachers.
11.

Administrator responses indicated that desired for­

mal qualifications should be different for community college
liberal arts and applied arts instructors.

However, they

indicated that formal qualifications criteria should be the
same for full-time and part-time faculty members in these
areas.
12.

The attitudes of administrators concerning the

desired formal qualifications of faculty members at the com­
munity college level were generally very consistent across
types of administrative positions and types of institutions.

133
Implications
The high rate of return of completed survey instru­
ments and the written comments of administrators on these
instruments indicated that the subject of this study was of
considerable interest and concern to many community college
administrators.

The extremely high return rate from the

chief academic officers and the academic officers in the lib­
eral arts and applied arts areas tended to indicate that the
probability of an individual's returning the instrument may
have been closely related to his interest and degree of
involvement in the new faculty recruitment and selection
process.

Such a line of reasoning may help to explain why

chief business officers— most of those who responded indi­
cating that they did not participate in this process—
responded at a rate considerably below the rates of admin­
istrative officers in other positions.
The findings that administrators occupying different
types of administrative positions responded at significantly
different rates and that response and nonresponse was sig­
nificantly associated with the institutional characteristics
of size and setting caused the researcher to take a conser­
vative viewpoint in presenting the findings and conclusions
of the study.

Since administrative position and institu­

tional size and institutional setting were not found to be
significantly associated with certain item responses, the
reader may feel that the researcher was being too conserva­
tive in limiting his discussion and generalizations to just

134
the chief community college administrators who responded to
the survey.

Nevertheless, even working within the above

limitations, the researcher believes the findings and con­
clusions set forth in the study do have extremely important
implications.
The results of the study reveal that chief community
college administrators are in general agreement concerning
the desired formal qualifications of community college fac­
ulty members.

Educational training appeared to be the formal

qualification given the most consideration in the screening
of prospective teaching candidates.

In addition to graduate

degrees and majors, respondents also considered heavily
undergraduate majors and minors and grade point averages at
both graduate and undergraduate levels.
Community college teaching experience and nonteaching
experience were the two types of experience given the most
consideration in the screening process.

The reason why

respondents rated community college teaching experience as
an important qualification in prospective community college
teachers is self-evident.

The reasons why individuals rated

nonteaching experience as such an important qualification in
prospective instructors are probably the strong emphasis
placed upon vocational/industrial experience for prospective
applied arts teachers and the desire shared by about onefourth of the respondents that liberal arts teachers should
also possess some vocational/industrial experience.

135
Community colleges appear to be moving toward the
"balance of staff" concept as a consideration in their fac­
ulty recruiting and selection processes.

Respondents

expressed the need to recruit women and individuals from
minority groups for their teaching staffs.

A majority of

the community college administrators also indicated that sex,
age, race, and the distribution of masters' doctorates, and
other degrees should be variables considered in attaining
or maintaining a "balance" of faculty at their institutions.
However, since the term "balance" was not defined in the
survey instrument, the meaning of administrator responses in
this area is unclear.

For example, one administrator's

idea of a "balance" of academic degrees could mean 20 per
cent of his faculty should hold the doctorate, while another
administrator's interpretation of "balance" could be that
0 per cent should hold the doctorate.
Respondents to the survey indicated that community
colleges are having little or no difficulty in recruiting
qualified individuals for most of the teaching positions
they must presently fill; and they envisioned very little
increased difficulty in this area in the near future.

One

main reason for this lack of difficulty in recruiting is
that, in view of the increasing numbers of prospective com­
munity college teaching applicants, community college admin­
istrators have not substantially raised the minimum criteria
they would establish for prospective community college
instructors.

Results of administrator responses to the

136
survey instrument item requesting the minimum criteria that
respondents would establish with respect to six formal qual­
ifications indicated that administrators are extremely flex­
ible in the area of minimum standards and would easily vio­
late most of them if the other qualifications

(formal or

informal) of a prospective candidate were extremely desirable.
The only minimum qualification that the community college
administrators indicated they would adhere t o , to a greater
degree than other qualifications, was the requirement of at
least three years of vocational/industrial experience for
applied arts teachers.
The minimum criteria that administrators established
with respect to the six formal qualifications must be viewed
with some degree of caution, for two reasons.

As indicated

in Chapter IV, many respondents indicated a range of years or
hours as the minimum criteria.

When this type of response

occurred, the minimum value of the range was used as the
respondent's answer.

If some other value had been used,

the minimum criteria would have been raised for every qual­
ification but educational training.

The second reason for

questioning the data in this area is that the written com­
ments of some administrators tended to indicate that if the
respondents thought a qualification was not appropriate for
community college teachers, they would respond by placing a
zero as the minimum criteria they would establish for it.
Such a practice, which the reseracher believes was used to
some extent with the qualification of previous four-year

137
college teaching experience, would also tend to lower mini­
mum standards.
The master's degree in a subject field is becoming
established as the necessary and sufficient academic degree
for community college instructors.

The responses to the

survey instrument indicated that the preceding statement is
already true for liberal arts teachers, and although the
bachelor's degree was the minimum degree established for
applied arts teachers, many administrators indicated they
do prefer their applied arts teachers to possess master's
degrees and are able to find them.

Advanced coursework

beyond the master's degree is highly desirable and many
respondents indicated that it should be encouraged.

However,

this coursework should be geared to improving the teaching
skills of the instructor and should not lead to a new or
higher level degree.
At the present time, graduate institutions in the
state of Michigan are not satisfactorily meeting the prepara­
tion needs of community college instructors.

Preparation

programs for community college teachers should be distinct
from high school or senior college teaching programs, and
since these programs should lead to a master's degree in a
subject field, colleges of education should not be the organ­
izations offering them.
The doctorate, as a degree for faculty members, is
not needed or wanted in the community college.

The responses

of administrators implied that the above statement includes

138
the Doctor of Arts degree, which is new and, for the most
part, untried.

However, in an economic sense, it is already

unacceptable because it is a doctorate.
The comments of respondents indicated that what is
needed is an educational program of coursework to supplement
the master's degree work of those individuals who desire to
teach in the community college.

Part of this program could

take the form of a pre-service cognate to the master's degree
in a subject field.

However, most of this program would be

taken after the master's degree had been obtained and could
be of an in-service nature.

The pre-service cognate would

introduce the prospective teacher to the nature of today's
comprehensive community college, its diversity of goals and
functions, and the types of students who attend it.

The

post-master's or in-service portion of the program would
supply teachers with the tools, techniques, and part of the
enthusiasm they will need to promote learning among the stu­
dents they will meet in the community college.
Some graduate institutions are developing new prepara­
tion programs for community college teachers.

The results

of this study indicated that many of these graduate institu­
tions are not communicating with community colleges to the
extent that they should, if they want to develop teacher
preparation programs that are truly responsive to the needs
and wants of today's comprehensive community colleges.

If

this communication process between graduate institutions and
the community colleges in their service areas does not begin

139
soon, and if it is not a two-way process, many graduate
institutions may find that, in the near future, they no
longer have a market for the would-be community college
teachers they are preparing.
Recommendations
During the conduct of this study, many areas of
interest were aroused which may be recommended for future
investigation.

Among the most worthy of mention as possible

problem areas would be the following:
1.

Other "governing" groups

(students, faculty, and

trustees) within the community college should be surveyed in
order to determine their views concerning the desired formal
qualifications of faculty members at the community college
level.

The present survey instrument— with only minor modi­

fications— could easily be used as a means of ascertaining
the attitudes of these other groups.
2.

A study based on the findings of this study should

be conducted to determine the most desirable content— in terms
of course offerings and experiences— of preparation programs
for prospective community college instructors.

This study

should consider the attitudes of community college adminis­
trators and faculty members and of professors in graduate
institutions who are responsible for the preparation of pro­
spective community college teachers.
3.

A study considering the effects that collective nego­

tiations have had on the recruitment and selection of faculty

140
members for the community college should be conducted.

In

particular, this study could consider whether the qualifica­
tions standards for prospective faculty members have changed,
whether the personnel involved in the recruitment and selec­
tion process have changed, and what problems and/or benefits
have occurred in this area as a result of collective negotia­
tions .
4.

An exploratory study should be conducted in an

attempt to determine ways in which graduate institutions
and community colleges could communicate in jointly develop­
ing teacher preparation programs that are truly responsive
to the quantitative and qualitative needs and desires of
community colleges.

This study could consider how communi­

cation mechanisms should be established and the success or
failure of past attempts of this type of communication on
local, state, regional, or national levels.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books
Blocker, Clyde E.; Plummer, Robert H . ; and Richardson,
Richard D . , Jr. The Two-Year College: A Social
Synthesis. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
PrenticeHal l , Inc., 1965.
Brawer, Florence B. Personality Characteristics of College
and University Faculty:
Implications for the Commu­
nity College. Washington, D. C . : American Association of Junior Colleges, 1968.
Carnegie Commission on Higher Education.
Less Time, More
Options: Education Beyond the High School. New York
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1971.
________ . The Open-Door Colleges: Policies for Community
Colleges. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1970.
Clark,

Burton R. The Open Door College:
A Case Study. New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960.

