INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of 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 of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or "target" for 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 with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoingat the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. 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. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. Xerox University Microfilms 300 N orth Z»eb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 I I 73-29,724 KENNEY, Michael John, 1937AN APPRAISAL OF THE DOCTORAL PROGRAMS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND CURRICULUM AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY BASED ON A FOLLOW-UP STUDY OF ITS GRADUATES. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1973 Education, curriculum development University Microfilms, A XEROX Company , Ann A rbor, Michigan AN APPRAISAL OF THE DOCTORAL PROGRAMS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND CURRICULUM AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY BASED ON A FOLLOWUP STUDY OF ITS GRADUATES By Michael J. Kenney A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum 1973 ABSTRACT AN APPRAISAL OP THE DOCTORAL PROGRAMS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND CURRICULUM AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY BASED ON A FOLLOWUP STUDY OF ITS GRADUATES By Michael J. Kenney Purpose This study had two major purposes: (1) to appraise the quality and effectiveness of programs leading to a Doctor of Education or a Doctor of Philosophy degree in the Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum in the College of Education at Michigan State University, and (2) to make recommendations based on the findings of that study which will enable the Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum to strengthen those programs. The study sought (1) information on the educational and professional backgrounds of the graduates, and their present professional status and responsibilities; (2) judgment of graduates concerning selected aspects and phases of their programsi (3) judgments concerning the graduates' personal-professional growth as a direct result of their doctoral programs; (4) judgments of graduates Michael J. Kenney concerning the development of professional competencies; and (5) judgments concerning the value of the dissertation. Procedures Data were gathered by questionnaires from graduates who had received their degrees during the years 1967 to 1972, inclusive. Of 348 graduates in the group to be studied, 274, or 78.7 per cent participated in the study by returning completed questionnaires. Conclusions 1. Graduates have a broad and varied educational and professional background prior to their doctoral study, much of which is in secondary education and secondary and elementary administration. 2. Graduates tend to go on to college or university positions upon completion of their programs. In those positions, they often combine teaching and administrative responsibilities with other professional activities. 3. Graduates are actively involved in providing for curriculum and instructional change. 4. Graduates hold positions of trust and responsibility in educational institutions throughout the United States. 5. Most of the graduetas are satisfied with the major aspects of their doctoral study experience in the College of Education at Michigan State University. Michael J. Kenney 6. Significant numbers of graduates have indicated enough concern about several aspects of their programs to warrant scrutiny by the faculty of the Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum. These nine aspects are considered under the recommendations. Recommendations 1. Selection and admission procedures should be kept under scrutiny to insure the continued matching of students to programs< 2. Consideration should be given to the development of enough latitude within students' programs to enable them to select courses in several widely separated fields. Encouragement of this sort will facilitate dialogue between the varying areas of the College of Education. 3. Coneideration should be given to reviewing the research course requirements, particularly statistics, in order to determine their relevance to the students' pro­ fessional goals and objectives. 4. Coneideration should be given to better disemination of information about comprehensive and oral defense exami­ nations. The procedures for these examinations, and the criteria of evaluation should be provided well in advance of the examination. 5. Coneideration should be given to the creation of more informal opportunities for graduate students and Michael J. Kenney professors to meet and initiate dialogic relationships within the College of Education. 6. Consideration should be given to increasing the opportunities for doctoral candidates to teach while in residence. 7. Consideration should be given to creating oppor­ tunities for doctoral students to meet and to get to know all the professors in the major area before the major area advisor is selected. 8. Consideration should be given to permitting doctoral students a greater voice in planning their programs. The students' competence to appraise his own areas of weakness should be a factor considered in program planning. 9. Consideration should be given to finding ways to lighten the loads of faculty who are working with doctorial students. Personal Reflections The author concludes this study with a brief description of what universal qualities distinguish the doctoral degree. He conclude* that it is much more than the mastery of any particular discipline, that it signals the achievement of a degree of self-reliance and selfactualisation that enables th« recipient to grapple with individual and collective phenomena of human behavior. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his appreciation to those Individuals who helped make this study a reality. Their support sustained and encouraged me during the difficult months of writing. Especially helpful throughout the entire process was Charles A. Blackman, my dodtoral committee chairman, whose unswerving demand for quality was always coupled with patience and warmth. I am also indebted to Dale Alam for his interest and encouragement throughout my residence at Michigan State University. As facilitating persons, I am also especially indebted to William Force and Howard Hickey of the College of Education* Words cannot begin to express my gratitude and love for my wife Mary Jane, my daughter Michelle, and my son Brett for their sacrifice and understanding. I have, indeed, been blessed with the most helpful and rewarding relationships. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF T A B L E S ................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES................................... xiv Chapter I. I NT R OD U C TI O N.......................... Purpose of This Study................. Major Aspects of the P r o b l e m ........ Need for the Study.................... Growth of Michigan State University. . . The College of Education.............. The Department of Secondary Education and C u r r i c u l u m .................... Definition of Selected Terms ............ Abbreviations ........................... Major Assumptions.................... Limitations of This Study . . . . . . Overview............................. II. REVIEW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E .............. 1 4 4 5 6 7 7 11 12 12 13 14 15 The Doctor of Education Degree (Ed.D.) . . 18 The Doctor of Arts D e g r e e ........... 22 Criticism of Doctoral Education 1947-1960 . 23 Criticism Since 1960 ..................... 27 Recommendations....................... 30 Recent Criticism ........................ 31 S u m m a r y ............................. 41 III. METHODOLOGY............................. 44 Introduction.......................... The Questionnaire.................... Organization of the Questionnaire.. . . 44 44 iii 47 Chapter Page Part Part Part Part IV. A B C D ................................ ................................ ....................... ................................. 47 48 48 49 The Pilot Study........................... Reliability.............................. The S u r v e y .............................. Treatment of the Data..................... 49 50 50 52 FINDINGS.................................... 54 Introduction.............................. The Respondents................. Present Positions of Respondents . . . . Academic Background of Respondents . . . Professional Educational Experience of Respondents Before and After Doctorate . Professional Activities of Respondents . . Reasons for Selecting Michigan State University.............................. Judgments Concerning the Broad Aspects of the Respondents' Doctoral Programs. . . Professional Growth ..................... The Di s s e r t a t i o n ........................ V. 54 55 61 67 74 77 79 83 101 125 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................... 139 Summary of F i n d i n g s ..................... 140 The Respondents........................ 140 Respondents' Reactions to the Broad Aspects of Their Programs............... 14 4 Personal-Professional Growth............ The Dissertation. . . . . . . . . 146 151 Discussion of Results..................... Limitations of the Study.................. Conclusions.............................. Recommendations........................... Suggestions for Further Study ............ Personal Reflections ..................... 153 157 158 159 161 16 3 What is a D o c t o r a t e ? .................. 163 BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................... iv . 166 Chapter Page APPENDICES Appendix A. L e t te r * ........................ 170 B. Questionnaire to Graduates.................. 172 C. T a b l e s .................................... 179 v LIST OF TABLES Table 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Page Doctoral Degrees Awarded by Interest Area Within the Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum Fall Term, 1967 to Summer Term, 1972 ................................. 10 Consistency of Response to Questionnaire to Graduates** by Ten Doctoral Candidates in the Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum................................. 51 Number and Per Cent of Questionnaires Returned, Based on Major Area............... 56 Number and Per Cent of Questionnaires Returned, Based on the Academic Years of Graduation................................. 57 Distribution of Respondents by Major Field, Grouped by Years of Graduation ............ 59 Distribution of Respondents by Major Field, by Type of Present Employment............... 60 Present Positions Reported by 274 Respondents by Major Field.............................. 62 Present Positions Reported by 2 74 Respondents According to Years of Graduation............ 65 Undergraduate Majors of Respondents, Ranked by Frequency and Tabulated According to Doctoral Major Field........................ 68 Master's Degree Major Fields of Respondents, Ranked by Frequency and Tabulated According to Doctoral Major........................... 71 vi Page Table 11 . Moat Frequent Master's Colleges/Universities Ranked by Frequency and Tabulated According to Doctoral Major Area ..................... 73 Number of Respondents Reporting Various Types of Professional Experience Prior to the Doctorate and the Mean of Years of Experience in Each Field, Ranked by Frequency . 75 Number of Respondents Reporting Various Types of Professional Experience Following the Doctorate and the Mean of Years of Experience in Each Field, Ranked by Frequency and Tabulated According to Doctoral Major Area 76 Number and Percentage of Respondents Reporting Activities Directly to Changing Educational Processes, and Programs, Reported by Major A r e a ...................................... 78 Reasons Given by Respondents for Their Choice of Michigan State University for Doctoral Work, Ranked by the Frequency of the First or Most Important Reason .................. 80 16. Means of Terms Respondents Spent on Programs 82 17. Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning the Quality of Classroom Instruction in Major Area. 85 Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning the Quality of Classroom Instruction in Other Than the Respondent's Major Field .................. 86 Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning Working Relationship With Committee Members ..................... 88 Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning Opportunities for Dialogue With Graduate Students and/or Professors in Major Area .................. 89 Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning Opportunities to Meet and Carry-On Dialogue With Professors and/or Graduate Students in Areas Other Than the Recipients' Major Field..................... 91 12 . 13. 14. 15. 18. 19. 20 . 21. vii Table 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Page Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning Procedures for Planning Doctoral P r ogram........................... 92 Number and Per Cent of Responses indicating Judgments Concerning Satisfaction With the Experience of the Graduate/Teaching Assistantship.................... 94 Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning Procedures for Selection of Doctoral Committee Members............... 95 Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning Procedures for Compre­ hensive and Oral Defense Examinations . . . 97 Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning the Availability of Committee Members for Consultation . . . . 98 Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning General Working Relationship With Entire Committee . . . . 100 Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning the Opportunity to Develop an Understanding of the Major Issues in Education . . . . . . . . . 102 29. Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning the Opportunity to Develop Strategies for Curriculum and Instructional Change....................... 10 3 30. Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning the Opportunity to Stimulate and Facilitate Change in Education. 105 31. Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning the Development of an Enlarged More Comprehensive Philosophy of E d u c a t i o n .................................... 107 32. Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgment Regarding an Enlarged Philosophy of L i f e ....................................... 109 viii Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning the Development of a Thorough Knowledge of the Respondent's Subject Area ............................. 110 Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning the Opportunity to be Adequately Exposed to Innovative School Programs ................................ 111 Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning the Opportunity to Develop a Sense of Professional Ethics 113 Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning the Opportunity to Develop Skills in Critical Thinking 11 5 Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning the Opportunity to Gain Skills in Interpersonal Relations . 116 Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning the Opportunity to Develop an Understanding of Group Behavior . 11 8 Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning the Opportunity to Do Original and Creative Thinking ............ 120 Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning the Opportunity to be Prepared for a Career in Teaching . 121 Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgment Concerning the Opportunity to Prepare for a Career in Research . 123 Responses to the Question, "Having Now Had the Opportunity to Work With Colleagues From Other Institutions, How Would You Generally Compare Your Preparation at Michigan State University With Theirs?" .................. 