Cohen,

Arthur M. Dateline *79:
Heretical Concepts for the
Community College. Beverly Hills, California:
Glencoe Press, 1969.

________ . Focus on Learning: Preparing Teachers for the
Two-Year College. Junior College Leadership Program,
Occasional Report No. 11. Los Angeles:
University
of California, Los Angeles, March, 1968.
Cohen, Arthur M . , and Brawer, Florence B. Confronting Iden­
tity: The Community College Instructor. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972.
Cohen, Arthur M . , and Roueche, John E.
Institutional Admin­
istrator or Educational Leader? The Junior College
President. Washington, D. C . : American Association
of Junior Colleges, 1969.
Commission on Colleges and Universities.
Guide for the Eval­
uation of Institutions of Higher Education. North
Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools
1961.
142

143
Council on Cooperation in Teacher Education. Wanted:
30,000
Instructors for Community Colleges. Washington, D. C.
American Council on Education, 1949.
Dodds, Harold W.
The Academic President— Educator or Care­
taker? New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.,
1962.
Edwards, Allen L. Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction.
New York:Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1957.
Erickson, Clifford G.
"Recruitment of Faculty for the Commu­
nity and Junior Colleges.” In Search of Leaders,
Current Issues in Higher Education, 1967. Edited by
G. Kerry Smith. Washington, D. C . : American Asso­
ciation for Higher Education, 1967.
Eulau, Heinz, and Quinley, Harold.
State Officials and
Higher Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1970.
Gannon, Philip J.
"Fifty Years of Community Involvement in
Michigan."
Junior Colleges:
50 States/50 Years.
Edited by Roger Yarrington.
Washington, D. C . :
American Association of Junior Colleges, 1969.
Garrison, Roger H.
Junior College Faculty: Issues and
Problems. Washington, D. C . : American Association
of Junior Colleges, 1967.
________ . Teaching in a Junior College. Washington, D. C . :
American Association of Junior Colleges, 1968.
Giles, Louise, ed. Aspects of the Junior College Field:
A
Bib1iography. Washington, D. C . : American Associa­
tion of Junior Colleges, March, 1969.
Gleazer, Edmund, ed.
American Junior Colleges. 8th ed.
Washington, D. C . : American Council on Education,
1971.
________ . This Is the Community College.
Mifflin Company, 1968.
Hays, William L. Statistics. New York:
and Winston, Inc., 1963.

Boston:

Houghton-

Holt, Rinehart,

Jamrich, John X. Faculties of the Michigan Institutions of
Higher Education. Staff Study Number Ten of the
Survey of Higher Education in Michigan.
Lansing:
Michigan Legislative Study Committee on Higher Educa­
tion, 1958.

144

Kelly, Win, and Wilbur, Leslie.
Teaching in the Community
Junior College. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts,
1970.
Kerr, Clark.
The Uses of the University.
Row, Publishers, 1963.

New York:

Harper &

Kirk, Roger E. Experimental Design: Procedures for the
Behavioral Sciences. Belmont, California: Wadsworth
Publishing Company, Inc., 1968.
Ladd, Dwight R. Change in Educational Policy.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1970.

New York:

Martorana, S. V. The Community College in Michigan. Staff
Study Number One of the Survey of Higher Education in
Michigan.
Lansing: Michigan Legislative Study Com­
mittee on Higher Education, 1957.
Mayhew, Lewis B.
Graduate and Professional Education, 1980.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1970.
Medsker, Leland L. The Junior College: Progress and Prospect.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960.
Medsker, Leland L . , and Tillery, Dale.
Breaking the Access
Barriers: A Profile of Two-Year Colleges. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1971.
Moore, William, Jr.
Against the Odd s . San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, Inc., Publishers, 1970.
________ . Blind Man on a Freeway. San Francisco:
Bass Inc., Publishers, 1971.

Jossey-

National Center for Educational Statistics.
Projections of
Educational Statistics to 1979-80. Washington, D. C . :
U. S. Government Printing Office, 1971.
O'Connell, Thomas E. Community Colleges: A President's V i e w .
Chicago:
University of Illinois Press, 1968.
Park, Young. Junior College Faculty:
ceptions . Washington, D. C . :
of Junior Colleges, 1971.

Their Values and Per­
American Association

Preparing Two-Year College Teachers for the 70*s . Washington,
D. C . : American Association of Junior Colleges, 1971.
Reynolds, James W. The Junior College. New York: The Center
for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1965.

145
Roueche, John E.
Salvage/ Redirection, or Custody? Washington,
D. C . : American Association of Junior Colleges, 1968.
•Roueche, John E . ; Baker, George A. Ill; and Brownell, Richard L.
Accountability and the Community College: Directions
for the 7O's. Washington, D. C . : American Association
of Junior Colleges, 1971.
Rulon, P. J . , and Brooks, W. D.
"On Statistical Tests of
Group Differences."
Handbook of Measurement and
Assessment in Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Dean K.
Whitla.
Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Pub­
lishing Company, 1968.
Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral
Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.,
1956.
Siehr, Hugo E . ; Jamrich, John X.; and Hereford, Karl T.
Problems of New Faculty Members in Community Colleges.
East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University,
1963.
Special Committee of the House of Representatives, 75th
Legislature, State of Michigan.
A Preliminary Report
of the Community College Study Committee. December 9,
1970.
Spurr, Stephen H. Academic Degree Structures: Innovative
Approaches. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company,
1970.
State Board for Public Community and Junior Colleges.
A Recommended Community College Districting P l a n .
Lansing: Michigan Department of Education, September,
1968.
Stoops, John A., ed.
The Community College in Higher Educartion.
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania:
Lehigh University,
1966.
Tead, Ordway. College Teaching and College Learning: A Plea
for Improvement. New Haven: Yale University Press,
1949.
Thornton, James W . , Jr. The Community Junior College.
York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966.

New

Van Dalen, Deobold B. Understanding Educational Research.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966.

146
Yarrington, Roger, ed.
Junior Colleges:
50 States/50 Years.
Washington, D. C. : American Association of Junior
Colleges, 1969.
Periodicals
"AAJA Approach:
Preservice Training of Instructors."
College Journal, XXXIX (May, 1969), 7, 9.

Junior

Anderson, John E., Jr.
"Research in the Junior College:
Anathema or Anodyne?"
Junior College Journal, XXXV
(November, 1964) , 15-16.
Besvinick, S. L . , and Fryer, T. W . , Jr.
"Miami Begins the
Diplomate in Collegiate Teaching."
Junior College
Journal, XXXIX (February, 1969) , 48-56.
Birnbaum, Robert.
"Background and Evaluation of Faculty in
New York." Junior Colleqe Journal, XXXVII (November,
1966), 34-37.
Blocker, Clyde E.
"Are Our Faculties Competent?"
Junior
Colleqe Journal, XXXVI (December, 1965), 12-17.
Blocker, Clyde E . , and Richardson, Richard C . , Jr.
"Teaching
and Guidance Go Together."
Junior Colleqe Journal,
XXXIX (November, 1968), 14-16.
Blocker, Clyde E . , and Wolfe, Wendell.
"Academic Rank in
Two-Year Colleges." Junior Colleqe Journal, XXXV
(December, 1964) , 21-25.
Cardozier, V. R.
"Preparing College Teachers."
Improving
College and University Teaching, XVI (Spring, 1968) ,
131-133.
Cartter, Allan M.
"A New Look at the Supply of College
Teachers."
The Educational Record, XLVI (Summer,
1965) , 267-277.
Cashin, H. John.
"Some Attitudes Toward Instructor Prepara­
tion." Junior Colleqe Journal, XXXIX (March, 1969),
31-34.
Cass, James.
"The Crisis of Confidence— and Beyond."
Saturday Review, LIII (September 19, 1970), 61-62.
Charles, Searle F . , and Summerer, Kenneth H.
"Building a
Junior College Faculty."
Junior College Journal,
XXIX (March, 1959), 421-423.

147
Cohen, Arthur M.
"Developing Specialists in Learning."
Junior College Journal, XXXVII (September, 1966) ,'
21-23.
________ . "Teacher Preparation:
Rationale and Practice."
Junior College Journal, XXXVII (May, 1967), 21-25.
"College Teachers:
Demand Exceeds Supply; Summary of Teacher
Supply and Demand in Universities, Colleges and Junior
Colleges, 1959-60 and 1960-61." NEA Research Bulletin,
XXXIX (October, 1961), 77-84.
Connolly, John J.
"Will the Community College Survive the
Ph.D. Surplus?" Educational Record, LII (Summer,
1971), 267-272.
Dobrovolny, Jerry S.
"Preparation of Junior College Teachers
of Technical Subjects."
Junior College Journal,
XXXV (December, 1964), 9-13.
Dunham, E. Alden.
"Rx for Higher Education:
The Doctor of
Arts Degree."
Journal of Higher Education, XLI
(October, 1970), 505-515.
Forbes, Jack D.
"Research, Teaching, and Excellence."
College Journal, XXXVII (December, 1966) , 7-9.