124 Number and Per Cent of Responses Concerning the Procedures for Selection and Approval of Dissertation Topic ..................... 126 ix Table 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. C-l. C-2. C-3. Page Number and Per Cent of Responses Concerning the Applicability of Research Preparation to Requirements of the Dissertation .. . 127 Number and Per Cent of Responses Concerning the Oral Defense of the Dissertation. 129 Number and Per Cent of Responses Concerning the Relevance of the Dissertation to the Professional Goals of the Respondents . 130 Number and Per Cent of Respondents Answering the Question, "How Did You Approach the Task of the Dissertation?"............... 132 Responses to the Question, "What Benefit, Other Than Meeting a Program Did You Derive From Writing a Dissertation?" Arranged by Frequency and Tabulated According to Doctoral Major Field ..................... 133 Responses to the Question, "If an Alternative to the Dissertation Had Been Available to You, Would You Have Likely Chosen It Over the Dissertation?"........................ 135 Responses to the Question, "How Did Your Committee Regard the Purposes of the Dissertation?" ........................... 136 Number of Responses to "Other" in Regard to the Question, "How Did Your Committee Regard the Purposes of Dissertations?" . . . . 138 Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the Quality of Classroom Instruction in Their Major A r e a s .............................. 179 Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the Quality of Classroom Instruction in Other A r e a s .................................... 180 Respondents' Written Comments Concerning Their Working Relationship With Committee M e m b e r s ................................. 181 x Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the Opportunities for Dialogue With Oraduate Students and/or Professors in Major Area . 162 Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the Opportunities to Meet and Carry-On Dialogue With Professors and Graduate Students in Other Areas Within the College . . . » 183 Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the Procedures for Planning a Doctoral Program ................................. 164 Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the Experience of the Graduate/Teaching Assistantship ........................... 185 Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the Procedures for Selection of Doctoral Committee Members........................ 186 Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the Procedures for Comprehensive and Oral Defense Examinations..................... 187 Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the Availability of Committee Members for Consultation ........................... 188 Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the General Working Relationship With Entire Committee .............................. 18 9 Respondents' Comments Concerning the Opportunity to Develop an Understanding of the Major Issues in Education............ 190 Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the Opportunity to Develop Strategies for Curriculum and Instructional Change. 191 Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the Opportunity to Develop an Enlarged More Comprehensive Philosophy of Education . . 192 Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the Opportunity to Develop an Enlarged Philosophy of Life ..................... 193 xi Respondents1 Written Comments Concerning the Opportunity to Develop a Thorough Knowledge of Subject Area ........................... 194 Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the Opportunity to be Adequately Exposed to Innovative School Programs in Major Area. 195 Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the Opportunity to Develop a Sense of Professional Ethics........................ 196 Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the Opportunity to Develop Skills in Critical Thinking ................................. 197 Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the Opportunity to Gain Skills in Interpersonal Relations ................................. 198 Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the Opportunity to Develop an Understanding of Group Behavior ........................... 19 9 Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the Opportunity to Stimulate and Facilitate Change in Education........................ 200 Respondents* Written Comments Concerning the Opportunity to Do Original and Creative Thinking ................................. 201 Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the Opportunity to Prepare for a Career in Teaching ................................. 202 Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the Opportunity to Prepare for a Career in Research ................................. 203 Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the Procedure for Selection and Approval of Dissertation Topic ........................ 204 Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the Applicability of Research Preparation to Requirements of the Dissertation . 205 xii Table Page C-28. Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the Oral Defense of Dissertation..................206 C-29. Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the Relevance of the Dissertation to Professional Goals ........................ xiii 207 LIST OP FIGURES Figure 1. 2. Page Doctoral Degrees Awarded at Michigan State University 1947-1972 .................. 8 Doctoral Degrees Awarded in the College of Education at Michigan State University 1947-1972.............................. 9 xiv CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The twentieth century has borne witness to the phenomenal expansion of graduate education in the United States. This unparalleled growth has reflected the development of colleges and universities as a whole and has been accentuated especially in the years following World War II. The demands of society on institutions of higher learning, coupled with the numbers of returning war veterans have prompted colleges and universities to expand their programs in graduate education. An illustration of this growth is that from 1900 to 1966 enrollment in higher education increased from 237,000 to 5,947,000.* spectacular was the growth of graduate education. Even more From 1900 to 1966, the number of graduate students increased Charles J. Anderson, ed., A Fact Book on Higher Education (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1967), p. 53. 1 2 from 5,800 to 630,000, revealing the fact that graduate education has almost doubled each decade. 2 Doctoral programs in colleges and universities have been particularly affected by this growth. In 19 00, three hundred and eighty-two doctoral degrees were awarded in the United States. By 1968, the number of doctoral degrees awarded had risen to 2 3,091, reflecting the growth of higher education as a whole. Doctoral programs have doubled their graduates each decade. 3 '4 The growth of doctoral programs throughout the United States has not taken place without an accompanying scholarly dialogue about the purposes and objectives of graduate education. Doctoral programs, like a great many facets of the university experience, have been subjected, in recent years, to increasing scrutiny by the students and faculties of our nation's universities. The students * demands for "relevancy" in their programs, coupled with the faculty's concern for the adequate preparation of their doctoral candidates, have brought all phases of doctoral programs under question. Surveys, in recent years, have 2 Charles J. Anderson, ed., A Fact Book on Higher Education (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1968), p. 8005. 3 Otis A. Singltary, ed., American Colleges and Universities, 10th edition (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1968), pp. 1692-1693. 4 Publications Division, A Fact Book on Higher Education, Issue No. 4 (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1969), p. 9189. 3 pointed to the problems of prolonged duration, attrition, and the numbers of ABD's (All But Dissertation) within the C C context of the doctoral experience. ' Certain scholars, reacting to the findings of these studies, have proposed and initiated new approaches to doctoral training. The most noteworthy of these efforts are the Doctor of Arts degree programs, the revitalization of the Doctor of Edu­ cation degree, and efforts to modify the traditionally required dissertation. While it is not the purpose of this study to highlight the development of these innovative practices, it is important to take note of their impact on institutions of higher education in the United States. Along with these recent departures in doctoral education a growing body of literature continues to speak to the adequacy of doctoral programs. While a review of this literature may underscore the need for on-going evaluations of doctoral programs, the challenge of conducting appraisals of specific insti­ tutions and/or program areas continues. 5 Bernard Berelson, Graduate Education in the United States (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1966). ^Natalie Sproull, "Prolonged Duration, Attrition, Research Communication, and Research Preparation of Doctoral Candidates in Education at Michigan State Uni­ versity" (Occasional paper No. 17, Office of Research Communication, School for Advanced Studies, College of Education, Michigan State University, January, 1972). 4 Purpose of This Study The purposes of this study are: (1) to appraise the quality and effectiveness of the programs leading to a Doctor of Education or a Doctor of Philosophy degree in the Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum in the College of Education at Michigan State University, and (2) to make recommendations based on the findings of that study which will enable the Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum to strengthen those programs. Major Aspects of the Problem In order to gain the comprehensive information upon which sound judgments and recommendations can be made the following aspects of the problem will be investigated: 1. What do we know about the recent doctoral recipi­ ent?: his educational and professional background; his professional experience since graduation; his reasons for selecting Michigan State? 2. How do recent recipients appraise their own programs? What aspects and phases of their programs do they feel need improvement, were adequate, or were outstanding? 3. How do recent recipients appraise their personalprofessional growth as a direct result of the experience of their programs? How well do they 5 think their programs developed professional competencies? 4. How do recent recipients view the educational value of their doctoral dissertation experience?: their satisfaction with topic selection procedures; their working-relationships with doctoral committee while writing a dissertation; their satisfaction with the oral defense of dissertation; their satisfaction with the total experience? Need for the Study The phenomenal growth of doctoral programs through­ out the United States and, specifically, in the College of Education at Michigan State University has taken place in a nation and s ite that are undergoing severe social and economic changes. The pressures on the university to not only supply an adequate number of doctoral graduates but to prepare them to grapple with the dynamic nature of today's world is, indeed, great. Because of this, it is imperative that departments within the College of Education seek to determine how effective their programs have been for their doctoral graduates. The information gained in this study, along with its recommendations, should be of great value to the Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum and to the College of Education at Michigan State Uni­ versity. 6 As a major degree granting institution, Michigan State University and the College of Education are preparing doctoral candidates who will face a rapidly changing society. Perhaps, as never before, doctoral preparation has an important place in society. It has now been clearly enunciated that ^graduate education has now received clearcut recognition of its importance as a national resource." 7 Growth of Michigan State University The growth of Michigan State University is charac­ teristic of the growth of higher education in the United States. Nowhere has this growth been more dramatic than in the area of graduate education. Granting its first four masters degrees in 1883 and its first doctorate forty-two years later in 1925, Michigan State University has gone on g to become a major graduate university. Since 1925, Michigan State University has awarded 6,656 doctoral 9 degrees in fifty-two major departments. Milton E. Muelder, the Dean of Michigan State Uni­ versity's Graduate School, reported in September, 1972 7 Everett Walters, "Editor's Introduction," in Graduate Education Today, edited by Everett Walters (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1965), p. 4. g This is Michigan State University! 1973 Fact Book, Compiled by the bepartment of Information Services, W. Lowell TreaBter, Director, p. 31. 9lbid., p. 32. 7 that figures from the Office of Education in Washington " . . . show that for the decade 1960-1970 the aggregate number of doctoral degrees placed Michigan State University eleventh in the nation; two years ago, i.e., 1969-70 (the latest national data available), Michigan State University produced the sixth largest number of doctoral degrees of any U.S. university."10 The College of Education The College of Education has played a leading role in the growth of the university. Beginning in 1947-1948 with the awarding of three doctorates, the number by 1972 had grown to 269.11 In the past five academic years, those years isolated for this study, the College of Education has granted 969 Ed.D/Ph.D. degrees. 12 The Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum The Department of Secondary Education and Cur­ riculum is composed of the following interest areas: Agricultural Education, Education, (1) (2) Business and Distribution (3) Comparative and International Education, 10Milton E. Muelder, "Graduate Education: Orien­ tation for New Faculty, The Graduate School" (Unpublished report, Michigan State University, September 13, 1972) , p. 3. 11Final Degree Lists, Graduate Affairs Office, 252 Erickson HalX, Walter Scott, Coordinator. 12Ibid. 8 800 750 700 650 No. of Doctoral Graduates 60 0 550 500 45 0 400 350 300 25 0 200 150 100 50 1946-47 Figure 1. 1 9 5 1 -5 2 195 6-57 196 1-62 1966-67 1971-72 Doctoral Degrees Awarded at Michigan State University 194 7-1 9 7 2 . 9 300 — 275 “ 250 “ 225 “ 200 “ 175 — 150 — 125 “ 100 75 50 25 1946-47 Figure 2. 1951-52 1956-57 1961-62 1966-67 1971-72 Doctoral Degreee Awarded in the College of Education at Michigan State University 1947-1972. (4) Curriculum, (5) History, Philosophy, and Sociology of Education, (6) Industrial Education, (7) Instructional Development and Technology, (8) Secondary Education, (9) Vocational and Technical Education, and (10) Driver-Traffic Safety. This department is unique in its scope and in the numbers of faculty members and graduate students. Since the conclusion of the fall term of 1967 this department has 13 awarded 348 Ed.D./Ph.D. degrees. A table illustrating the growth of doctoral education by interest area follows. 13lbid. 10 TABLB 1.— Doctoral Degrees Awarded by Interest Area Within the Department of Secondary Education and Cur­ riculum Fall Term, 1967 to Summer Term, 1972. Interest Area Doctoral Recipients Agriculture Education 20 Business and Distribution Education 28 Comparative and International Education Curriculum 9 115 History, Philosophy, Sociology of Education 43 Industrial Education 10 Instructional Development and Technology 26 Secondary Education 65 Vocational and Technical Education Driver-Traffic Safety Total 5 27 348 11 Definition of Selected Terms In an effort to diminish misunderstandings and to avoid repetition, definitions of certain key terms and abbreviations follow. Doctoral committee.