Junior

Fordyce, Joseph W.
"Faculty Development in American Com­
munity Junior Colleges."
The Peabody Journal of Edu­
cation, XLVIII (July, 1971), 270-275.
Fox, Willard.
"Let's Not 'Train' Teachers."
College and University Teaching, XVI
113.

Improving
(Spring, 1968),

Gleazer, Edmund J . , Jr.
"Preparation of Junior College
Teachers."
Educational Record, XLVIII (Spring, 1967),
147-152.
Gordon, Shirley B . , and Whitfield, Raymond P.
"A Formula for
Teacher Preparation."
Junior College Journal, XXXVII
(May, 1967), 26-28.
Graybeal, William S.
"Faculty and Administrative Salaries."
Junior College Journal, XXXIX (September, 1968) ,
23-28.
_______ . "Faculty and Administrative Salaries— 1969-70."
Junior College Journal, XLI (August/September, 1970) ,
8-11.

148
"Salaries in Junior Colleges— 1965-66."
College Journal, XXXVI (May, 1966), 12-15.

Junior

Harper, W. A.
"The Community and Junior College: An Over­
view."
The Peabody Journal of Education, XLVIII
(July, 1971), 257-261.
"Helping the Job Hunters."
1970), 10-14.

College Management, V

(June,

Hendrix, Vernon L.
"Academic Rank: Mostly Peril?"
Junior
College Journal, XXXIV (December, 1963) , 28-30.
Higgins, A. Stephen.
production."
262-266.

"Quantity and Quality of Doctoral Over­
Educational Record, LII (Summer, 1971),

Howell, John M.
"A Brief Against the Doctor of Arts Degree."
Journal of Higher Education, XLII (May, 1971), 392399.
Huther, John W.
"Small Market for Ph.D.'s:
The Public TwoYear College." AAUP Bulletin, LVIII (March, 1972),
17-20.
Kennedy, Gerald.
"Preparation, Orientation, Utilization and
Acceptance of Part-Time Instructors."
Junior College
Journal, XXXVII (April, 1967), 14-15.
Koile, Earl A . , and Tatem, Diane Wolf.
"The Student Oriented
Teacher."
Junior College Journal, XXXVI (February,
1966), 24-26.
Koos, Leonard V.
"Preparation for Community-College Teach­
ing." Journal of Higher Education, XXI (June, 1950),
309-317.
Maul, Ray C.
"The Biggest Problem:
Finding Good Teachers."
Junior College Journal, XXXVI (December, 1965), 5-8.
Morse, H. T.
"Between the Ivory Tower and the Market Place."
Junior College Journal. XXXV (April, 1965), 16-20.
"Negotiations:
Unionization of Faculty Expected to Pick Up
Speed Because of Tight Money and Ph.D.'s."
College
Management, VI (September, 1971), 38.
Nichols, Roy F.
"A Reconsideration of the Ph.D." The Grad­
uate Journal, VII (Spring, 1967) , 325-335.
Phair, Tom S.
"California Colleges Look at Their New Faculty."
Junior College Journal, XXXIX (December, 1968), 4850.

149
Pyle, Gordon B.
"Teaching and Teacher Responsibility."
Junior College Journal, XXXVIII (March, 1968) , 4854.
Ragsdale, Gary.
"Teaching in the Junior/Community College."
Journal of Business Education, XLV (May, 1970), 343344.
Rainey, Bill G.
"Junior College Administrators' Philoso­
phies Relative to Research and Publications of Faculty
Members."
Junior College Journal, XXXII (October,
1961) , 86-90.
"Recruiting Problems in Booming Junior Colleges."
Kappan, LI (February, 1970), 334-335.

Phi Delta

Roueche, John E.
"Superior Teaching in Junior Colleges:
Research Needed."
Improving College and University
Teaching, XVI (Winter, 1968) , 33-35.
Roueche, John E . , and McFarlane, William H.
"Improved
Instruction in the Junior College: Key to Equal
Opportunity."
Journal of Higher Education, XLI
(December, 1970), 713-722.
Scannell, William J.
"What Do Teachers Think About English
in the Two-Year College?"
Junior College Journal,
XXXVII (September, 1966) , 24-29.
Shugrue, Michael F.
"The National Study of English in the
Junior College."
Junior College Journal, XL (JuneJ u l y , 1970), 8-12.
Singer, Derek S.
"Do We Need a Community College Institute?"
Junior Colleqe Journal, XXXIX (October, 1968) , 3640.
Solomon, Roger Brumley.
"Preparation for Teaching in TwoYear Colleges."
Improving Colleqe and University
Teaching, XVI (Spring, 1968), 125-127.
Stratton, Alan G.
"Needed:
The Doctor of Arts in College
Teaching."
Junior Colleqe Journal, XXXIX (May, 1969),
19-23.
Stuart, Alan.
"A Test for Homogeneity of the Marginal Dis­
tributions in a Two-Way Classification."
Biometrika,
XLII (December, 1955), 412-416.
Thurstone, L. L.
"Comment."
American Journal of Sociology,
LII (July, 1946), 39-40.

150
Vaccaro, Louis C.
"Faculty Recruitment by Community Colleges."
Michigan Education Journal, XLI (February 1, 1964),
11-14.
Vairo, Philip D.
"Faculty Quality: A Challenge to the Com­
munity College."
Journal of Higher Education, XXXVI
(April, 1965), 217-220.
Van Dyne, Larry A.
"A Revised Ph.D. Found Preferable to New
Degree."
Chronicle of Higher Education, VI (January 17,
1972) , 1-3.
________ . "Many 2-Year Colleges Resist Hiring Ph.D.'s; Doubt
Their Teaching Skill."
Chronicle of Higher Education,
VI (January 24, 1972), 1, 4.
Venuto, Louis J.
"New Promise for Teacher Preparation."
Junior College Journal, XLII (February, 1972), 22-24.
Wolfle, D a e l , and Kidd, Charles V.
"The Future Market for
Ph.D.'s." AAUP Bulletin, LVIII (March, 1972), 5-16.
Wortham, Mary.
"The Case for a Doctor of Arts Degree: A
View from Junior College Faculty." AAUP Bulletin,
LIII (December, 1967), 372-377.
Zigerell, James J.
"The Community College in Search of an
Identity."
Journal of Higher Education, XLI (December,
1970), 701-712.
Dissertations
Bottenfield, Jack L.
"Problems of Organizing VocationalTechnical Programs in Public Junior Colleges."
Indiana
University, 1970.
Abstract in Dissertation Abstracts,
XXXI (December, 1970), 2698A.
Burkert, William G.
"A Study of the Technological Subjects
Instructors in the Junior and Community Colleges in
the Eastern United States."
Indiana University, 1970.
Abstract in Dissertation Abstracts, XXXII (August,
1971), 748A.
Carter, Fletcher F.
"Selected Aspects of Pre-Service Prepara­
tion and Prior Experience of High and Low Merit-Rated
Junior College Teachers in Florida."
The Florida
State University, 1965.
Abstract in Dissertation
Abstracts, XXVI (February, 1966), 4476A.
Eaton, John M.
"A Study of Orientation of New Faculty Mem­
bers in Michigan Community Colleges."
Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1964.

151
Evans, Arthur H.
"Faculty Agreement with the Community Col­
lege Philosophy as Related to Previous Education and
Experience in the Junior College." University of
California, Berkeley, 1970. Abstract in Dissertation
Abstracts, XXXII (August, 1971) , 751A-752A.
Kent, Thomas H.
"A Study of the English Instructors in the
Junior and Community Colleges."
Indiana University,
1971.
Abstract in Dissertation Abstracts, XXXII
(July, 1971), 200A.
LaGrandeur, Ramon F.
"The Preparation of Instructors in
Oregon Community Colleges."
University of Oregon,
1966.
Abstract in Dissertation Abstracts, XXVII
(March, 1967) , 2919A-2920A.
Lipscomb, William P.
"An Analysis of Faculty Attitudes in
Relation to the Stated Role of Mississippi Public
Junior Colleges."
University of Southern Mississippi,
1965.
Abstract in Dissertation Abstracts, XXVI
(February, 1966), 4384.
Loomis, William G.
"A Study of the Formal Preparation of
Academic Teachers in Community Colleges with Proposals
for Oregon." Oregon State University, 1965.
Abstract
in Dissertation Abstracts, XXV (March, 1965) , 5142.
Martin, Eugene.
"A Comparative Study of the Preparation of
Business Instructors in Ohio Community Colleges and
Selected Business Instructors in Community Colleges
in the United States."
University of Cincinnati,
1970.
Abstract in Dissertation Abstracts, XXXI
(March, 1971), 4602A.
Messerschmidt, Dale H.
"A Study of Part-Time Instructors
in Vocational-Technical Education Among Community
Colleges in Michigan."
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1967.
Tolley, Charles H.
"The Relationship of Junior College Fac­
ulty Reference Group Attitudes Toward the Multi­
purpose Functions of the Junior College."
The
University of Tulsa, 1969.
Abstract in Dissertation
Abstracts, XXX (February, 1970), 3261A.
Vaccaro, Louis C.
"A Survey and Evaluation of the Practices
Used by Michigan Community Colleges in the Recruit­
ment and Selection of Faculty."
Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Michigan State University, 1963.