— Those instructors, assistant professors, associate professors, full professors and/or administrators in the College of Education and throughout the University who have been officially constituted into an advisory committee for a doctoral student. Recent recipient.— Any holder of an Ed.D. or Ph.D. degree from the College of Education at Michigan State University who has earned that degree from the fall term of 1967 through the summer term of 1972. Doctoral process.— All phases and aspects involved in the completion of the requirements for a Ph.D./Ed.D. degree in the College of Education at Michigan State Uni­ versity. Those phases include: {1} the selection process, (2) formulation of an official doctoral committee, (3) academic course work, (4) comprehensive examination, (5) selection of a dissertation topic, (6) submitting a disser­ tation proposal for approval, (7) writing a dissertation, (8) oral defense of a dissertation. Dissertation process.— All phases and aspects of completing a doctoral dissertation. aspects include: These phases and (1) research preparation, (2) selection of dissertation topic, (3) preparing and submitting 12 dissertation proposal, (4) writing dissertation, and (5) oral defense of dissertation. Abbreviations The following abbreviations will appear throughout this study: Ag. Ed. Agricultural Education Bus. Dist. Ed. Business and Education Distributive Int. Ed. Comparative and International Education Curr. Curriculum Hist., Phil., Ed. History, Philosophy, and Sociology of Education Ind. Ed. Industrial Education InBt. Dev. Instructional Development and Technology Sec. Ed. Secondary Education Voc. Ed. Vocational and Technical Education Driver Ed. Driver-Traffic Safety Major Assumptions In order to understand the basis for this study the following basic assumptions are made: 1. Recent recipients of doctoral degrees are capable of appraising the value of their own experiences. In the light of their experiences as professional practitioners, university instructors and/or 13 university administrators they, in retrospect, can evaluate their doctoral training and experiences. 2. A questionnaire administrated as a follow-up study of recent recipients is a useful and practical way to gather information which will be helpful in strengthening doctoral programs. 3. A questionnaire, in spite of its limitations, will serve to provide useful data which will be reasonably valid for the purposes of this study. Gilbert Sax notes the major advantages of the questionnaire: The major advantage of the questionnaire is one of economy. Because many questionnaires are sent through the mail, the expense and time in training interviewers and sending them personally to inter­ view each respondent are diminished. The use of the mails in sending out question­ naires means that more persons can be contacted. Another advantage of the questionnaire is that each respondent receives the same set of questions phrased in exactly the same way.14 Limitations of This Study Unfortunately this study will not delve into many of the controversies surrounding graduate education and doctoral programs. Those controversies include the debate over the proliferation of doctoral degree programs, the dialogue surrounding "career" oriented programs, and the 14 Gilbert Sax, Empirical Foundations of Education Research (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968), pp. 214-15. 14 conflicting purposes of the doctoral dissertation. While those aspects of the controversy certainly merit exami­ nation, the topics of this study concern perceptions of recent recipients toward the value of the major aspects and phases of their experience. This investigation will not, for instance, examine alternative doctoral programs nor will it question recipients of doctoral degrees who graduated prior to Fall Term, 1967. This study is limited to doctoral graduates from the Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum from Fall Term, 1967 through Summer Term, 1972, inclusive. This study is also limited to selected experiences within doctoral programs. Overview The format of this study will consist of five chapters. A brief description of the contents of each chapter follows: The significance of this study along with general questions to be answered is given in Chapter I. In Chapter II, a review of relevant and related literature will be presented. Chapter III includes a presentation of the research design, instrumentation, and techniques used in this study. A presentation of the findings is included in Chapter IV. Chapter V consists of implications, recom­ mendations, and conclusions. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE As the twentieth century began, the university and the concept of graduate education were firmly established in the United States. After a slow development throughout the nineteenth century, universities patterned after both English and German models met the new century with established programs leading to Bachelors, Masters, and Doctoral degrees. The foundation for the phenomenal growth of the twentieth century was set. The seeds of problems, later to be faced in American graduate education, were, however, already sown. The major source of the problems, dealt with by scholars throughout this century, lay in the very origins of American universities. The concepts that governed the dimensions and directions of universities patterned after European models were at odds with one another from the start and, at first, these differences seemed irreconcilable. The beginnings of the controversy pitted the German concept of graduate education, which emphasized original research, against the English model 15 16 whose graduate programs emphasized educational programs aimed almost exclusively at public service.^ This controversy over the basic purposes of graduate education has continued to the present day and in the past two decades has been accompanied by a growing number of scholars who have become interested in the standardization of the requirements for the Ph.D. degree. 2 In spite of the differences between scholars over the purposes of doctoral education, the Ph.D. degree, perhaps more than any other factor, represents a unifying force in graduate schools. This tenuous unity iB partly explained by the fact that it has become a symbol of prestige for the graduate schools as well as for the recipient. The graduate school has achieved a unique place among the schools of the universities. Its graduates, the Ph.D. holders, occupy a position of prestige that can­ not be matched by those in other divisions.3 The preatige of the Ph.D. degree, however, goes far beyond the university that grants them. D. C. Spriestersbach, "The Place of the Disser­ tation in the Training of Graduate Students" (speech before the Council of Graduate Schools of the United States, Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting, Miami Beach, Florida, December 2, 1970). 2 Berelson, op. cit., p. 16. 3 Oliver Carmichael, Graduate Education: A Critique and a Program (New Yorki Harper and Brothers, Publishers, iren, p.'' so. 17 The Doctor of Philosophy degree in the United States has a unique status. . . . Government, business, and industry . . . hold it in high esteem and employ almost one-half of those produced by the universities each year.4 In several ways, the controversies surrounding the Ph.D. degree have gone beyond the original dichotomy of the English and German models. A review of the literature discloses a growing concern of many educators about the trends, as they perceive them, in the thrusts of doctoral programs. Many of these scholars have discerned threatening trends in Ph.D. programs, in particular, which, they fear, will have detrimental effects on program standards and consequently on the presige of that degree in the nation and the world. The graduate schools have clung to the concept that the degree should be awarded as a result of training in research, after an original contribution to knowledge. Those concerned with undergraduate teaching, by con­ trast, believe that holders of the degree should have a broad general education with emphasis on how to teach. . . . Others believe that the graduate school should furnish the Ph.D. candidate a more liberalized experience in his training, and more freedom to engage in research and scholarly activity, than is now provided.5 A common threat to the prestige of the Ph.D. degree, as seen by many scholars, is the trend to award it in an increasing number of areas. Failing to restrict the degree to certain historic fields may, according to these 4Ibid., p. 119. 5 Charles M. Grigg, Graduate Education (New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1965), p. 60. 18 scholars, tend to devalue the degree. however, is not universal. as a definite strength. This point of view, Other scholars see this trend They feel the flexibility and adaptability of the degree is a measure of its viability in a changing world. "The strength of the Ph.D. program rests in the fact that it is flexible and that, as knowledge increases and the demands for specialization in research programs develop, faculty and students are competent to £ adjust to the training accordingly." The Doctor of Education Degree (Ed.D.) The debate over the purposes of the Ph.D. degree; whether it should be restricted to certain traditional areas; whether it should be in pursuit of an original contribution to knowledge; whether, under its umbrella, preparation for a career in teaching could be adequately undertaken; whether its main thrusts are to be directed toward research preparation; had a dramatic effect on graduate education in the early twenties. In 1921, the Harvard Graduate School of Education granted its first Ed.D. degree. This degree was established as a professional degree designed solely for those candidates who sought a 6Henry E. Bent, "The Meaning of the Ph.D. Degree," Journal of Higher Education, XXXIII, No. 1 (January, 1962), 19 career in education as professional practitioners. In the beginning, the distinction between the Ph.D. and the Ed.D. degrees was explicit. Those candidates who elected to undertake research into the many facets of education would continue to pursue a Ph.D. program. Those doctoral candi­ dates preparing for careers as school administrators and supervisors, by pursuing a doctor of education degree program, would become involved in "projects'* that would bring them face to face with educational practices and g programs in the field. Harvard's Ed.D. degree concept was emulated by colleges and universities throughout the United States. Despite its popularity as a degree, the original purposes of the Ed.D. degree became obscured as it was broadly accepted. As time passed, there were fewer and fewer distinctions that could be drawn between theBe two degrees. "Even the 'doctoral projects* associated with the Ed.D. degree which were developed initially as alternatives have taken on the 'aura' of respectability in most insti­ tutions. 7 Walter Crosby Eells, Degrees in Higher Education (New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1963), p. 28. g John W. Ashton, "Other Doctorates," Graduate Edu­ cation Today, edited by Everett Walters (Washington, D.C.: American douncil on Education, 1965), p. 66. g David Williams, "Stop the Dissertation," Edu­ cational Leadership, XXVIII, No. 7 (April, 1971), 753. 20 In I960, it was reported that twice as many Ed.D. degrees were awarded in graduate schools of education as were Ph.D. degrees. ^ It was also reported that colleges of education tended to stress one degree over the other and that institutions were demonstrating trends to offer one degree in exclusion of the other. 12 In comparing the Ph.D. programs in existence in 1965, Strauss made the following observation: "The evidence indicates that, among subjects studied, those who had earned the Ph.D. in education were probably very similar." 13 Strauss and Williams have both concluded that little difference presently exists to differentiate Ed.D. programs from Ph.D. programs. A definite trend on the part of graduate schools of education to the Ph.D. degree in preference to the Ed.D. was later observed by Stephan Spurr. He called attention to the fact that the "low status" in which the degree is held in the academic world is caused by the very advantages of the Ed.D. degree. He summarized these advantages: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, The Doctorate in Education, I (Washington, D.C.: The Association, 1960-61), p. 110. 11Ibid. 12Ibid. , p. 3. 13Samual Strauss, "On the Doctorate in Education," The Journal of Teacher Education, XVI, No. 1 (March, 1965), i n : ---------------------------------------- 21 1. It allows the admission of students considered competent and promising by the faculty in education but whose academic qualifications are such that they cannot be admitted by the graduate school controlling the Ph.D. program. 2. The degree serves to circumvent the traditional language requirement of the graduate school. 3. The degree offers a wider range of independent projects than is possible under the traditional Ph.D. requirements of a dissertation based on original research. 4. The Ed.D. degree provides a doctorate in a subject matter field for students who successfully pass the comprehensive examination for the Ph.D., but who submit an expository dissertation on some aspect of teaching that subject rather than a research dissertation on the subject itself. 5. The Ed.D. degree programs reduced the time required to earn a doctorate.14 Spurr concludes that, however laudatory, these Ed.D. characteristics, they have served to give that degree a second-class citizenship in the academic world. 15 It is not the purpose of this study to dwell at great length on the evolution of the Ed.D. degree programs, but merely to document the concern of scholars about what they perceive sb a decline in the opportunities for viable optional doctoral experiences. Adding to this concern was a 19 71 study by Phi Delta Kappa and the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. In this study, after an extensive survey, it was concluded that institutions that had set-up new doctoral programs in education since 1959 were actually less adventuresome in their programs 14Stephan Spurr, Academic Degree Structuresi Innovative Approaches (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1965}, p. 135. 15Ibid., p. 135. 22 than those that were operating prior to that date. ThlB study went on to state, "The hope that new doctoral programs might be more innovative than old ones vanished with the discovery that'all require dissertations for degree fulfillment."16 The Doctor of Arts Degree The desire for an alternative doctoral degree that will prepare candidates for a career in college teaching is, partially, a response to the disappointments with the Ed.D. The renewed criticism of the lack of latitude within the Ph.D. framework has found fruition in this new concept of doctoral study. In recent years, the Doctor of Arts degree has been widely accepted. In reference to this degree concept, the Committee on Preparation of College Teachers of the Council of Graduate Schools in the United States has declared, "Relevance is achieved only if the degree structure is appropriate to the career aims and possibilities of the students."^ Neville Robertson and Jack Sistler, The Doctorate in Education; Vol. 1, The Institutions (Bloomington, Ind.: Phi Delta Kappa T n ^ tne American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1971), p. 10. 17 "The Doctor of Arts Degree," The Council of Graduate Schools in the United States, Committee on Preparation of College Teachers, December 5, 19*9 (phamplet). 