152
Williams, James W.
"Comparison of Faculty Attitudes Toward
Stated Purposes of the Community College." Colorado
State College, 1969.
Abstract in Dissertation
Abstracts, XXX (November, 1969), 1761A.
Other References
Bayer,

Alan E. College and University Faculty;
A Statistical
Description. American Council on Education Research
Reports, V (June, 1970). (ERIC Document No. ED 042425),

Cahn, Meyer M. "A Word About Junior College Teacher Prepara­
tion and Development."
A paper presented at the
Pacific Coast Conference on English in the Two-Year
College, College of San Mateo, San Mateo, California,
October 25-26, 1968.
(ERIC Document No. ED 026413).
Cohen,

Edward. "Faculty for Teaching-Learning:
Proposed New
Graduate Centers for the Systematic Preparation of
Community College Teachers."
February, 1970.
(Mimeographed.)
(ERIC Document No. ED 038133).

Committee on Preparation of Junior College Teachers.
Master
Plan Phase III. Illinois Board of Higher Education,
June, 1969.
(ERIC Document No. ED 038122).
Eckert, Ruth E . , and Williams, Howard Y . , Jr.
The Career
Motivations and Satisfactions of Junior College
Teachers— A Second Look.
University of Minnesota,
1971.
(ERIC Document No. ED 054773).
Good, Wallace E.
"Faculty Profile:
Kansas Community Junior
Colleges."
Kansas Community Junior College District,
1968.
(ERIC Document No. ED 023392).
Higher Education General Information (HEGIS) Survey, 1971-72.
Reports maintained by the Higher Education Planning
and Coordination Services Division of the Michigan
Department of Education.
Lansing, Michigan.
Hurlburt, Allan S.
"The Preparation and Characteristics of
Junior College Teachers."
Washington, D. C . :
American Association of Junior Colleges, February,
1968.
(ERIC Document No. ED 018179).
Kelly, M. Frances, and Connolly, John. Orientation for
Faculty in Junior Colleges. Washington, D. C . :
ERIC/American Association of Junior Colleges, 1970.
(ERIC Document No. ED 043323).

153

Koenker, Robert H.
"Status of the Doctor of Arts and Sixth
Year Degree and Non-Degree Programs for Preparing
Junior College and College Teachers."
Ball State
University, 1970.
(ERIC Document No. ED 040691).
McCarthy, Joseph I.
"Preparation of Undergraduate and Com­
munity College Teachers."
Seattle: Washington
University Graduate School, 1969.
(ERIC Document
No. ED 040690).
Morris, John. Nonparametric Chi-Square Tests and Analyses
of Variance. Technical Report No. 42. East Lansing:
Michigan State University Computer Institute for
Social Science Research (CISSR), 1966.
________ . Rank Correlation Coefficients. Technical Report
No. 47. East Lansing: Michigan State University
Computer Institute for Social Science Research
(CISSR), 1967.
1971 Junior College Directory. Washington, D. C . :
Association of Junior Colleges, 1971.

American

1971-72 Directory of Institutions of Higher Education.
Lansing, Michigan:
Michigan Department of Education,
1971.
Parker, Paul.
Characteristics of Full-Time Public Community
Junior College Instructors:
The Kansas Profile.
Pittsburg, Kansas:
Kansas State College, 1971.
(ERIC Document No. ED 052777).
Patterson, Robert A.
"Pennsylvania Community College Faculty
Career Patterns and Educational Issues."
University
Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University,
Center for the Study of Higher Education, 1971.
(ERIC Document No. ED 051800).
Phair, Thomas S.
"A Profile of California Community College
Faculty."
1971.
(ERIC Document No. ED 049760).
________ . "A Profile of New Faculty in California Community
Colleges."
Berkeley:
University of California,
Berkeley, 1968.
(ERIC Document No. ED 026059).
Reusch, Natalie R. The Junior and Community College Faculty:
A Bibliography (Revised Edition) 1969. Washington,
D. C . : ERIC/National Faculty Association of Commu­
nity and Junior Colleges, 1969.
(ERIC Document No.
ED 031251).

154

Richardson, Richard C . , Jr.
"The Future of Higher Education."
Reaction to an address presented at the Third General
Session of the Twenty-Seventh National Conference of
the American Association for Higher Education, Chicago,
Illinois, March 8, 1972.
Scott, David C.
"Balance of Staff by Junior College Recruiters."
Seminar paper.
December, 1969.
(ERIC Document No.
ED 035412).
Shell, Edwin Taylor.
"An Investigation of the Doctor of Arts
Degree for the Junior College Instructor."
Sp.Ed.
dissertation, Northwestern State College, 1969.
(ERIC Document No. ED 031199) .
Thiel, Larry, and Patrick, Linda.
Percount. Technical Report
No. 18. East Lansing: Michigan State University
Computer Institute for Social Science Research (CISSR),
1968.
To Work in a Junior College. Washington, D. C . : American
Association of Junior Colleges, 1966.
(ERIC Document .
No. ED 032886) .
Williams, Cratis.
"A Master's Degree Program for Junior
College Teachers."
December, 1966.
(ERIC Document
No. ED 015759).
Wright, David J.
"Jeremy Finn's Multivariate-Univariate and
Multivariate Analysis of Variance and Covariance:
A
FORTRAN IV Program."
Occasional Paper No. 9. East
Lansing:
Office of Research Consultation, School for
Advanced Graduate Studies, College of Education,
Michigan State University, March, 1970.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

MICHIGAN'S PUBLIC COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND
THEIR RESPECTIVE LOCATIONS

156

MICHIGAN'S PUBLIC COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND
THEIR RESPECTIVE LOCATIONS

Alpena Community College

Alpena

Bay de Noc Community College

Escanaba

Delta College

University Center

Genesee Community College

Flint

Glen Oaks Community College

Centreville

Gogebic Community College

Ironwood

Grand Rapids Junior College

Grand Rapids

Henry Ford Community College

Dearborn

Highland Park College

Highland Park

Jackson Community College

Jackson

Kalamazoo Valley Community College

Kalamazoo

Kellogg Community College

Battle Creek

Kirtland Community College

Roscommon

Lake Michigan College

Benton Harbor

Lansing Community College

Lansing

Macomb County Community College

Warren

Center Campus

Mount Clemens

South Campus

Warren

Mid-Michigan Community College

Harrison

Monroe County Community College

Monroe

Montcalm Community College

Sidney

157

158
Muskegon County Community College

Muskegon

North Central Michigan College

Petoskey

Northwestern Michigan College

Traverse City

Oakland Community College

Bloomfield Hills

Auburn Heights Campus

Auburn Heights

Highland Lakes Campus

Union Lake

Orchard Ridge Campus

Farmington

Southeast Campus Center

Oak Park

St. Clair County Community College

Port Huron

Schoolcraft College

Livonia

Southwestern Michigan College

Dowagiac

Washtenaw Community College

Ann Arbor

Wayne County Community College

Detroit

West Shore Community College

Scottville

APPENDIX B

CRITERIA USED TO CLASSIFY COMMUNITY COLLEGES
ON INSTITUTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

CRITERIA USED TO CLASSIFY COMMUNITY COLLEGES
ON INSTITUTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

The central-records information collected during the
study was used in classifying each of the twenty-nine public
community colleges in the state of Michigan on the following
seven dimensions:
1.

Age:

"Old"
"New"

2.

3.

Size:

"Small"

—

Those institutions established prior
to 1960.

—

Those institutions established after.
1960.

—

Those colleges with less than 1,000
FTE students enrolled in Fall, 1971.

"Medium"—

Those colleges with more than 1,000
but not over 4,000 FTE students
enrolled in Fall, 1971.

"Large" —

Those colleges with over 4,000 FTE
students enrolled in Fall, 1971.

"Rural" —

Those institutions located in commu­
nities of less than 20,000 population
and not near a larger metropolitan
area.

"Outstate" —

Those institutions located in commu­
nities of greater than 20,000 popu­
lation, but not determined to be part
of the Detroit metropolitan area.

Setting:

"Metropolitan" —
4.

Those institutions determined to be
in the Detroit metropolitan area.

Proximity to a Graduate Institution:
"Near"

—

Those colleges located within twentyfive miles of a public graduate
institution.

160

161
"Far"

—

"Others" —

5.

7.

College located between twenty-five
and sixty miles from the nearest
public graduate institution.

Full-time Faculty:*
"Small"

6.

Those colleges located over sixty
miles from the nearest public graduate
institution.

—

Those colleges with fewer than fifty
full-time faculty members.

"Medium" —

Those colleges with from fifty to
one hundred full-time faculty members.

"Large"

Colleges with over one hundred full­
time faculty members.

—

Part-time Faculty;*
"Small"

—

Institutions with less than fifty
part-time faculty members.

"Large"

—

Institutions with fifty or more parttime faculty members.

Part vs. Full-time Faculty:*
"Small"

—

The number of part-time faculty is
less than half the number of full­
time faculty.

"Large"

—

The number of part-time faculty is
equal to or greater than half the
number of full-time faculty.

A summary of results obtained after using the above
classification procedure is shown in Table 1.

*

Based on data obtained from the 1971 Junior College
Directory (Washington, D. C . : American Association of Junior
Colleges, 1971), pp. 42-45.

162

TABLE 1.— Community college institutional characteristics.

Institutional
Dimension

Age

Size

Setting

Proximity to a
Graduate Institution

Full-time Faculty

Part-time Faculty

Part-time vs. Full­
time Faculty

Number of
Insti­
tutions

Number of
Admin­
istrators

Old

16

90

New

13

80

Small

10

48

Medium

12

62

Large

7

60

Rural

10

48

Outstate

13

64

Metrop.

6

58

Near

8

59

Far

10

49

Others

11

62

Small

10

48

8

39

Large

11

83

Small

18

87

Large

11

83

Small

19

93

Large

10

77

Classifi­
cation

Medium

APPENDIX C

LETTERS OF CORRESPONDENCE

163

164
MICHIGAN

C O ll.H G I

STATE

UNIVERSITY

east

ia n s in g

• M ic h ig a n

48823

OR ED U C A T IO N ■ DEPARTM ENT O P A D M IN ISTR A TIO N A N D HIGHBR ED U C A TIO N

ERICKSON MALI.

April 7, 1972

Dear S i r :

In recent years there have been a number of studies of the qualifications
of community college faculty members. However, none of these previous studies
have focussed on the desired formal qualifications of community college teach­
ers as viewed by community college administrators. The enclosed Faculty Quali­
fications Survey is specifically designed to determine what formal qualifica­
tions, in terms of educational training and background experiences, do the top
administrators in today's comprehensive community colleges desire, and look
for, in their recruitment and selection of faculty members.
This survey instrument is being mailed to community college administrators
throughout the state of Michigan. We believe that the results of this study
can be of real benefit to the administrators of Michigan's community colleges
and to other individuals and institutions who are working to improve the formal
qualifications of community college faculty.
It is hoped that you will consider this study of value and that you are willing
to complete the enclosed questionnaire. We have made every effort to keep the
instrument as short and as interesting as possible. Our pilot study indicates
that completion of the questionnaire will take not more than thirty minutes.
We appreciate your consideration and promise to
who desire such, a summary of the results of the
be kept in the strictest confidence and coded as
very much for your cooperation. If you have any
at (517) 353-2972 or 355-9797.
Sincerely,

Robert V. Kovach
NDEA Research Fellow

Max R. Raines, Professor
Department of Administration
and Higher Education
Michigan State University
^

Vandel C. Jotm^dn, Chairman
Department pf/Administration
pf/
and Higher Education
Eaui
Michigan State University

provide, to all participants
study. All responses will
soon as received. Thank you
questions, please contact us

165
MICHIGAN

STATE

UNIVERSITY

bast

l a n s in g

• Mi c h i g a n

48823

COLLEGE O P ED U C A T IO N • D EPARTM ENT O F A D M IN ISTR A TIO N A N D H IG HBR ED U C A TIO N
ERICKSON HALL

April 24, 1972

Dear Administrator,
On April 7 Dr. Max Raines, Dr. Van Johnson, and I sent you a questionnaire
related to the desired formal qualifications of community college faculty
members. This questionnaire was mailed to the chief administrative, academic,
business, and student personnel administrators at each community college in
the state of Michigan. To date, the responses received have been most
encouraging.
I hope that you also consider this study of value and that you will assist
me in continuing it by completing the enclosed questionnaire. If you have
already mailed the original copy to us, please disregard this request.
I am planning to begin analysis of the data from this survey on May 15,
1972, and request that you consider returning the questionnaire as soon as
your schedule will permit.
Thank you for your professional assistance toward making this study possible.
A report of the study will be mailed to you, if you indicate an interest in
one.
Sincerely

Robert V. Kovach
NDEA Research Fellow
Department of Administration
and Higher Education
Michigan State University

APPENDIX D

THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT

166

Number
FACULTY QUALIFICATIONS SURVEY

INSTRUCTIONS: This is a study of your feelings and attitudes, as a community
college administrator, regarding the formal qualifications of community college
faculty members at community colleges in Michigan.
All information provided on
this instrument is confidential. The coded number in the upper corner of this
page will be used only for purposes of non-respondent follow-up and for the re­
searcher to classify responses as to size and age of college, etc. No individual
administrator or individual college comparisons will be made.
In this survey, the phrase, "liberal arts," is used as a general designation of
the areas of Arts and Sciences, Developmental, and/or General Education.
The
phrase, "applied arts," is used as a general designation of the areas of Applied
Arts and Sciences, Vocational/Technical Education, and/or Occupational Education.
THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR PROFESSIONAL ASSISTANCE.
General Data: Complete each item by filling in the blank or checking the appro­
priate category.
1.

Title of your present position:

2.

Please indicate your community college experience:

___________________________________________ _

EXPERIENCE IN
PRESENT POSITION
0 3 6 10 Over
3.

2 years
5 years
9 years
12 years
12 years

Your age is:
Below 30 ____

4.

TOTAL COMMUNITY
COLLEGE EXPERIENCE

30 - 39 ____

40 - 49 ______

50- 59

Above 59 ____

Highest degree earned:
Bachelor1s ____ Master's _____ Specialist_____ Doctorate

None

Other _

If "other," please specify _________________________________
5.

Have you ever attended a community college as a student?

Yes ____ No ____

6.

Do you participate in the recruitment and selection of new faculty members
(or counselors) for your institution?
Yes ____ No ____

Faculty Qualification Data: Please answer the following questions to the best of
your personal knowledge and ability by filling in the blank or checking the appro­
priate category.
1.

How much difficulty does your institution now have in recruiting qualified
a.

Liberal arts faculty?

None at all ____

Some

A great deal ____

b.

Applied arts faculty?

None at all ____

Some

A great deal ____

167

168

2.

3.

How do you think the difficulty of your college's task of recruiting qualified
faculty in the near future will compare to the present, for
a.

Liberal arts faculty?

Easier ___ The same ___ Harder

than the present.

b.

Applied arts faculty?

Easier ___ The same ___ Harder

than the present.

Assume that there is a need to employ teachers at your institution and that
you are involved in the recruitment and selection of prospective faculty mem­
bers. What would you establish as the minimum qualifications for prospective
liberal arts and applied arts teachers with respect to each of the following
criteria?
LIBERAL ARTS
APPLIED ARTS
a.

Educational training
(in terms of degrees
and/or semester credit hours)_____ _____________

_____________

b.

High school teaching experience (in years)_____ _____________

_____________

c.

Community college teaching experience (yrs.)

_____________

_____________

d.

Four-year college teaching experience

___________

_____________

e.

Vocational/industrial experience

(in years)

_____________

_____________

f.

Professional courses in community college
education (in semester credit hours)

_____________

_____________

g.
4.

Other criteria (Please specify)

Applied arts teachers__________________

Which one of the above minimum qualifications is least difficult to
liberal arts
teachers at your college?
Applied arts teachers?
Liberal arts

6.

___________________________________________

Which one of the above minimum qualifications is most difficult to find among
liberal arts
teachers at your college?
Applied arts teachers?
Liberal arts teachers ________________

5.

(yrs.)

teachers________________

Applied

find among

arts teachers__________________

Rank the following formal qualifications in the order of importance that you
would apply to them as qualifications in a liberal arts teacher and in an ap­
plied arts teacher.
(Let "1" = the most important, "2" = next most important,
etc.)
Please rank both columns.
LIBERAL ARTS
APPLIED ARTS
a.

Educational training.............................

.....

.....

b.

High school teaching experience ................

.....

.....

c.

Community college teaching experience .

_____

_____

d.

Four-year college teaching experience . . . .

_____

_____

e.

Vocational/industrial experience................

.....

.....

f.

Professional courses in community college education _____

_____

.

.

.

169

7.

Based on your knowledge and experience, rate each of the following qualifi­
cations of a prospective faculty member as to the importance of consideration
that you would give it in your screening of candidates and decision whether
to recommend the individual for employment as a teacher at your institution.
Circle the appropriate
number:
"1" = Very Important Consideration
"2" = Important Consideration
"3" = Minor Consideration
____________________
"4" = No Consideration
____________ ___________
a. Age ( r a n g e ) .......................................
b.
c . R a c e .............................................
d. Religion ..........................................

1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4

e.
f.

Martial status ....................................
Previously attended a community college.
Type of undergraduate degree
. . . . . . .
Undergraduate major(s) or minor(s)
.............

1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3

4
4
4
H

3k.
1.

Undergraduate grade point average................
Type of graduate degree ..........................
Graduate major(s) or minor(s) ...................
Graduate grade point average
...................