23 Specifically, the committee reports, programs leading to a Doctor of Arte degree are designed to develop a mastery of subject matter, to expose the candidate to relevant areas in higher education, to involve the student in a teaching internship, and to give the student an opportunity to demonstrate a capacity for scholarship. 1B By late 1971, a total of seventy-six institutions were offering, or were planning to offer, the Doctor of Arts Degree. 19 Yet, in spite of the introduction of alternative doctoral degree programs which, in their beginnings at least, attempted to provide viable options for doctoral students, criticism has intensified. Criticism of Doctoral Education ---------------m i - I T CT'--------------- As stated before, the ending of World War II brought waves of returning war veterans to American uni­ versities. The effects of this sudden invasion were felt throughout the university, and the graduate and doctoral programs of those universities were particularly affected. The pressures to accommodate and to prepare doctoral candi­ dates adequately were enormous. In this expanding post-war 18Ibid. 19 Robert H. Koenker, "Status of the Doctor of Arts Degree Programs for Preparing Junior College and College Teachers" (Unpublished report, Ball State University, November 22, 1971). 24 period the debate over doctoral preparation was renewed with increased vigor and, in effect, highlighted the conflict that is still going on. In 19 47, the President's Commission on Higher Edu­ cation held hearings on the programs of graduate education in the United States. As a result of these deliberations, the Commission reported its findings to the public. As in the case of many subsequent studies of graduate education, much of the criticism of this Commission dealt with the preparation of college teachers. The Commission was critical of the requirements for advanced degrees, the types of instruction, the lack of innovative programs to prepare college teachers, and the absence of proper student guidance personnel. 20 The results of this report caused many colleges of education to reexamine the adequacy of their program and many doctoral candidates turned to their own experiences within their doctoral programs in an effort to access the quality of those experiences. It iB inter­ esting to note that between 1947 and 1960, ten doctoral candidates in colleges of education choose to evaluate the doctoral program they were part of for their dissertation. The conclusions of their studies, like the President's 20 President's Commission on Higher Education, "Staffing Higher Education," Higher Education for American Democracy (New York: Harper ana Brothers, Publishers, T94 7 m v , pp. 1-12. 25 Commission, spoke to the adequacy and relevance of doctoral programs in education. 21 The conclusions of these studies called attention to the need for constant evaluation, to the lack of guidance in doctoral programs, to the need for more flexibility within doctoral programs, to the need for more oppor­ tunities for dialogic relationships with professors and other graduate students, to the need for the practical application of theory to practice, to the need for improved placement services, and to the need for interdisciplinary seminars.22 During the 1950s, there were a number of conferences on graduate education. A review of the reports of these conferences reveals that they were critical of graduate programs for inadequately preparing doctoral candidates for careers in college teaching. In 1950, Blegen and Cooper summarized the findings of a conference on the challenges and problems of college teaching. They looked at these problems as matters that could be directly addressed by graduate schools. 2 3 21 Gerald H. Doty, "An Appraisal of the Program Leading to the Doctor of Education Degree at Indiana Uni­ versity, Based on a Follow-Up Study of Its Graduates" (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1962), pp. 11-15. 22Ibid., p. 15. 23Theodore C. Blegen and Russel M. Cooper, eds., The Preparation of College Teachers (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 19'5b), p. iii. 26 In another study, graduate schools were taken to task for their reluctance to devise new programs for uni­ versity instructors. "The graduate school should recognize college teaching as an important profession and take seriously the obligations to prepare practitioners for The Research Division of the National Education Association in 1957, reported concern over the quality of graduate education leading to college teaching. This study emphasized that programs must be developed that will incorporate experiences that will genuinely develop teaching skills. 2 5 In 1959, Lockers made an evaluation of the doctoral program in the College of Education at the University of Michigan. 26 The study was based on returns from 276 or 85.6 per cent of the graduates who had received the 24 Fred J. Kelly, ed., Toward Better College Teaching {Washington, D.C.: United States Office of Edu­ cation, 1950) , p. 13. 25 National Education Association, "Teacher Supply and Demand in Colleges and Universities, 1955-56 and 1956-57" (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1957), p. 17. 26 R. J. Lockers, "An Evaluation of the Doctoral Program in Education at the University of Michigan in Terms of Fulfillment of the Expectations of the Recipients and the Expectations of the University" {Unpublished doctor's thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1959), p. 236. 27 doctorate prior to 1956. His findings which are pertinent to this study were: a. b. c. d. Of those graduates questioned, 90 per cent were in some phase of education with 71 per cent in higher education and 12 per cent in the public school system. Recipients were generally satisfied with their positions. Recipients viewed the skill of critical thinking aB the most important aspect of their training. A majority of the graduates favored interdisci­ plinary graduate seminars and broad preparation in cognate fields and advocated less emphasis on statistics and research. The decade of the fifties concluded with not only the persistant problems of the past, but with the emergence of a need for a comprehensive view of graduate education in the United States. That view was provided, in 1960, by Bernard Berelson. Criticism Since 1960 Supported by a grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, BereIson's study was the most comprehensive examination of graduate education ever undertaken. This important work examined the beginnings of graduate edu­ cation in European universities and traced its evolution up to 1960. In addition to this historical narrative on graduate education, Berelson sought to study most aspects of graduate education in modern American universities. In this study, he gathered data from graduate deans, graduate faculties, and graduate recipients. 28 Berelson1s study covered the entire spectrum of graduate education and many of his findings are, therefore, not applicable to this study. There remains however, a great deal of information that does lend itself to this particular appraisal. His recommendations concerning doctoral programs are especially germain. Those recommendations are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The time limit to doctoral programs should be held to four years. Most of this time should be spent by the candidate on the college or university campus. The latitude within doctoral programs should be narrowed. He advocated less independent work and more concentration in a central core area. The dissertation was, with alarming frequency, much too long. He recommended that dissertations be no longer than 100 pages as a median. The final examination (oral defense) is, in most cases, a formality and ought to be replaced by a ceremonial of some kind. He suggested that the candidate deliver a lecture on the findings of his study. There was a need for agreement between universities on financial assistance through graduate or teach­ ing assistantships for doctoral candidates who required them. Berelson was concerned about the number of ABD's in existance. He recommended that some way be found to encourage those who had not completed their dissertation to do so. In the selection of more qualified candidates, graduate schools should be more systematic and energetic in their recruiting and selection procedures. Berelson cited this as the greatest need. Berelson's interviews with graduate deans and graduate faculties lead him to conclude that doctoral candidates were deficient in their writing abilities. To correct this problem, Berelson recommended that writing workshops staffed by capable editors, would assist doctoral candidates who were approaching the task of the dissertation. 29 9. 10. 11. To encourage the development of dialogic relation­ ships between graduate students from differing areas of interest social centers should be made available, All doctoral candidates should do some teaching as a part of their programs. In this recommendation he suggested an intermediate degree between the master's and the doctorate. This "new" degree would serve two purposes. In the first case it would encourage study beyond the master's by those students who had no plans for a doctorate. In the second case, it would give recognition to those individuals who had completed all the requirements for a doctorate with the exception of the dissertation.27 A year after the publication of Berelson's study the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education published an extensive two volume study, The Doctorate in Education.28 This study, like Berelson*s, was underwritten by the Carnegie Corporation of New York, and sought to piece together a comprehensive view of graduate education in America. Some of the findings reported in Volume I that « relate directly to this study are provided below: 1. Less than half of all doctoral candidates were employed as teachers directly before their involve­ ment in a doctoral program. 2. A perceivable trend was discovered in the careers of doctoral candidates from teaching to non-teaching activities. 3. The most important reasons students gave for the choice of the college or university in which to do their doctoral work were (1) reputation of staff members, (2) proximity. 27Berelson, op. cit., p. 346. 28 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Edu cation. The Doctorate in Education. Vol. I . The Graduate (Washington, D.C.: The Association, 1960-1961), p. 110. 30 4. While there were differences in the responses of individual graduate students from different insti­ tutions they generally responded favorably to their experience. A study having a close relationship to this one was undertaken by Gerald Doty in 19 62 in which he sought to determine the quality and effectiveness of the program leading to the Doctor of Education Degree at Indiana University. 30 The population under study were the 445 gradu­ ates of the College of Education at Indiana University who had earned their Doctor of Education Degrees between 19 50 and 1960. A total of 408, or 91.7 per cent, of these recipients participated in the study. findings according to major fields. Doty reported his His findings and recommendations are pertinent to this study. a. b. c. d. They are: Recent recipients of doctoral programs have broad and varied backgrounds of professional and edu­ cational experience. Most graduates combine teaching and/or adminis­ tration with other professional activities. Recipients hold many important positions of trust and responsibility. Recipients seemed satisfied with their professional, social, and financial position. Recommendations a. b. More preparation in research and statistics should be required. Consideration should be given to increasing the amount of independent work and creating teaching experiences in the programs of doctoral candidates. 29Ibid., p. 3. ^°Doty, oj>, cit., p. 99. 31 c. d. e. Colleges of education should consider the value of giving students a voice in the formulation of their programs. Courses such as humanities, physical sciences, and social sciences ought to be included in the programs of students who require a broad knowledge of them. The doctoral committee loads of faculty members ought to be lightened. Recent Criticism In 19 65, Vernon Broertjes of Indiana University conducted a study of the forty doctoral graduates of the program in higher education. He made the following recommendations for the doctoral program in higher education at Indiana University. Those recommendations were: a. Course offerings in research, particularly sta­ tistics, should be more suitable to the needs of students. b. The number of faculty members in Higher Education at Indiana University should be increased in order to lighten the loads of individual faculty members. c. The planning of student programs should be under­ taken with a view to insuring that voids in the students' professional education are filled in a manner supporting the interdisciplinary character of the program. d. The requirement for teaching experience should be considered by the graduate student and his advisor. e. Efforts should be made to determine inadequacies in placement services, counseling, and guidance for doctoral students. 31Vernon Harry Broertjes, "An Appraisal of the Doctoral Program in Higher Education in the School of Edu­ cation, Indiana University, Based on a Follow-Up Study of Its Graduates" (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1965), p. 122. 32Ibid., p. 100. 32 The criticism aimed at graduate education and doctoral programs has intensified in the past decade of the sixties. Some of this criticism has been sharply denouncing and calls for broad revolutionary changes in doctoral programs. In a strong attack upon what Arrowsmith calls "the shame of the graduate school," he charges that "The Humane fields are being dehumanized because they have designed their programs to emulate the scientific methods and narrow specialization of the sciences." 33 He goes on to call for the creation of graduate programs that lend themselves to the diverse needs of the graduate student body. In a less vehement but equally critical statement, Ann Heiss calls attention to institutional paralysis in the face of a changing society in regard to Ph.D. programs. Although graduate departments have periodically tinkered with reform in their advanced programs, the Ph.D. process as a whole has remained practically impervious to substantial change since its inception in the early 1900's. Course offerings have expanded, but few systematic attempts have been made to revise the requirements or to examine the extent to which doctoral programs need adjustment in order to prepare today's scholars for the challenge of new technologies, or to give them an understanding of the new ethos stirring in America. Tradition sits securely in the chairs of most graduate departments.3* 33W . Arrowsmith, The Shame of the Graduate Schools (New York: Harpers, 1966), p. 51. 34Ann M, Heiss, Challenges to Graduate Schools (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., Publishers, 1970), p. 6. 33 She goes on, in an effort to ferrett out the "root" causes of this institutional reluctance to change. One of the important forces in this general reluctance, according to Heiss, lies in the origins of American uni­ versities . Efforts to bring about fundamental changes in the Ph.D. program have usually been aborted by the spector of "lowering standards'1; graduate schools continue to find security and comfort in models imported nearly a century ago from Europe— the birthplace of formal uni­ versity education. The fact that the model is no longer viable— even for Europe--makes some academicians uneasy, but few have been uneasy enough to mount a full scale campaign for basic change.35 Ann Heiss envisages a "solidarity" among graduate schools in their reluctance to change. This "solidarity" is reflected in " . . . the monotonous rhetoric of their graduate catalogs, in the unimaginative rituals that have lost their symbolic meaning, and in organizational structures that narrowly educate and artifically separate scholars." 