1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2

3
3
3
I

4
4
4
4

m.
n.
o.
P-

Type, quality of colleges attended
Previous K - 12 teaching experience
Previous community college teaching
Previous four-year college teaching

1

2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4

q-

Previous "other" teaching experience
(e. g. industrial, armed forces teaching)
Previous non-teaching experience ................
Letters of reference .............................
Out-of-state colleges attended...................

1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4

X.

out-of-state w o r k experiences ...................
Membership in professional associations.
Scholarly publications
..........................
Research a c t i v i t i e s ............. ...
. . . .

1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2

3
3
3
•3

4
4
4
4

y-

Other formal qualifications

1

2

3

4

gh.
i.

r.
s.
t.
u.
v.
w.

8.

.............
.............
experience
experience

(Specify)

.
.
•

Please check which of the following characteristics you believe your colleae
should consider in attempting to attain or maintain some "balance" of faculty.
Sex
Age
Race
In-state vs. out-of-state work and living exp._____
Master's, Doctorates, and other degrees
Marital status
Religion____

9.

Consider the following listing of educational degrees.
Please indicate, by
using the corresponding letter, which one of these degrees you consider to be
the most desirable for a community college instructor teaching liberal arts
courses? _____ Applied arts courses? ______
a.
b.
c.
d.

Bachelor's in Subject Field
Master's in Subject Field
Master's in Teaching
Master's in Subject Field
plus advanced work in Ed.

e.
f.
g.
h.

Specialist in Education
"Teaching" Doctorate
Doctorate in Subject Field
Another Degree (Please Specify)
___________ _____________________

170

10.

Indicate your degree of agreement or disagreement with each of the following
statements by circling one of the response categories listed to the right of
the statement.
Please answer every item.
"1"
"2"
"3”
"4"
"5"

11.

Strongly Agree
Agree
Not Sure
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

Community college instructors should have preparation
programs that are different than both high school and
senior college teacher preparation programs.

1

2

3

4

5

Community colleges should encourage faculty to pursue
advanced coursework by paying the tuition of those
who choose to undertake such work.

1

2

3

4

5

Many Ph.D.'s are, or at least will be, excellent and
committed community college teachers.

1

2

3

4

5

Colleges of Education, rather than subject departments,
are the most appropriate organizations to offer prep­
aration programs for community college teachers.
1

2

3

4

5

It is not economically feasible for community colleges
to employ faculty members possessing doctorates to
teach classes that do not require such academic
preparation.

1

2

3

4

5

Graduate institutions in Michigan are doing a good
job of preparing community college teachers.

1

2

3

4

5

The only true preparation for community college
teaching is practical experience in the classroom.

1

2

3

4

5

In the future, community colleges will begin to accept
more new teachers who have doctoral degrees.

1

2

3

4

5

Faculty members who attended a community college as
students are more likely to understand and agree with
the goals of the community college than are faculty
members who never attended a community college.

1

2

3

4

5

The Doctor of Arts degree is more appropriate than
either the Ph.D. or the Ed.D. degrees for the com­
munity college instructor.

1

2

3

4

5

Do you believe that formal qualifications criteria should be the same for both
full-time and part-time faculty? Yes
No_____
(Optional)

12.

=
=
=
=
=

If "no", in what ways should they differ?

Would you like a 2-3 page summary of the findings of this study?

Yes

No

APPENDIX E

SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF THE
CHI-SQUARE ANALYSES PERFORMED

171

Respondents and
Nonrespondents
Administrative

Institutional
Age
Institutional
Size
Institutional
Setting
Proximity to a
Graduate Institution
Full-time
Faculty
Part-time
Faculty

x2
P

15.89
<.01

2.92

n.s.

8.22

8.52

.43

7.75

2.28

3.16

. <.02

<.02

n.s.

<.01

n.s.

n.s.

.44

1.06

x2

6.40

1.88

3.22

2.97

1.05

p

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

x2

5.02

14.62

30.55

25.23

12.79

2.42

4.36

p

n.s.

<.001

<• 0 0 1

<.001

<.005

n.s.

<.05

x2

1.48

219.74

77.39

206.50

112.10

55.30

p

n.s.

<.001

<.001

<. 00 1

<• 0 0 1

<■001

x2

2.94

106.84

203.12

84.50

70.35

p

n.s.

<. 00 1

<.001

<• 0 0 1

<• 0 0 1

3.36

78.22

45.81

34.35

• n.s.

<-001

<• 0 0 1

<■001

x2

77.52

22.43

p

<• 0 0 1

<■001

x2
p

x2

87.84

p

<•001

Attended a C.C.
as a Student

Degree
Highest
Earned

Total C.C.
Experience

Part- vs. Full­
time Faculty

Part-time
Faculty

Full-time
Faculty

Proximity to a
Graduate Inst.

Institutional
Setting

Institutional
Size

Institutional
Age

Administrative
Position

TABLE 2.— Summary of the results of the chi-square analyses performed.3

Present Difficulty
in Recruiting
L. A. Teachers

x2

1.73

.76

2.46

2.03

.34

1.97

P

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

Present Difficulty
in Recruiting
A. A. Teachers

13.52

4.79

7.16

6.29

7.00

4.94

p

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

Future Difficulty
in Recruiting
L. A. Teachers

p

Future Difficulty
in Recruiting
A. A. Teachers

p

x2

X2

x2

14.30

1.52

1.61

1.54

5.88

9.00

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

12.04

1.97

4.56

2.17

6.04

15.07

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

Minimum Educational
Training for
L. A. Teachers

x2

6.92

12.85

13.74

11.14

34.70

12.03

p

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

<.05

n.s.

Minimum Courses in
C. C. Education for
L. A. Teachers

x2

11.01

18.97

17.78

13.29

26.78

36.29

p

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

Minimum Educational
Training for
A. A. Teachers

x2

3.68

6.06

8.22

7.53

17.30

8.91

p

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

10.44

14.73

13.24

12.65

18.69

39.58

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

Minimum Courses in
C. C. Education for
A. A. Teachers

x2

p

Attended a C.C. |
as a Student
1

Degree
Highest
Earned

Total C.C.
Experience

Part- vs. Full­
time Faculty

Part-time
Faculty

Full-time
Faculty

Proximity to a
Graduate Inst.

Institutional
Setting

Institutional
Size

Institutional
Age

Administrative
Position

TABLE 2.— Continued.

Consideration of
"Attended a C. C."
Most Desirable Degree
for L. A. Teachers
Most Desirable Degree
for A. A. Teachers
Statement— Institutions
Should Pay Tuition
Statement— Many Ph.D.'s
Are Excellent Teachers

Attended a C.C.
as a Student

Degree
Highest
Earned

Total C.C.
Experience

Part- vs. Full­
time Faculty

Part-time
Faculty

Full-time
Faculty

Proximity to a
Graduate Inst.

Institutional
Setting

Institutional
Size

x2

10.00

p

<.025

x2

p
x2

p
x2

p

36.29

11.52

6.31

12. 54

9.87

22.28

31.16

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

27.30

4.30

3.06

13.38

21.81

27.96

17.61

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

< .05

n.s.

n.s.

28.26

n.s.
26.19

x2

n.s.

p

Statement— Not Eco­
nomically Feasible to
Employ Doctorates
Statement— In the Future,
More Doctorates in the
Community College
Statement— Those Who
Attended a C. C. Are
More in Agreement With
the Goals of the C. C.
Statement— The D. A. Is
More Appropriate Than
Other Doctorates for
the C. C. Instructor
Same Formal Qualifica­
tions Criteria for Fulland Part-time Teachers

Institutional
Age

Administrative
Position

TABLE 2.— Continued.

x2

p

14.73

n.s.
27.64

X2

<.05

p

11.44

X2

1

<.025

p
x2

8,74

i

n.s.

p
x2

p

10.34

.66

2.62

5.87

5.97

4.11

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

. 004

n.s.

1.67

2.29

6.99

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

aBlank cells in the table indicate pairs of variables which were not investigated. Cells containing n.s.
indicate that no significant relationship was found between the pairs of variables that were studied. Cells con­
taining a x2 value and an associated p<.05 denote the presence of statistically significant relationships between
the pairs of variables.

APPENDIX F

CONTINGENCY TABLES ILLUSTRATING
SIGNIFICANT ASSOCIATIONS

175

176
TABLE 3.— Relationship between response and nonresponse and
administrative position.

Administrative Position

Number Who
Responded

Chief Administrative
Officer

25°

Chief Student Personnel
Officer

27

Chief Business Officer

21

Number Who
Did Not Respond

(7.6)
(7.6)
(7.6)

Chief "Liberal Arts"*5
Officer

18

Totals
X 2 = 15.891

22

1
(4.8)

(17.2)
21

35

14

21

Chief "Applied Arts"a
Officer

35

8
(27.4)
(27.4)

Chief Academic Officer

35

10
(27.4)d

24

3
(5.2)

(18.8)

19

1
(4.1)

(14.9)
133

Totals

37

170

(P<.01)

aChief academic officer in the area of applied arts.
Chief academic officer in the area of liberal arts.
Q

Observed frequency.
Expected frequency.