36 The literature of doctoral education in the United States reflects many of the above criticisms. This liter­ ature focuses attention on imbalance between research preparation and preparation for teaching, on a preoccu­ pation with highly specialized techniques at the expense of educational experiences that relate to everyday problems of the professional practitioner and college instructor, and on the effort to emphasize skills to the detriment of 35Ibid., p. 7. 36Ibid., p. 8. 34 imaginative thinking. Building on this imbalance, T. R. McConnell states that doctoral programs " . . . that accept systematic cognition as the only legitimate instrument of knowledge fail to understand that reason is capable of reducing human experience and human values to juiceless formality, lifeless logic, and unfeeling abstraction." 37 Other scholars have discovered a similar resistance to change in doctoral programs in American universities. Efforts to alter the basic character of doctoral degrees to better meet student's needs, as perceived by these scholars, have, in their opinion, regularly failed to secure the approval of those who designed their programs. Those changes that have occurred within the past decade; (1) relaxation of the language requirement, (2) abandonment of the publication requirement of the dissertation, and (3) relaxation and elimination of certain examination require­ ments, (e.g., the General College Examination at Michigan State University) have, in the opinion of these scholars, been superficial changes at best and have failed to alter the basic experiences of the doctoral students. 38 37 T. R. McConnell, "The Individual and the Organized University" (paper read at the Seminar on Organization and Administration, University of Toledo, October 30, 1969) . 38Moody Prior, "The Doctor of Philosophy Degree," Graduate Education Today, edited by Everett Halters (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 196 5), p. 31. 35 Many scholars have called attention to specific aspects of the doctoral process and question their validity in the adequate preparations of doctoral candidates. One of the aspects often pointed to is the doctoral disser­ tation. David Williams, a critic of the dissertation, asks "How can we project a more adequate program of graduate studies on the post master's level without calling into attention the question of requiring a dissertation?" 39 It is his contention that "unbelievable shams and hypocrisies" surround the dissertation process. He goes on to answer his own query, "If doctoral students are to confront problems logically and express themselves intelligently, a modicum of human contact and personal reflection is likely to prove more nourishing than the dissertation or doctoral project." 40 Williams envisages the death of the dissertation which, in his opinion, will emancipate doctoral students and allow them to become involved in experiences directly related to their individual needs and career aims. 41 The Council of Graduate Schools, however, does not share this belief. In a report cited by Spriesterbach, the Council viewed the dissertation as "the mark of highest achievement in preparation for creative scholarship and research, often in association with a career in teaching at a university or a college." ^Williams, 0 £. 40Ibid., p. 754. cit., p. 753. 41Ibid., p. 755. The 36 report further stated that "the Doctor of Philosophy Degree shall be open as a research degree in all fields of learning, pure and applied." 42 Yet the pressures for the accommodations of alternative doctoral experiences within the Ph.D. degree structure persists, often in lieu of new doctoral degree programs. Charles Grigg asks, What is the future of the Ph.D. degree? Will in­ creasing pressure for college teachers with an advanced degree result in making the Ph.D. degree both a research degree as well as a preparation for teaching? He states that these are the troublesome questions that scholars of graduate education must address themselves to in the years immediately ahead. 4 3 In looking at what he sees as a need for alternative experiences within doctoral programs, Louis Mayhew calls attention to the curriculum students follow. He calls on graduate schools to examine the applicability of that curriculum to the careers of doctoral recipients. He warns that while the American Ph.D. is highly regarded, that this regard is quite possible in spite of the " . . . casual way in which instruction is offered rather than because of 4 2Spriestersbach, op♦ cit. 43 Grigg, oj>. cit., p. 10 3. 44 Lewis B. Mayhew, Arrogance on Campus (San Francisco:Jossey-Bass, Inc., Publishers, 1970), p. 105. 37 In the wake of student disturbances at Berkeley that were accompanied by students' cries for relevancy in their programs, the University of California decided to survey its recent doctoral graduates in an attempt to gain a clearer understanding of their Ph.D. programs and the extent to which a gap existed between faculty and student. The questionnaires covered the major aspects of the doctoral program and a summary of its findings follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. While most doctoral candidates enter a field because they enjoy intellectual work and seek employment in higher education, all cited the need to have their prior motivations enforced through careful orientation and advising once at the university. Students cited the foreign language, core course and comprehensive examinations as exercises which did more to retard than stimulate intellectual creativity. The "best" (and most costly type) education was listed as tutorial work and seminars; the most stressful experience, the doctoral oral. Teaching assistantships were often classed as slave labor. The dissertation, thanks to the student's own dogged efforts, was heralded as the high water mark in the Ph.D. program. The key to satisfaction seems to be the advisor and the extent to which he was a constructive critic and counselor. ** As a result of this survey the following suggestions were made: 1. That students be better orientated and accepted more quickly into the mainstream of academic life and that they choose an advisor much sooner in their program; 4 5Ann Heiss, "Berkeley Doctoral Students Appraise Their Academic Programs," Education Record, XLVIII, No. 1 (Winter, 1967), 31. 38 2. that the foreign language requirement be abolished; 3. that better information concerning Ph.D. exams— both written and oral be disseminated; 4. that the Ph.D. committee have a more clearly defined advisory role, not limited to the final stages of the program; 5. that there be closer interaction between students and faculty, especially at the thesis stage; 6. that more attention be paid to developing teaching skills by providing teaching experiences; 7. that there be an informal area where students and faculty could meet casually and socially; 8. that there be better financial aid arrangements and that tuition be waived for graduate assistants.^6 Utilizing the extensive 1956-1958 AACTE nationwide survey of doctoral recipients, Siatler has drawn the following conclusions which are related to this study: 1. There will be an increase in the total number of doctorates conferred in education. The annual growth rate, however, will remain unchanged. 2. There will be no major program changes at insti­ tutions that participated in the AACTE study. The changes that have been made have been minor and the net effect of these minor changes has been to make doctoral programs in education across the nation more nearly similar. However, modifications to improve doctoral programs and to improve the quantity and quality of doctoral degree holders in education have been made. 3. Doctoral programs in education established by new institutions will generally be patterned after existing ones. However, in those institutions established since 1958, some innovations were discernable. Characteristic of those innovative programs were sources of funding of facilities that lent themselves to the innovations. 4. The Ph.D. degree programs in education showed an increase. The percentage of Ph.D. programs increased from 45.5 to 50.3, while the percentage of Ed.D. programs decreased from 54.4 to 49.7 per cent. 46Ibid., p. 44. 47Jack Kent Sistler, "A Study of Certain Aspects of Doctoral Degree Production in the Field of Education 39 In January, 1968, a questionnaire was sent to doctoral candidates in the College of Education at Michigan State University by the Office of Graduate Student Affairs. This questionnaire sought to determine the reaction of these doctoral students to various proposed changes in doctoral programs. While most of the proposed changes dealt with procedures of doctoral programs and are, therefore, not applicable to this study, some of the areas explored are directly related. here merit attention. They are: Two of those areas cited Objectives and Rationale for Doctoral Study, and The Administration of Comprehensive and Final Doctoral Examinations. After collapsing those responses which registered "Strongly Agree,” "Agree" into one category the priorities of doctoral students on these two topics were established.^8 Of the 104 doctoral students who returned question­ naires to the GSAO, 86.5 per cent agreed that, " . . . the skills, knowledges, and competencies expected of doctorates in each interest area should be clearly stated, together with statements as to the means and measurement of attainment thereof." Over 80 per cent of all doctoral in United States Universities Since 19 58" (Unpublished doctoral thesis. Southern Illinois University, 1964), 392. ^8"Report of Responses to the Questionnaire About Proposed Changes in Doctoral Procedures” (Unpublished report by the Office of Graduate Student Affairs, College of Education, Michigan State University, January, 1968, 35 pp. 40 students quieried agreed that college-wide and departmental procedures should be established for the administration of all comprehensive and final doctoral examinations. Over 90 per cent of all those returning questionnaires reported that they agreed that continuing studies should be under­ way to determine the efficiency of our testing program and to suggest modifications which may need to be made. Over B6 per cent of those responding agreed that the College of Education needed to undertake studies leading to more effective admission criteria. 49 in a report by the National Board on Graduate Edu­ cation some of the problems confronting doctoral programs in American universities were discussed. This report outlined major changes in undergraduate education (e.g., open enrollment, elimination of general education courses and traditional majors, an increase in the use of field studies and independent studies, and the inclusion of programs aimed at effective education), and contrasted these changes with traditional doctoral programs. The National Board on Graduate Education went on to state, "When students with this background enroll in traditional graduate programs, a significant fraction find the programs to be rigid, overly specialized, and not relevant 49Ibid., 35 pp. 41 to their needs."5® The Board, in this report, went on to urge colleges and universities to provide "sensitive study" about this problem in order to guide the adjustment of both graduate school and college to the graduate programs. 51 The National Board on Graduate Education went on to identify another problem facing doctoral programs. The authors of this study pointed to the expansion of community colleges and to their potential as a job market for doctoral graduates. It was indicated, however, that many community colleges are demonstrating a reluctance to employ traditionally educated Ph.D.'s. This reluctance is based on the alleged mismatch between the teaching-oriented job requirement of the community college and the research orientation of most doctoral programs. 52 Summary This review of literature has focused on several aspectB and characteristics of doctoral programs in American colleges and universities. Attention has been given to the growth of graduate education in the United States as well as to the controversies that have surrounded that growth. This chapter has also briefly dealt with some alternatives to the traditional research-oriented doctoral program by 50Graduate Education; Purposes, Problems, and Potential (Washington,- D.d.: A Report of the National Board on Graduate Education, November, 1972), p. 6. 51Ibid., p. 7. 52Ibid., p. 8. 42 describing some innovative and revitalized approaches to doctoral preparation. While many of the studies cited in this chapter agree in their reaction to existing doctoral programs there remains considerable disagreement between scholars in their recommendations regarding the future course graduate education should follow in America. It is interesting, for instance, to note that consistent in most of these studies was the doctoral students' satisfaction with the colleqe or university in which they chose to do their doctoral work. The agreement between scholars about the nature of that work and what a quality program consists of is far more difficult to discern. Berelson, for instance, recommended that the latitude within doctoral programs be narrowed. He advocated less independent selection of course work by the student and more concentration in a central core area. Doty, on the other hand, concluded that consideration should be given to increasing the amount of independent work. In another case, Doty concluded that teaching experiences within the context of a doctoral program were very worthwhile and ought to be given increased consideration. In Ann Heiss' study, teaching assistantships were considered slave labor. As shown above, an examination of the literature exposes glaring areas of conflicting data. Needless to say, scholars of higher education and the major surveys of doctoral students and recipients have yielded differing 43 conclusions. on this study. Much of the conflicting data bears directly Since this study will determine the degree of satisfaction doctoral recipients in one department within a college of education have with the major aspects and phases of their programs, it is expected that the findings of this study will be cast in the perspective of the national controversy surrounding graduate education. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to describe the methods, the instrument, and the procedures used in this study. The first part of this chapter is devoted to the questionnaire, the sources of information that assisted the investigator in defining the parameters of the study, and the rationale for the selection of the instrument design. The second part describes the pilot study and related efforts to strengthen the validity of the instrument. The third part deals with the survey, the selection of the population, and the methods and procedures used in actuating the study. The final section describes the techniques employed in utilizing the data. The Questionnaire The questionnaire used in this study was developed over a period of several months during the 19 71-1972 and 1972-19 7 3 academic years. The aspects selected for investi­ gation were developed as a result of the investigator’s review of the literature pertaining to doctoral programs 44 45 and from interviews conducted with doctoral students and members of the faculty in the College of Education at Michigan State University. Especially helpful in the development of this questionnaire were certain major studies of doctoral programs. These works include: The American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education/ Vol. I., The Graduates and Vol. II, The Institutions; Bernard Berelson's Graduate Education in the United States? and Ann Heiss's Challenges to Graduate Schools.^ Valuable input regarding the content of the questionnaire was also gained from doctoral candidates in the College of Education. Of the doctoral candidates interviewed, the candidates enrolled in ED 982— Doctoral Seminar in Curriculum— provided many thought provoking suggestions. Suggestions which altered the scope and content of the questionnaire were also given by the interest area chairmen of the Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum. Their comments, along with those of the Associate Dean and Director of the School for Advanced Studies, the major area chairmen, and the investigator's own interests provided the needed information that would help develop a questionnaire that would provide valuable and useful data on the department's doctoral programs. ^•American Association of Colleges, op. cit.; The Graduates, op. cit.; T^he Institutions, op. cit.; Berelson, op. cit .j and Heiss, op. cit. 46 A survey of follow-up studies and of literature pertaining to follow-up studies revealed two basic types of questionnaires. These types are most often referred to as "open-type" and "closed-type" questionnaires. distinct advantages and disadvantages. Each has The "open-type" questionnaire has the advantage of providing greater depth of response than the "closed-type." Using this form, the investigator solicits answers from his population which require a written and subjective response. The respondent can write at length and provide his unique answers and insights to questions. The disadvantage of this type of questioning lies in the difficulty of interpretation, tabulation, and summarization of the data. Another disadvantage is that it requires an inordinate amount of time to complete. On the other hand, the "closed-type" questionnaire asks for "yes" or "no" responses, and/or very short responses. This type of questionnaire is easy to complete, takes little time, keeps the respondent on the subject, is objective, and the results lend themselves to tabulations. The major disadvantage of this type of questionnaire is that the responses it solicits lack depth. After reviewing the advantages and disadvantages of each of these forms, the investigator preferred the "closed-type" questionnaire with certain modifications. These 2 Deobold B. Van Dalen, Understanding Educational Researcht An Introduction (New York: McGraw-Hill' Book Company, Inc., 1962)T PP* 255-256. 47 modifications took the form of supplementary open-form questions throughout the body of the questionnaire. These open-form questions, coupled with spaces inviting comment after each question, would provide some of the depth of response that characterizes an "open-type" questionnaire. Organization of the Questionnaire The questionnaire in its final form was organized into four separate parts. A brief description of each of those parts follows: Part A The first part of the questionnaire seeks to gain information about the educational and professional back­ ground and activities of the doctoral recipients from the Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum at Michigan State University. The recipients are asked to indicate their present positions, their major doctoral area, their undergraduate and master's majors, as well as their undergraduate and master's colleges and universities. They are also asked to indictate their professional experi­ ence before and after they received the doctorate and to indicate some of their present professional responsibi­ lities. Their reasons for selecting Michigan State University, and the length of time spent on their programs are also asked. 48 Part B The second part of the questionnaire focuses on the recipient's degree of satisfaction with selected aspects of doctoral programs. They are asked to respond to the quality of classroom instruction, working relations with committees, the opportunities for dialogue, the procedure for program planning, committee selection, comprehensive and oral defense examinations, as well as to their satis­ faction with the availability of committee members for consultation. Part C The third part of the questionnaire seeks to determine the recipient's perceptions of his program as an opportunity for personal and professional growth. Here the recipient is asked to indicate his degree of satis­ faction with his program as an opportunity to develop an understanding of the major issues in education; to develop strategies for curriculum and instructional change; to develop an enlarged philosophy of education and of life; to develop a thorough knowledge of his subject area; to be exposed to innovative school practices; and to develop a sense of professional ethics. In this section recipients are also asked to rank their programs as an opportunity to develop skills in critical thinking; to develop an under­ standing of interpersonal and group behavior; to do original and creative thinking; and to be prepared for a 49 professional career. Recipients are also asked to compare their preparation at Michigan State University with that of their present colleagues from other colleges and uni­ versities . Part D The fourth and final part of the questionnaire deals with the dissertation experience. In this section recipients are asked to respond to several aspects of the dissertation process. Included in this section are questions on the selection and approval of dissertation topics; the applicability of research preparation to the requirements of the dissertation; the oral defense of the dissertation; and the relevance of the dissertation to professional goals. Recipients are also asked what benefits they derived from writing a dissertation and in what frame of mind they approached the task of the dissertation. The recipients are asked if they would have chosen an alternative to the dissertation if one had been available. Their perceptions about how their committees viewed the purposes of the dissertation are also asked. The Pilot Study To validate this instrument, a pilot study was undertaken with doctoral students in the Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum. The questionnaire was administered to a group of twenty-five doctoral candidates in the Doctoral Seminar in Curriculum who were asked to 50 make judgments concerning the clarity, ambiguity, length of completion time, and relevance of the questions. In addition, the questionnaire was shown to the interest area chairmen of the Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum with the same objectives in mind. The instrument was also shown to the Associate Dean and Director of the School for Advanced Studies. As a result of their judgments, certain changes were made. Reliability Before this study was completed the questionnaire was checked for "reliability." In order to determine this, a test-retest method was utilized. On December 12, 1972 the questionnaire was administered to ten doctoral candidates in the Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum. The questionnaire was administered again to the same group of doctoral candidates on March 13, 1973. The responses each candidate recorded the first time the questionnaire was administered were compared with those of the second time and a check for consistency of responses was made, item by item. Table 2 shows the median scores of respondents for the four parts of the questionnaire. The Survey The population for this study included all those doctoral recipients (Ph.D. and Ed.D.) from the Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum in the College of 51 Table 2.— Consistency of Response to "Questionnaire to Graduates" by Ten Doctoral Candidates in the Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum. Parts of Questionnaire Consistency of Response Part A 96.2 per cent Part B t. Intsr. District 1 1 .4 Dir. of td. Institute 1 1 .4 1 .4 1 .4 1 .4 1 Dir. of Plsst tefstr 1 Dir. of Grad. Prog. 1 Dir. of Inst. Mt. Dir. of Mss. Inst. 1 1 .4 Ed. Ocas. Prl. rim 1 1 .4 Kim. Sdi. Tsschsr 1 1 .4 1 .4 1 .4 I .4 1 .4 ■10b Sdi. test. Prin. 1 Inst. Dst . Consultant 1 Junior High Principal l Lrng. Kps. Coord. Private Plm 1 tee. Ed. Stgwrrlsor 1 Etata Supervisor Ccivsr Education 1 S^srviaor Elm. td. Voc. Ed. Coassltant Total i li 11 13 *1 IS 11 51 1 .4 1 .4 1 .4 1 .4 14 174 100.0 64 elementary education* deputy superintendent* junior high school principal* and a secondary education supervisor. Fourteen per cent of the respondents reported positions other than college/university teaching or administration or as public school teachers or adminis­ trators. This percentage includes 10* or 3.6 per cent* who were state/federal directors; 5* or 1.8 per cent* who were research analyists; and 4* or 1.4 per cent* who were state project directors. Eighteen others reported a wide variety of other activities. Table 8 shows the present positions of respondents arranged by years of graduation. The 1967-1968 group had 11, or 4.0 per cent* report positions as associate professors; 4 or 1.5 per cent were assistant professors. The 1968-1969 group had the greatest number of state/federal program directors* 6* and the highest per cent in that job category* 2.2 per cent. Sixteen, or 5.8 per cent* were associate professors and 13, or 4.7 per cent, were assistant professors. The 1968-1969 group also produced the largest group of directors of student teaching, 4 or 1.5 per cent. The 1969-19 70 group had the largest number of associate professors 17, or 6.2 per cent, and the highest per cent at that rank. assistant professors. Eighteen, or 6.0 per cent, were The 1969-1970 group produced the largest number of public school assistant superintendents, 3, or 1.1 per cent. Table t.— F r a m t Positions Imported by 274 Respondents According to Years of Graduation. Respondents by Year of Graduation 1969* 1970 1970- 1971 1967* 1961 1961*■1969 Ho. t Ho. 9 Ho. 6 Ho. t Ho. % Assistant Professor 4 1.5 13 4.7 IS 6.0 22 S.O 27 9.9 84 30.7 Associate Professor 11 4.0 17 6.2 10 3.6 9 3.3 63 23.0 2 .7 2 .7 10 3.6 9 3.1 Present Position 16 5.8 State/Federal Program Director 6 2.2 Collars Department Chairman 3 1.1 High School Tsacbsr 1 .4 Director of Student Teaching 4 1.5 2 3 1.1 2 High School Principal 3 1.1 1 .4 1 Professor 3 1.1 1 .4 2 .4 2 .7 Assistant Superintendent 1 Elementary School Principal 1 .4 Research Analyist 1 .4 1 Unemployed 1 Assistant Dean .4 Administrative Assistant to University President Superintendent of Sdiools 1 1 f .4 Coordinator of Driver Safety Program College Assistant Department Chairman 1 .4 Director of Driver Education Certification Program 1 .4 I 1 l.S 3 1.1 9 3.3 1 .4 1 .4 8 2.9 2 .7 7 2.6 1 .4 7 2.6 6 1.3 1.1 3 1.1 1 .4 6 2.2 3 1.1 1 .4 5 1.8 5 1.8 4 l.S 3 1.1 2 1 .4 2 .7 1 1 .4 1 .4 2 1 .4 2 1 Ho. 5 2 .4 Total .4 Assistant to'Dean College Dean 1971- 1972 .7 3 1.1 2 .7 .7 1 .4 2 2 .7 2 .7 1 .4 2 .7 2 .7 1 .4 2 .7 2 .7 2 .7 1 .4 Director of Learning Res. 1 .4 Ed. Cons. State Government 2 .7 Ed. Cons,, Private firm 1 1.0 1 1.0 Tabic S.— Continued. M a p o n d e n t s by Tear of Graduation 1967-1961 1968-1969 1969-1970 Mo. No. No. 1970-1971 1971 -1972 No. No. Total Present Position State Director, Ada. of Res. * 4-H Club 1 t .4 & Dev. Col. Dir. Dee. Educ. 1 t 1 1 1 .4 2 .7 .4 1 .4 1 .4 1 1 .4 1 .4 1 .4 1 .4 1 .4 1 .4 1 .4 .4 Deputy Superintendent Int. Dist. High School Assistant Principal Inst. Dev. Cons. 1 Junior High Principal .4 Learning Systea Coordinator Private P i n 1 Sec. £due. Supervisor .4 State Supervisor Driver Education Supervisor Eleaentaxy Education Vocational Education Consultant Mo M s p o n s e Total 1 t 1 .4 Coord. Sye. Planning No. .4 1 1.1 4 l.S 4 1.5 31 11.3 52 18.9 56 20.4 63 22.9 1 .4 I .4 1 .4 1 .4 1 .4 3 1.1 16 5.6 56 20.4 274 100.0 67 The 19 70-1971 group reported 22, or 8.0 per cent, assistant professor; 10, or 3.6 per cent, associate professors; and 5, or 1.8 per cent, high school teachers. The 1971-1972 group had the largest number of assistant professors, 27, and the highest per cent at that rank, 9.9 per cent. Nine, or 3.3 per cent, were associate professors, and 3, or 1.1 per cent, were high school teachers. Table 8 illustrates that for those recipients who have entered colleges and universities promotion policies are at work. This is demonstrated by the increase in the number of associate professors (9 who graduated in 1971-72, and 16, who graduated in 1968-69), and by the decrease in the number of assistant professors (27 who graduated in 1971-72, and 4 who graduated in 1967-68). Academic Background of Respondents Table 9 shows the undergraduate major fields of the respondents ranked by frequency of mention. Thirty- three, or 12.0 per cent, reported history as their under­ graduate major; 22, or 8.0 per cent, majored in English; 20, or 7.2 per cent, were in agriculture education; 20, or 7.2 per cent, were in mathematics; and 19, or 6.9 per cent, were in social science. majors. answer. Smaller numbers reported other There were 3, or 1.0 per cent, who did not Tafela UBdargradoata Najera of Baapoodanta, kankad by Frageancy and Tabulated according to Doctoral Hajar Flail. Buatoar la tad) Kajor Doctoral Field Cbdargradaata Major f U U kg. td. Boa. t Dirt.Ed. Driver Traf. Carr. Biet.,Ptiil.,Soc. Bietory 3 11 9 tagllih 1 IS 3 agriculture Education 3 2 t s 1 2 6 4 Business Edocatioo 7 Buainaaa AAlnUtratlon 4 6 1 n Bo. 4 33 12.0 22 20 6.0 7.2 20 19 7.2 6.9 2 1 1 9 7 2 1 4 s 4 16 S.8 16 S.8 1 7 1 6 1 IS 5.4 1 3 1 2 J 12 4.3 1 3 3 3 10 3.6 2 1 2.9 2 2 7 2.5 1 3.2 1 2 Oailtzy science 4 Sociology 1 1 4 1 3 2.1 2. S 3 s f%iloso(6iy 6 1 1 Boa Eoonmlca Sac.I. 1 Elaaantary Education Biology Secondary Education ■ 1 4 1 2 Social science Fbyeieal Education Inet.Dev, 2 13 NatbMatiea Industrial irta Total 1 S 1.8 s l.S 4 1.4 Political Sciaoca 4 Male 1 1 1 3 1.0 Sclanoa Education 1 1 1 3 1.0 Zoology 1 2 3 2 1.0 .7 2 .7 1 2 .7 2 art Bmnitiaa 1 Nursing Harkating Farctology 1 1 2 1 1 2 .7 2 .7 Tab I* 9.— Continued. > o U r In Eadi Ha)or Doctoral Plaid Ofcdaiyiaduata MJor Plaid jq. Ed. aus. a Dirt. id. Drlvar Trif. Curr. ■ndio-T.V, Riat.,Phll.. Soc. Total Inat.Dar. Sac.I. 2 Spanish 1 Epaacto H Ro. 2 .7 J .7 2 i .7 1 .3 Dairy Prodactlon 1 1 .3 Distatic* 1 1 .3 teeoatiB) 1 a I XCOMPlCf 1 1 .3 tnglnaarln; 1 1 .3 Prsadh I 1 .3 1 1 Oaoloyy 1 .3 1 .3 Llbaral hrta 1 1 .3 lliwar talations 1 1 .3 Outdoor Education 1 1 .3 Pbyslca 1 I .3 Polica Afeinlatration 1 1 .3 ■o Mapoeaa Total 3 .3 274 100.0 70 Table 10 shows the master's degree major fields of the respondents, tabulated by the doctoral major fields and ranked according to frequency. Educational administration was the major field of 43, or 15.6 per cent; 37, or 13.5 per cent, named secondary education; 32, or 11.6 per cent, named social philosophic foundations; 27, or 9.8 per cent, named business education; 15, or 5.4 per cent, named agriculture education; and 15, or 5.4 per cent, named industrial education. In all, 152 or 55.0 per cent, majored In various areas of education. Table 11 shows the fifteen most frequently reported master's colleges and universities reported by the respondents. The data in Table 11 are reported by doctoral major area and tabulated according to frequency. Michigan State University was the leading master's university with 111, or 40.5 per cent; University of Michigan ranked second with 19, or 6.9 per cent; Western Michigan University was third with 11, or 4.0 per cent, reporting; The University of Wisconsin was fourth with 7, or 2.5 per cent; Colorado State University and Wayne State University were both reported 6 times, or 2.1 per cent each. Various other universities and colleges were reported by other respondents. While Michigan State University was the most frequent master's university of the recipients it appears that no particular major area is responsible for the influx of these students. The Michigan State University master's graduates are well distributed among the eight groups. Table 10.