177
TABLE 4.— Relationship between response and nonresponse and
institutional size.

Institutional Size
Small

Number Who
Responded
31

Number Who
Did Not Respond
17

(37.6)
Medium

54

X2 = 8.223

62

8

48

(13.5)
60

12
(46.9)

Totals

48
(10.4)

(48.5)
Large

133

Totals

(13.1)
170

37

(p< .02)

TABLE 5. — Relationship between response and nonresponse i and
institutional setting.

Institutional Setting
Rural

Number Who
Responded

Number Who
Did Not Respond

(10.5)

(37.5)
Out-State

(13.9)

X 2 = 8.519

58

12

46
(45.4)

Totals

64

8

56
(50.1)

Metropolitan

48

17

31

133
(p<.02)

Totals

(12.6)
37

170

178
TABLE 6.— Relationship between response and nonresponse and
institutional full-time faculty.
Institutional
Full-Time Faculty

Number Who
Responded

Small

Number Who
Did Not Respond

31

48

17
(10.4)

(37.5)
Medium

34

5

39

(30.5)
Large

68

( 8.5)
15

83

(64.9)
Totals

133

X 2 = 7.751

Totals

(18.1)
37

170

(p<.01)

TABLE 7.— Relationship between institutional size and institutional age.
Institutional Size

Institutional
Age
Old

Small

42

15
(25.4)

New

33

X2 = 14.619

48

33
(32. 8)

90

(p<.001)

80
(28.2)

(29. 2)
62

Totals

(31.8)
27

20
(22.6)

Totals

Large

Medium

60

170

179
TABLE 8.— Relationship between institutional setting and
institutional age.
Institutional Setting
Age

Rural

Old

Out-State

15

51
(25.4)

New

24
(33.9)

33

13
(22.6)

Totals

90

34

64

Totals

(30.7)

(30.1)

48

X 2 = 30 .554

Metropolitan

80
(27.3)

58

170

(p<. 001)

TABLE 9.— Relationship between proximity to a graduate institu
tion and institutional age.

Institutional
Age

Proximity to a Graduate Institution

Old

Near

Others
44

16
(31.2)
43

New

18

X 2 = 25.228

59

(25.9)
80

19
(29.2)

62
(p<.001)

Totals
90

30
(32.8)

(27.8)
Totals

Far

(23.1)
49

170

180
TABLE 10.— Relationship between institutional full-time faculty
and institutional age.

Institutional
Age
Old

Institutional Full-Time Faculty
Small

Medium

15

25
(25.4)

New

33

50
(20.7)

14
(22.6)

Totals

Large

48

X2 = 12.791

90
(43.9)

33
(18.3)

80
(39.1)

83

39

Totals

170

(p<.005)

TABLE 11.— Relationship between institutional part-time v s .
full-time faculty and institutional age.

Institutional
Age
Old

Institutional Part-Time
vs. Full-Time Faculty
Small
56

Large

37

(40.8)

X2 = 4.361

80

43
(36.2)

(43.8)
Totals

90

34
(49.2)

New

93

77
(p<.05)

Totals

170

181
TABLE 12.— Relationship between institutional setting and
institutional size.
Institutional Setting

Institutional
Size
Small

Rural
48

Out-State
0

(13.5)
Medium

0

49

0

Totals

(21.2)
60

45
(20.5)

(22.6)
64

X 2 = 219.738

62

13

15

48

(16.4)

(23.3)

(16.9)

Totals
48

0
(18.1)

(17.5)
Large

Metropolitan

170

58

(p<.001)

TABLE 13.— Relationship between proximity to a graduatei insti
tution and institutional size.

Institutional
Size
Small

Proximity to a Graduate Institution
Near
0
22

Large
Totals

59

X2 = 77.392

(17.9)

(22.6)
0

23
(20.8)

62

15

25

37

(13.8)

(17.5)

(21.5)

(pc.OOl)

60
(17.3)

(21.9)
62

Totals
48

34

14
(16.7)

Medium

Far

Others

48

170

182
TABLE 14.— Relationship between institutional full-time faculty
and institutional size.

Institutional
Size
Small

Institutional Full-Time Faculty
Small

Medium

48

0
(13.6)

Medium

0

(30.3)
54

6

48

(13.8)

60
(29.3)

83

39

X 2 = 206.504

62

29
(14.2)

(16.9)
Totals

(23.4)

33

0

Totals
48

0
(11.0)

(17.5)
Large

Large

170

(p<.001)

TABLE 15.— Relationship between institutional part-time faculty
and institutional size.

Institutional
Size
Small

Institutional Part-Time Faculty
Large

Small
48

(23.4)
(30.3)

0

X2 = 112.097

60

60
(29.3)

(30.7)
Totals

62

23

39
(31.7)

Large

48

0
(24.6)

Medium

83

87
(p<.001)

Totals

170

183
TABLE 16.— Relationship between institutional part-time vs.
full-time faculty and institutional size.
Institutional Part-Time
v s . Full-Time Faculty

Institutional
Size

Small

Small

Large

39

9
(26.3)

Medium

18
(33.9)
50
(32.8)

X

2

60
(27.2)

93

= 55 .304

62
(28.1)

10

Totals

48
(21.7)

44

Large

Totals

77

170

(p<.001)

TABLE 17.— Relationship between proximity to a graduate insti­
tution and institutional setting.

Institutional
Setting

Proximity to a Graduate Institution
Near
0

Rural

Others
14

(16.7)
Out-State

14

35

45

Totals

59

X2 = 106.843

(13.8)
64

15
(23.3)

13
(20.1)

(18.5)
58

0
(21.2)

62
(p<.001)

Totals
48

34
(17.5)

(22.2)
Metropolitan

Far

(16.7)
49

170

184
TABLE 18.— Relationship between institutional full-time faculty
and institutional setting.

Institutional
Setting
Rural

Institutional Full-Time Faculty
Small

Medium

Large

48

48

(11.0)

(13.6)
Out-State

33

X

(23.4)
64

31

(18.1)

(14.7)

(16.4)

(13.3)

Metropolitan
Totals

Totals

(31.2)
58

52
48

39

= 203.119

(28.3)
83

170

(p<.001)

TABLE 19.— Relationship between institutional part-time faculty
and institutional setting.

Institutional
Setting
Rural

Institutional Part-Time Faculty
Small

Large

48

48
(23.4)

(24.6)
Out-State

(31.3)
58

52

Metropolitan
(29.7)

X 2 = 84.498

64

31

33
(32.7)

Totals

Totals

(28.3)
83

87
(p<.001)

170

185
TABLE 20.— Relationship between institutional part-time vs.
full-time faculty and institutional setting.
Institutional Part-Time
vs. Full-Time Faculty

Institutional
Setting

Small

Rural

Large

39

(21.7)

48

(29.0)
(26.3)

(31.7)
77

93

X2 = 70. 350

58

52

6

Totals

64

16
(35.0)

Metropolitan

48

9
(26.3)

Out-State

Totals

170

(pc.001)

TABLE 21.— Relationship between proximity to a graduate institution and institutional full-time faculty.
Institutional
Full-Time
Faculty

Proximity to a Graduate Institution

Small

Near
0
10

Totals
X2 = 78.222

59

(11.2)

(14.2)
28

83

6
(30.3)

(28.8)

39

9

20

49

Large

(13.8)

(17.5)

(13.5)

62
(pc.001)

Totals
48

34

14
(16.7)

Medium

Far

Others

(23.9)
49

170

186
TABLE 22.— Relationship between proximity to a graduate insti­
tution and institutional part-time faculty.
Institutional
Part-Time
Faculty

Proximity to a Graduate Institution

Small

Near
15

(31.7)

44

34
(28.■8)

(P'

83
(23.9)
170

49

o
o

X2 = 45,.807

87

5

62
/\

59

Totals

(25.1)

(30.3)

•

Totals

44

28
(30..2)

Large

Far

Others

TABLE 23.— Relationship between proximity to a graduate institution and institutional part-time vs. full-time faculty.
Institutional
Proximity to a Graduate Institution
Part-Time vs.
Near
Far
Others
Full-Time Faculty
Small

15

Large

44

Totals
X2 = 34.345

59

(26.8)

(33.9)

77

10

23
(26.7)

93

39

39
(32.3)

(22.2)

(28.1)
62

(pc.001)

Totals

49

170

187
TABLE 24.— Relationship between institutional part-time faculty
and institutional full-time faculty.
Institutional
Full-Time
Faculty
Small

Institutional Part-Time Faculty
Small

Large

48

(23.4)

22

(19.0)

17

(40.5)

87

X 2 = 77.518

83

66
(42.5)

Totals

39

17
(20.0)

Large

48

0
(24.6)

Medium

Totals

83

170

(p<.001)

TABLE 25.— Relationship between institutional part-time v s .
full-time faculty and institutional full-time faculty

Institutional
Full-Time
Faculty
Small

Institutional Part-Time
vs. Full-Time Faculty
Large

Small

(21.7)

(26.3)
Medium

17

22
(21.3)

Large

32

X2 = 22.433

39
(17.7)
83

51
(45.4)

Totals

48

9

39

(37.6)
77

93
(p<.001)

Totals

170

188
TABLE 26.— Relationship between institutional part-time vs.
full-time faculty and institutional part-time faculty.
Institutional Part-Time
vs ^ Full-Time Faculty

Institutional
Faculty

Small

Small

78

9

15

68
(45.4)

Totals

87
(39.4)

(47.6)
Large

Totals

Large

83
(37.6)

77

93

X2 = 87.840

170

(p<.001)

TABLE 27.— Relationship between importance of consideration
given to the qualification "previously attended a community
college" and whether the administrator had attended a commu­
nity college as a student.
Importance of Consideration
Very
Important

Had Not
Attended

2

Had
Attended

1

Important

3

X2 = 10.002

69

16
(p<.025)

(33.3)
27

7
(14.3)

( 3.3)

Totals

103

35

11

8

No

(54.7)

(12.7)

( .6)

Totals

58

8
(2.4)

Minor

( 8.7)
42

170

189
TABLE 28.— Relationship between total community college experi­
ence and minimum educational training established for liberal
arts teachers.