— N u U r ' i Degraa Major Plelda of Baapoodants, Banked by frequency and Tabulatad According to Doctoral Major. Mtabar of Each Major Doctoral Plaid Master a Degree Major Piald Education artelnlatration Ag. Ed. 1 Saooodary Education Bos. t Dilt.Ed. 3 27 1 6 17 1 Inalnaaa Edueatim 13 Corriculia* Hist.,Phil. ,soc. S Inat.Dar. 1 1 2 7 3 2 1 43 13.6 2 37 13.3 2 1 11.6 1 32 27 1 13 3.4 15 3.4 2 14 5.1 3 10 3.6 1 3 ■ 2.9 2 s 2.9 2 7 2.5 Biology S fliatory 1 1 7 2.3 1 S 1.9 5 3 3 3 » 2 S 1 Do. 10 12 1 M 1 12 1 sec.s. 2 2 Msthseatlcs Physical Education 16 9 Industrial UueatloB Science Curr. 2 Social Phi Loaoptiic foundations Agricultural Education Driest Traf. Total 1 3 9.9 Xlseantary Education 4 English 2 2 1 5 1.9 Ooidaoca 6 Cogieallnq 2 1 2 3 1.9 3 3 1.9 1 4 1.4 1 2 3 1.0 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 M S (Edanoa) lost. Do t . ( Tsch. 1 Art Io m Enteral ca Traffic Safety 1 1 1 1 1 Social Science General Classrora Technology 2 2 2 Qraiatry 2 2 Educational Pryc. 2 2 Pood Sciatica 1 Marketing 1 1 1 2 2 T d ila 1 0 .—-C o n tim a d , Siabar of Cad) Ka}or Doctoral PiaId Itaitn'i Dagr— Sajor h ( U — ---- - Ag. td. Bus. 4 Dift.td. Driver Traf. Curr. Hist.,Phil,,Soc. Utntlcn Physic* 1 Sociology Total Inat.Dar. Sac.I. M 1 ftfitfempology 1 \ 3 3 .7 1 3 .7 3 f H d w r f-itaritlop Ho. 1 3 .7 3 .7 1 .3 Molt Education 1 1 .3 sio fliwi«tnr 1 1 .3 Clasaroev Hanagaaant 1 1 .3 Oaaoiicitloti 1 1 .3 Oo^tntim Usutloa 1 1 .3 Ctlainal Justice 1 EntonoLogy 1 1 1 .3 .3 M U (English) 1 1 .3 1 .3 1 Nodical-Surgical Bur. 1 .3 1 1 1 .3 1 1 1 .3 .3 0 0 Versing AMdisff Taxational Edocatioo So Seatan So ivsponss 1 73 74 Professional Educational Experience of Respondents Before and After Doctorate Table 12 shows the number of respondents reporting various kinds of educational experience prior to their doctorates. The data are reported by doctoral major and tabulated according to frequency of mention. years are reported as whole years. Parts of There are duplications in that some respondents reported more than one kind of experience in a single year. The percentage figures do not total 100 per cent, since a large number of respondents reported more than one type of experience. Two hundred and eight of the respondents reported experience as a secondary teacher; 138 reported experience in college or university teaching; 55 reported experience as elementary teachers; 26 reported experience as elementary principals; 26 reported experience as secondary principals; 24 had been secondary supervisors. elementary supervisors. Fifteen had been Smaller numbers reported other educational experience prior to the doctorate. The mean number of years in various types of edu­ cational experiences reported by three or more respondents, prior to the doctorate, ranged from 6.2 years for the 208 who had been secondary teachers, to the 2.2 years reported by the five who had been assistant superintendents. Table 13 shows the number of respondents reporting various types of educational experience following the doctorate and the mean number of years in each field. T abla 17 W irtiai o f IW f a t o t i M p o r t ia g v a rio u s Typss o f P ro fs s a io n a l Ezparianca P r io r t o th a D octorata and tha Haaa o f Taars o f Ezparianca 1a la d ) P la id , tarfrart bp Praqoaocy. Haas A n ra q a T u n o f Exparlanoa a 1* * * 9 • 2 § «H «d 9 M I. Iz 5* U a4 U u 9 *2 Po. lanomliry Itadat Qollaga/OtalnrBlty Instructor 9 At*, Bo. 3 e ui Id It Driver Traffic TTP* of Professional taper1sacs u# * f 3 1M t . 3 8 2 8 3 3 aa z • 3 Anraqa Tsars 5l8*# f u ~« V w of Experience 15 V O 83 ao ■M 21 An. no. At* . BO. An. BO. An. Bo. An. Bo. a 2 An. Bo. An. Bo. An. 13 14.5 17 5.1 30 7.i 71 6.1 21 1.2 11 4.1 41 5.a 12 6.1 208 6.3 3 3.6 la 6.1 11 5.0 40 4.4 22 1.6 11 4.0 34 4.7 7 2.1 118 4.4 l B.O 4.9 7 1.2 7 6.5 7 4.1 1 2.0 55 4.6 26 1.6 1 1.0 26 4.9 5.0 24 2.6 6 1.6 26 Elaaantary Principal Ilanantary Taadiax 1 a.o 16 4.1 1 1.1 4 2.5 2 2.0 Eacxndszy Principal 3 4.5 a 5.2 1 6.0 3 B.5 10 4.6 2 3.0 12 2.2 1 2.0 1 1.0 5 1.4 2 7 2.1 11 1.9 1 1.0 15 2.9 10 4.9 5 2.2 5 5.3 Secondary Supervisor l CoUegs/Oninrslty J)*. i 2.0 1 5.0 2 4.0 24 4.7 llawtary S^errleor 10 1.4 1 2.0 1 2.0 Corrlcoltu Coordinator 6 1.6 4 1.5 1 7*0 1.1 1 1.0 Assistant Superintendent State/Federal FrogrM Dlractor l 6.0 1 5.0 1 1.0 2 7.5 1 9.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 1 4.0 1 5.0 Siqurlntaadaot 2 10.00 2 5.0 Sdiool Cowieelor 1 2.0 1 2.0 i a.o Tooth Dlractor 1 a.o Tab la 13.— »«toar of — pondanta Aaportlng Various Type* of Professional Experience Following the Doctorata and th« Naan of Taarm of Esparlanca la Each field. Minted by frequency sad Tabolatad According to Doctoral Major Ares. Average of Moan Tears of Esparlanca a 3 c tt 0 a » Is ■ss s M H *1 ■ ■ 3 ■* Typo of Professional Experience « Jt 3 •a* 9 O {£ 3 U n4 M St I Id -4 m a «H m c ^ Q W «4 si 33 * ■o M t . SS a a X a Is M U Ave. Mo. Asa. No. in . 2.5 7 2.6 172 2.6 7 2.0 4 2.5 37 2.4 4 2.2 1 1.0 13 2.1 6 2.5 11 2.0 1 3.0 6 1.3 6 1.3 5 3.2 In. Vo. Art. MO. Asa MO. Ave. MO. As*. 1»o. » n . No. College/tftiiseraity Instructors S 3.2 IT 3.0 2.2 56 2.6 27 3.0 11 2.0 32 Collaga/tMiiserslty M i . 6 2.3 3 4.0 2 2.5 a 2.6 3 2.0 4 1.7 3 3.0 6 2.1 1 1.0 Secondary TMditi Secondary Principal State/Federal Progran Director 1 1.0 1 CarrIcolts Coordinator 1.0 Assistant Svyarl ntaraWit s.o tl a 5 8 3 a u a u Mo. 17 Average Tears of Esparlanca &§ 3 1.0 1 1.0 2 1.0 « l.S 1 1.0 5 3.2 3 1.6 5 2.7 El a— ot «ry Principal 5 1.6 5 1.6 11— ntary Teacher « 1.2 4 1.2 4 1.0 Educational Conmltast Maoaardi Analyist 1 3 1 3 2 1.0 Superintendent 4 2.7 Elanootary Sunr-vieor 2 3.0 1 3.0 1 3.0 1.0 Stata Depart nant of Education Secondary si^arrieor 1 5.0 1 1.5 2.0 1 1.0 1.0 4 1.6 4 2.7 3 2.7 3 3.0 77 One hundred and seventy-two had been college or university instructors, with a mean of 2.9 years reported in this field; 37 had been college or university administrators, with a mean of 2.4 years reported. The third most common experience was that of secondary teacher with 13, reporting a mean of 2.1 years experience. Eleven had been secondary principals, with a mean of 2.0 years after the doctorate; and eight had been state or federal program directors, with a mean of 1.3 years experience. Smaller numbers reported other experiences with a mean number of years reported between 1.2 and 3.3 years. Professional Activities of Respondents Table 14 shows the number and percentage of respondents reporting activities directly related to changing educational programs and processes. The numbers and percentages are not totaled since respondents were directed to indicate as many areas as they thought applied to them. The percentages in Table 14 reflect the number of respondents for each particular interest area. Twelve, or 92.3 per cent, of the respondents with doctoral majors in Agricultural Education indicated that they were involved in initating and implementing curriculum and instructional systems. Twenty-two, or 95.6 per cent, of the respondents from the area of instructional Develop­ ment and Technology reported being involved in developing instructional systems. Most active in the area of preparing Tabla 14.— Nt^ar and Paroantaga of Raepondaeta Naporting Activities Directly Aalatad to Changing Educational Pk trw. k h m i . and PrograM, Reported by Major Wcaber and Parcantaga by M ajor i n a a ta 0c ** > *04 a Type of Professional Esparlanca • 3 ■ tJ a hi a -c* *j• a a 3— a o Z X v ?S Mo. Initiating and iNplsaenting Curriculc* and Instructional Systaa Developing Instructional Sy*t«e Preparing and Developing Educational Personnel Planning Educ. Pac. Eraluating Educational P r s g m Proriding Intonation on Curriculia and Instructional Cbaaga writing Journal At .tolas Ave. No. o a h. > h -. a* I. u □ f> Asa. No. 5k ag* 1w t . 0 o *l 0 am —4 x a 3 Cl b b 3 U Ave. No. ad £ 3 a. v Asa. NO. frg i 4. O hi 5 o a u 03 a tJ tn hi 3; tj 3 e^ m y Ave. No. Ave. No. d a 2 Aaa. No. Total Ana. NO. Ava, 12 92.3 15 71.4 IB 01.B 72 77.4 18 51.4 19 82.6 36 67.9 11 78.5 201 73.3 a 61.5 10 47.6 B 16.3 47 50.5 12 34.2 22 95.6 30 56.5 7 50.0 144 52.5 10 76.9 12 57.1 16 72.7 74 79.5 20 57.1 16 69.5 37 69.8 14 66.6 14 63.6 2B 30.1 4 11.4 B 34.7 16 30.1 64.2 29.5 70.8 46.1 9 4 194 6 10 76.9 15 71.4 12 54.5 52 55.9 15 42.9 16 69.5 36 67.9 11 78.5 94 167 60.9 7 53.8 14 66.6 ib ai.B 56 62.3 13 37.1 18 78.2 36 67.9 8 57.1 172 62.7 1 7.6 1 7.6 1 1.0 1 Educational Consulting Research ad ad .94 4.7 2 2.1 1 1.0 2 2 5.7 8.6 34.3 1 1.8 3 1.0 1 1.8 6 2.1 2 3.7 6 2.1 79 and developing educational personnel were the graduates of the area of Curriculum with 74, or 79.5 per cent. The respondents of the Driver-Traffic Safety interest area were most actively involved in planning educational facilities, with 14, or 6 3.6 per cent, reporting. Ten, or 76.9 per cent, of the respondents of the Agricultural Education areas reported involvement in the evaluation of educational programs and eighteen, or 81.8 per cent, of the respondents from the area of Driver-Traffic Safety indicated that they provide information on curriculum and instructional change. A total of 201, or 7 3.3 per cent, of all respondents reported initiating and implementing instructional change. One hundred and ninety-four, or 70.8 per cent, reported preparing and developing educational personnel and 144, or 52.5 per cent, indicated that they were developing instructional systems. Reasons for Selecting Michigan State University Table 15 shows the first, second, and third responses given by respondents for their choice of Michigan State University for their doctoral study, ranked by frequency of the first, or most important reason. Eighty-eight, or 32.1 per cent, named reputation or knowledge of key faculty personnel; 53, or 19.4 per cent, named the type of program available. Other first reasons, with number and per cent naming each, were as follows: reputation of Michigan State University, 36, or 80 Table 15.— Reasons Given by Respondents for Their Choice of Michigan State University for Doctoral Work, Ranked by the Frequency of the First or Most Important Reason. Number and Per Cent of Times Listed Grouped Responses First Reason Third Reason Second Reason Total No % No % No % No. Reputation of the Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum 10 3.6 24 3.7 13 4.7 47 17.1 Reputation of Michigan State University 36 13.2 54 19.7 52 18.9 142 51.8 Reputation of Knowledge Key Faculty Personnel 88 32.1 47 17.1 49 17.8 184 67.1 Advice From Colleagues and Friends 26 9.4 28 10.3 48 17.6 102 37.2 Proximity to Home 36 13.2 20 7.3 27 9.9 83 30.2 Type of Program Available 53 19.4 81 29.6 57 20.9 191 69.7 Availability of Financial Aid 19 6.9 18 6.6 25 9.2 62 22.6 Availability of Employment 6 2.2 2 .7 3 1.0 11 4.0 274 100.0 274 100.0 274 100.0 Total % 81 13.2 per cent; proximity to home, 36, or 13.2 per cent; availability of financial aid, 19, or 6.9 per cent; reputation of the Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum, 10, or 3.6 per cent; availability of employment, 6, or 2.2 per cent. Second and third reasons given produced similar, but slightly different rankings of the list given above. The respondents gave reasons for selecting Michigan State University other than those listed in the questionnaire. Where possible these additional reasons were grouped with those already provided. Two that were not, availability of financial aid and availability of employment, are listed in Table 15. Table 16 shows the mean number of terms spent on and working toward the fulfillment of the requirements of a doctoral degree. The mean number of terms spent from the time of acceptance to a program through completion of a program is shown in column one. The mean number of terms spent in residence at Michigan State University is shown in column two. Column three shows the mean number of terms in which the doctoral candidate was enrolled as a doctoral student. The doctoral respondents with majors in Business and Distributive Education spent a mean number of 16.7 terms from their time of entry through completion of their programs, the longest period in the department. Driver- Safety respondents spent the second longest time from entry through completion of their programs, 16.5 terms. The 82 Table 16.--Means of Terms Respondents Spent on Programs. Major Area Mean Number of Terms From Entry Through Completion Mean Terms in Residence Mean Terms Actually Enrolled Agriculture Education 12.0 8.6 10.3 Business & Dis­ tributive Education 16.7 7.5 11.4 Curriculum 14.2 7.5 11.1 History, Philosophy, & Sociology of Education 14.4 9.3 12.6 Miscellaneous 14.3 8.2 12.2 Instructional Development & Technology 10.6 8.7 8.7 Secondary Education 14.2 6.7 10.5 Driver-Traffic Safety 16.5 6.4 14.0 Mean Average 14.5 8.0 11.5 63 respondents who earned doctoral degrees in the area of History, Philosophy, and Sociology of Education were third longest from entry to completion, spending 14.4 terms completing their programs. Those respondents from the area of History, Philosophy, and Sociology of Education spent the most terms in residence, with a mean number of terms of 9.3; and those students in the area of Instructional Development and Technology spent the second longest time on campus, with 8.7 terms. Agricultural Education majors spent the third longest time in residence, 8.6 terms. Driver-Traffic Safety respondents were enrolled more terms than any other group, 14.0 terms, and they were followed by students in History, Philosophy, and Sociology of Education, who spent a mean number of 12.6 terms enrolled. Judgments Concerning the Broad Aspects of tTie Respondents Doctoral frrograms' Respondents were asked to indicate their degree of satisfaction with selected elements of their doctoral programs. They were asked to respond to each of these elements by indicating one of three responses: improvement, adequate, and outstanding. needB The respondents were also asked to respond to each element by writing a comment after each question in the questionnaire. While not all respondents wrote comments after each item, enough did to provide useful data. The written comments are 64 included in Appendix C and are arranged by frequency and tabulated according to doctoral major area. Table 17 shows the number and percentage, for each interest area, of responses concerning the quality of classroom instruction. Thirty-eight, or 13.8 per cent, reported that it needed improvement; 123, or 44.8 per cent, reported it was adequate; and 106, or 38.6 per cent, said it was outstanding. The respondents from the area of History, Philosophy and Sociology reported being most impressed with the quality of classroom instruction they received. Twenty-two, or 62.8 per cent, indicated it was outstanding. The largest percentage indicating that the quality of classroom instruction needed improvement was 26 per cent which came from the Instructional Development and Technology respondents. The written comments regarding the quality of classroom instruction in their major areas are found in Appendix C. Table 18 shows the number and percentage of responses concerning the quality of classroom instruction in areas other than the respondent's major field. Thirty- eight, or 13.8 per cent, indicated that it needed improve­ ment; 174, or 63.5 per cent, of the respondents said that it was adequate; and 49, or 17.6 per cent, indicated that it was outstanding. The respondents from the area of History, Philosophy, and Sociology of Education reported that they were most satisfied, with 10, or 28.5 per cent, indicating it was outstanding. The doctoral recipients Table 17.— Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning the Quality of Classroom Instruction in Major Area. Major Field r Needs Improvement ----------No. % Adequate -------No. % Outstanding ■— — — ■ No. % No Answer — No. % Total Number Agriculture Education 2 15.3 6 46.2 4 30.8 Business £ Distributive Education 3 14.2 12 57.1 6 28.5 12 12.9 38 40.8 38 40.8 Driver Traffic Safety 2 9.0 7 31.8 13 59.0 History, Philosophy, & Sociology of Education 3 8.5 9 25.7 22 62.8 Instructional Development £ Technology 6 26.0 13 56.5 4 17.3 23 Secondary Education 9 16.9 31 58.4 13 24.5 53 Miscellaneous 1 7.1 7 50.0 6 42.8 14 38 13.8 123 44.8 106 38.6 Curriculum Total 1 7.8 13 21 7 7.5 93 22 1 9 2.8 3.2 35 274 Table 18.