Minimum
Educational
Training

Total Community College Experience
(in years)
0-2

3-5

6-9

10-12

Over 12

None

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

0

Less than
Bachelor's

0
(0.2)

3
(0.7)

0
(1.1)

0
(0.3)

0
(0.7)

3

Bachelor's

0
(0.3)

0
(1.0)

2
(1.5)

1
(0.4)

1
(0.9)

4

More than
Bachelor's

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

0

Master's

7
(7.3)

25
43
10
(26.4) (40.9) (10.9)

25
(24.5)

More than
Master's

0
(0.1)

0
(0.5)

0
(0.7)

1
(0.2)

1
(0.5)

2

Sp.Ed.

0
(0.1)

1
(0.2)

0
(0.4)

0
(0.1)

0
(0.2)

1

Doctorate

1
(0.1)

0
(0.0)

0
(0.4)

0
(0.1)

0
(0.2)

1

8

29

45

12

27

Totals
X 2 = 34.699

(p<.05)

Totals

110

121

190
TABLE 29.— Relationship between proximity to a graduate insti­
tution and most desirable degree for an applied arts instructor.

Most Desirable
Degree

Proximity to a Graduate Institution
Near

Bachelor's in
Subject Field

4

Master's in
Subject Field

15

Master's in
Teaching
Master's in Subject
Field Plus Advanced
Work in Education

7
(8.0)
7

0

"Teaching"
Doctorate

0

Doctorate in
Subject Field

0

Another
Degree

6

X2 = 21.808

(11.6)

2

(0.5)

0

(0.5)
0

0
(0.0)

(0.0)
5

12

1
(3.2)

(4.5)

(p<.05)

2

0
(0.7)

45

.2

0
(0.7)

(0.0)

44

9

2

(0.7)

44

(1.9)

(16.4)

(0.7)

7

1

20

(4.4)

Totals

(8.5)

(2.6)

(16.0)

32

10

2
(2.6)

15

(5.8)

(11.9)

4

Totals
22

11
(8.2)

(11.6)

Specialist in
Education

Far

Others

32

121

191
TABLE 30.— Relationship between administrator agreement with
attitude statement number ninea and whether the administrator
had attended a community college as a student.
Agreement With Statement
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Not
Sure

Dis­
agree

S trongly
Disagree

Totals

Had Not
Attended

9
(11.0)

35
(40.3)

24
(22.9)

29
(24.5)

8
(6.3)

1 05

Had
Attended

5
(3.0)

16
(10.7)

5
(6.1)

2
(6.5)

0
(1.7)

28

14

51

29

31

Totals

x2 = 11.442

8

133

(P< . 0 2 5 )

Faculty members who attended a community college as
students are more likely to understand and agree with the
goals of the community college than are faculty members who
never attended a community college.

TABLE 31.— Relationship between administrator agreement with
attitude statement number eight3 and highest degree earned.
Agreement With Statement
Degree
Earned

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Not
Sure

Dis­
agree

Strongly
Disagree

Totals

Bachelor's

1
(0.4)

1
(2.1)

2
(1.5)

1
(1.5)

1
(0.5)

6

Master1s

3
(5.1)

25
(26.5)

20
(18.6)

19
(19.2)

8
(5.6)

75

Specialist

0
(0.5)

0
(2.8)

1
(2.0)

6
(2.1)

1
(0.6)

8

Doctorate

5
(2.9)

21
(15.2)

10
(10.7)

7
(11.0)

0
(3.2)

43

Other

0
(0.1)

0
(0.3)

0
(0.2)

1
(0.3)

0
(0.1)

1

9

47

33

34

10

Totals

X2 = 27.643

(p<.05)

aln the future, community colleges will begin to
accept more new teachers who have doctoral degrees.

133

APPENDIX G

WRITTEN COMMENTS OF RESPONDENTS

192

WRITTEN COMMENTS OF RESPONDENTS*
Part A
Other formal qualifications that respondents indi­
cated should be considered in their screening and recommend­
ing individuals for employment as community college teachers
are listed below:
1.

Administration of special projects.
Experience with
funding, proposals, philosophy, enthusiasm, [and]
community relations.

2.

Community activities.

3.

Industrial supervisory experience.

4.

Health.

5.

Work experience in his field of teaching.

6.

References obtained by employer not via placement
officer.

. . .

Part B
Written comments regarding other minimum formal
qualifications criteria that respondents indicated should be
established for prospective liberal arts and/or applied arts
teachers are presented below:
1.

For liberal arts, MA in subject plus teaching exper­
ience and work in education.

2.

Testing, measurement, learning theory.
sive background.

Need exten­

*Comments were edited for spelling and grammar.
193

194
3.

All minimums depend upon area of expertise—
flexibility necessary.

4.

Courses in behavioral sciences

5.

Course work in learning theory and learning dis­
ability .

6.

The qualifications above are desirable and are
considered, but a minimum for each is not required.

7.

Strong industrial experience and selected preparation
in curriculum and teaching methods.

8.

Attempt is made to secure MS/MA in applied arts and
usually succeeds.

9.

Three credit hours in community college administra­
tion at least.

10.

In voc-tech— we look on experience more than higher
degrees.

11.

MA in teaching field, not education.

12.

Techniques of education.

13.

Minimum age twenty-five.

14.

Teaching internship in community college.

(two courses).

Other minimum qualifications criteria of an informal
nature were also set forth by some of the respondents.

A

selected listing of these criteria is presented below:
1.

Realistic individual.

2.

Student oriented and behavioral objective oriented.

3.

Willingness and interest in teaching our specific
population— open door.

4.

Enthusiasm.

5.

To be professional and non-union oriented.

6.

Ability to teach at community college level.

7.

Philosophy consistent with that of the college.

195
8.

Humane--student oriented, mentally healthy.

9.

Desire to serve students.

10.

Interest in students and community college philos­
ophy and teaching.

Part C
Optional written comments of those individuals who
indicated that formal qualifications criteria should be dif­
ferent for full-time and part-time faculty, to the question:
"In what ways should they differ?"
1.

To fit what he's teaching.
Our welding teachers
don't need degrees to do a good job.

2.

Full-time faculty should meet higher criteria—
formal education and experience.

3.

Part time may have vocational/industrial experiences
in his field that will make up for each of formal
education.

4.

In many areas some individuals are qualified to
instruct by virtue of experience or expertise in
that area, i.e., art, music, etc.

5.

In certain areas (voc. tech.) no degree should be
mandatory.

6.

Part time enables the college to [rely] heavily on
experience and skills often not available with
degrees.

7.

Professional career experience of part-time faculty
in lieu of additional formal education.

8.

In some areas of instruction, teachers with indus­
trial experience may do an excellent job even though
he/she may not have a degree of any kind.

9.

Specialized offerings (i.e., workshops) can and in
many cases should be optimally staffed with part-time
faculty that do not have traditional credentials.

196
10.

Relaxed qualifications for the part-time people
would permit experimentation with a variety of
backgrounds.
We may all be off base.

11.

In applied arts, skill proficiency should receive
greater value than degree education.

12.

Part-time faculty often relate to very specialized
offerings, not part of the "regular" program— about
50 per cent of the time. These instructors must be
almost completely oriented in these requirements
rather than general educationalists.

13.

Since part-time faculty usually only handle "over­
loads," etc., they do not need the organizational
and curriculum "know-how" and administrative under­
standing the full-time instructor must have.
Parttime instructors generally teach what full-time
instructors have developed.

14.

"No" simply as a practical matter— the formal degrees
aren't available among part time.

15.

Current experiences more crucial and useful for
part-time faculty.
It really depends on why part
time are being used.

16.

Part-time faculty, in the applied arts area, ought
to have their background more heavily weighted with
vocational/industrial experience.

17.

Part-time people are hired for subject matter only,

18.

Many community people bring expertise to the college
that is not [and] perhaps could not be obtained on
a full-time basis.
Then qualifications do not
always fit the norm.

19.

Part-time instructors are more likely to be in the
vocational areas and here formal qualifications could
vary.