— Number and Par Cant of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning the Quality of Classroom Instruction in Other Than the Respondent's Major Field. Maio Field Needs Improvement ■— ■ No. % Adequate ■No. % Outstanding ■ ■ No. % No Answer No. % 1 7.6 Total Number Agriculture Education 3 23.0 7 53.8 2 15.3 Business & Distributive Education 2 9.5 14 66.6 5 23.8 19 20.4 48 51.6 17 18.2 9 9.6 93 Driver Traffic Safety 1 4.5 IB 81.8 2 9.0 1 4.5 22 History, Philosophy, c Sociology of Education 2 5.7 22 62.8 10 28.5 1 2.8 35 Instructional Development 6 Technology 6 26.0 14 60.8 2 8.6 1 4.3 23 Secondary Education 4 7.5 41 77.3 8 15.0 53 Miscellaneous 1 7.1 10 71.4 3 21.4 14 38 13.8 174 63.5 49 17.8 Curriculum Total 13 21 13 4.7 274 87 in the area of Instructional Development and Technology were least satisfied. Six, or 26.0 per cent, of that group reported that it needed improvement. The comments of the respondents regarding the quality of instruction in areas other than their major fields are found in Appendix C. Table 19 shows the number and per cent of responses concerning the working relationship they had with their committees. Seventeen, or 6.2 per cent, reported that it needed improvement; 62, or 29.9 per cent, indicated that it was adequate; and 166, or 60.9 per cent, appraised it as being outstanding. Respondents, in fact, reported being more impressed with this particular aspect of their doctoral programs than with most of the others. This appraisal is also supported by the respondents' written comments which appear in Appendix C. Table 20 shows the number and per cent responses to the opportunity for dialoguewith of the graduate students and professors in the respondents major area. Thirty, or 10.9 per cent, responded that it needed improvement; 73, or 26.6 per cent, indicated that it was adequate; and 166, or 60.2 per cent, indicated that it was outstanding. This aspect was one of the most outstanding qualities of the doctoral experience for the respondents, yet more respondents indicated it needed improvement than any of the other broad aspects of their doctoral experi­ ence. Four, or 1B.1 per cent, of Driver Traffic Safety respondents and 11, or 20.7 per cent, of Secondary Table 19.— Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning Working Relationship With Committee Members. „ , ,. Major rieia Needs Improvement ■ ■" — NO. \ Agriculture Education Adequate 1 NO. % Outstanding NO. % 4 30.7 8 61.5 No Answer — — ■ No. % 1 7.6 Total Number 13 Business £ Distributive Education 1 4.7 11 52.3 9 42.8 Curriculum 3 3.2 23 24.7 61 66.7 Driver Traffic Safety 3 13.6 4 18.1 15 68.1 History, Philosophy, £ Sociology of Education 2 5.7 8 22.8 23 65.7 Instructional Development £ Technology 3 13.0 4 17.3 16 69.5 23 Secondary Education 4 7.5 21 39.6 29 54.7 53 Miscellaneous 1 7.1 7 50.0 6 42.8 14 17 6.2 82 29.9 166 60.9 Total 21 6 6.4 93 22 2 9 5.7 3.2 35 274 Table 20.— Nunber and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning Opportunities for Dialogue With Graduate Students and/or Professors in Major Area. Major Field Needs Improvement — No. % Agriculture Education Adequate — No. % Outstanding 1 " No. « 3 23.0 9 69.2 Business & Distributive Education 2 9.5 10 47.6 9 42.8 Curriculum 9 9.6 26 27.9 55 59.6 Driver Traffic Safety 4 18.1 5 22.7 13 59.0 History, Philosophy, t Sociology of Education 3 8.5 7 20.0 24 68.5 5 21.7 18 78.2 Instructional Development a Technology Secondary Education Miscellaneous Total 11 20.7 15 28.3 26 49.0 1 7.1 2 14.2 11 78.5 30 10.9 73 26.6 166 60.2 No Answer No. % 1 7.6 Total Number 13 21 3 3.2 93 22 1 2.8 35 23 1 1.8 53 14 S 1.8 274 90 Education respondents indicated that this aspect needed improvement. The written comments of the recipients regarding the opportunities for dialogue with other graduate students and professors in their major area are provided in Appendix C. Table 21 shows the number and per cent of responses to the opportunities to meet and carry-on dialogue with professors and/or graduate students in areas other than the respondent's major field. A higher percentage of respondents showed dissatisfaction with this aspect of their experiences than with any other broad aspect. Seventy-six, or 27.7 per cent, of all the respondents indicated that it needed improvement. One hundred and thirty-one, or 47.8 per cent, ranked it as adequate; and 56, or 20.4 per cent, indicated that it was outstanding. Those groups most dissatisfied were: Agriculture Education, Distributive Education, and Secondary Education. The respondents' written comments regarding the opportunities for dialogue outside their major area are found in Appendix C. Table 22 shows the number and per cent of responses to the procedures for planning doctoral programs. Only 33, or 12.0 per cent, indicated it needed improvement. One hundred and thirty-one, or 47.8 per cent, indicated it was adequate, and 101, or 36.8 per cent, ranked this aspect as outstanding. Agriculture Education and Curriculum respondents were the most impressed by this aspect, Table 21.— Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning Opportunities to Meet and Carry-On Dialogue With Professors and/or Graduate Students in Areas Other Than the Recipients' Major Field. Needs Improvement Adequate Outstanding No Answer Total No. % No. % No. % No. % Agriculture Education 5 38.4 4 30.7 3 23.0 1 7.6 13 Business £ Distributive Education 7 33.3 8 38.0 3 14.2 3 14.2 21 27 29.0 38 40.8 22 23.6 6 6.4 93 Driver Traffic Safety 5 22.7 14 63.6 3 13.6 History, Philosophy, £ Sociology of Education 8 22.8 18 51.4 8 22.8 Instructional Development & Technology 5 21.7 15 65.2 3 13.0 23 17 32.0 29 54.7 7 13.2 53 2 14.2 5 35.7 7 50.0 14 76 27.7 131 47.8 56 20.4 Curriculum Secondary Education Miscellaneous Total 22 1 11 2.8 4.0 35 274 Table 22.— Nunber and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning Procedures for Planning Doctoral Program. Needs Improvement Adequate No. No. % No. % No. 5 38.4 6 46.1 2 15.3 13 % Agriculture Education Outstanding No Ansver Total % Business & Distributive Education 4 19.0 7 33.3 8 38.0 2 9.5 21 Curriculum 5 5.3 46 49.4 39 41.9 4 4.3 93 Driver Traffic Safety 2 9.0 13 59.0 7 31.8 History, Philosophy, c Sociology of Education 7 20.0 13 37.1 14 40.0 Instructional Development £ Technology 4 17.3 11 47.8 8 34.7 23 Secondary Education 9 16.9 31 58.4 13 24.5 53 Miscellaneous 2 14.2 5 35.7 7 50.0 14 33 12.0 131 47.8 101 36.8 Totd 22 1 9 2.8 3.2 35 274 93 46.1 per cent and 41.9 per cent ranking it outstanding, respectively. Seven, or 20.0 per cent, of History, Philosophy, and Sociology respondents indicated it needed improvement. The written comments of the respondents regarding the procedures for planning doctoral programs are found in Appendix C. Table 2 3 shows the number and per cent of responses concerning the graduate/teaching assistantships. Ninety- five, or 34.6 per cent, of the respondents did not respond to this item since, while at Michigan State University, they did not hold an assistantship. Those who did hold assistantships were generally satisfied with the experi­ ence. Only 19, or 6.9 per cent, indicated that graduate/ teaching assistantships needed improvement. Seventy-four, or 27.0 per cent, thought they were adequate; and 86, or 31.3 per cent, thought they were outstanding. The written responses concerning the graduate teaching assistantships are provided in Appendix C. Table 24 shows the number and per cent of responses concerning the procedures for the selection of doctoral committee members. Thirty-six, or 13.1 per cent, thought that these procedures need improvement; 144, or 52.5 per cent, thought they were adequate; and 92, or 33.5 per cent, rank the procedures as outstanding. The respondents from the area of Instructional Development and Technology and from Curriculum ranked them the highest, 39.1 per cent and 38.7 per cent, respectively. Secondary Education and Table 23.— Nisnber and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning Satisfaction With the Experience of the Graduate/Tsaching Assistantship. Major Field Needs Improvement No. « Agriculture Education Adequate Outstanding No. % No. % 4 30.7 7 53.8 No Answer No. 2 Total Number % 15.3 13 Business £ Distributive Education 2 9.5 5 23.8 5 23.8 9 42.8 21 Curriculum 5 5.3 19 20.4 32 34.4 37 39.7 93 Driver Traffic Safety 1 4.5 9 40.9 3 13.6 9 40.9 22 History, Philosophy, fi Sociology of Education 2 5.7 13 37.1 14 40.0 6 17.1 35 Instructional Development £ Technology 4 17.3 1 4.3 6 26.0 12 52.1 23 Secondary Education 4 7.5 16 30.1 19 35.8 14 26.4 53 Miscellaneous 1 7.1 7 50.0 6 42.8 14 19 6.9 74 27.0 95 34.6 274 Total 86 31.3 Table 24.— Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning Procedures for Selection of Doctoral Committee Members. Major Field Needs Improvement — No. % Adequate '■ No. % Outstanding — No. % No Answer ■ No. % Total Number Agriculture Education 2 15.3 6 46.1 5 38.4 13 Business £ Distributive Education 4 19.0 11 52.3 6 28.5 21 Curriculum 4 4.3 52 55.9 36 38.7 Driver Traffic Safety 4 18.1 10 45.4 8 36.3 22 History, Philosophy, £ Sociology of Education 6 17.1 17 48.5 12 34.2 35 Instructional Development 6 Technology 2 8.6 12 52.1 9 39.1 23 11 20.7 29 54.7 11 20.7 3 21.4 6 42.8 5 35.7 36 13.1 144 52.5 92 33.5 Secondary Education Miscellaneous Total 1 1 1.0 1.8 93 53 14 2 .7 274 96 Business and Distributive Education ranked it as needing improvement, 20.7 per cent and 19.0 per cent, respectively. The written comments regarding the procedures for the selection of a doctoral committee are provided in Appendix C. Table 25 shows the number and per cent of responses concerning the procedures for comprehensive and oral defense examinations. Forty-eight, or 17.5 per cent, of the respondents felt that this aspect of their doctoral programs needed improvement. One hundred and forty-five, or 53.2 per cent, thought it was adequate; and 77, or 20.1 per cent, thought it was outstanding. The groups most satisfied with the comprehensive and oral defense exami­ nations were Curriculum and History, Philosophy, and Sociology of Education, who ranked it 37.6 per cent and 37.1 per cent outstanding, respectively. Six, or 28.5 per cent, of the Business and Distributive Education respondents indicated that it needed improvement. The written comments of the respondents regarding the procedures for compre­ hensive and oral defense examinations are found in Appendix C. Table 26 shows the number and per cent of responses concerning the availability of committee members for consultation. Forty-eight, or 17.5 per cent, indicated that this aspect of their experience in the College of Education needed improvement. Ninety-nine, or 36.1 per cent, ranked it as adequate; and 126, or 45.9 per cent, Table 25.— Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning Procedures for Comprehensive and Oral Defense Examinations. Ma1o Field Heeds Improvement — ■ - — No. % Adequate Outstanding No. No. % No Answer Total ■■'■— ■Number % No. % Agriculture Education 2 15.3 9 69.2 2 15.3 13 Business & Distributive Education 6 28.5 11 52.3 4 19.0 21 15 16.1 40 43.0 35 37.6 Driver Traffic Safety 4 18.1 12 54.5 6 27.2 22 History, Philosophy, fi Sociology of Education 4 11.4 18 51.4 13 37.1 35 Instructional Development & Technology 4 17.3 16 69.5 3 13.0 23 12 22.6 31 58.4 10 18.8 1 7.1 9 64.2 4 28.5 48 17.5 145 53.2 77 28.1 Curriculum Secondary Education Miscellaneous Total 3 1 3.2 1.8 93 53 14 4 1.4 274 Table 26.— Ntnber and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning the Availability of Committee Members for Consultation. Malor Field Needs Improvement — — — No. % Adequate — No. % Outstanding ■ No. % No Answer — NO. % Total Ntsnber Agriculture Education 1 7.6 7 53.8 5 38.4 13 Business 6 Distributive Education 1 4.7 11 52.3 9 42.8 21 14 15.0 34 36.5 45 48.3 93 Driver Traffic Safety 9 40.9 4 18.1 9 40.9 22 History, Philosophy, & Sociology of Education 4 11.4 8 22.8 23 65.7 35 Instructional Development £ Technology 5 21.7 9 39.1 9 39.1 23 12 22.6 19 35.8 22 41.5 53 2 14.2 7 50.0 4 28.5 1 7.1 14 48 17.5 99 36.1 126 45.9 1 .3 274 Curriculum Secondary Education Miscellaneous Total 99 thought, it was outstanding. The respondents from the areas of History, Philosophy, and Sociology of Education and Curriculum were most pleased with the availability of their committee members. In the History, Philosophy and Sociology of Education group 23, or 65.7 per cent, said this aspect was outstanding. Forty-five, or 48.3 per cent, of the Curriculum group ranked it as outstanding. Nine, or 40.9 per cent, of the Driver Traffic Safety group, and 12, or 22.6 per cent, of the Secondary Education group, indi­ cated that this aspect needs improvement. The written comments of the respondents concerning the availability of their committee members are found in Appendix C. Table 27 shows the number and per cent of responses concerning the general working relationships the respondents had with their doctoral committees. Generally, the respondents were very satisfied with that relationship. One hundred and sixty-three, or 59.4 per cent, of the respondents thought that aspect of their experience as doctoral candidates was outstanding. Ninety-two, or 33.5 per cent, thought it was adequate; and only 19, or 6.9 per cent, thought it needed improvement. The respondents from the area of History, Philosophy, and Sociology of Education were most impressed with 26, or 74.2 per cent, indicating that the working relationship was outstanding. The written comments of the respondents in regard to the general working relationship they had with their committees are found in Appendix C. Table 27.— Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning General Working Relationship With Entire Committee. Major Field Needs Improvement Adequate No. No. % No. % Outstanding No Answer No. Total Number % 1 7.6 5 38.4 7 53.8 13 Business fi Distributive Education 2 9.5 6 28.5 13 61.9 21 Curriculum 2 2.1 33 41.9 58 62.3 93 Driver Traffic Safety 4 18.1 4 18.1 14 63.6 22 9 25.7 26 74.2 35 History, Philosophy, fi Sociology of Education Instructional Development & Technology 2 8.6 6 26.0 15 65.2 23 Secondary Education 7 13.2 22 41.5 24 45.2 53 Miscellaneous 1 7.1 7 50.0 6 42.8 14 19 6.9 92 33.5 163 59.4 274 Total 100 Agriculture Education 101 Professional Growth The respondents were asked to react to a number of items which dealt with their perceptions of the opportuni­ ties their doctoral programs offered them in terms of their own personal-professional growth. Generally, the respondents were well satisfied with this aspect of their programs and much useful data were gained about the existing strengths of doctoral programs in the Department of Secondary Edu­ cation and Curriculum. Table 28 shows the number and per cent of responses concerning the opportunity to develop an understanding of the major issues in education. Thirteen, or 4.7 per cent, of the respondents thought that little or nothing was done to develop this awareness; 82, or 29.9 per cent, thought some opportunity existed, and 177, or 64.5 per cent, indi­ cated a great deal. The respondents from the areas of History, Philosophy, and Sociology of Education and Curriculum were most impressed with this aspect, indicating a great deal was done to develop this knowledge. Table 29 shows the number and per cent of responses indicating the judgments of the respondents regarding the opportunity their programs offered them to develop strategies for curriculum and instructional change. Thirty, or 10.9 per cent, of the respondents thought little or nothing was done to develop these strategies, 113, or 41.2 per cent, thought that some opportunity to develop change strategies existed, and 129, or 47.0 per cent, Table 28.— Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning the Opportunity to Develop an Understanding of the Major Issues in Education. Major Field Little or None No. % Agriculture Education Some No. A Great Deal % No. % No Answer No. Total Number % 6 46.1 7 53.8 13 21 Business fi Distributive Education 2 9.5 11 52.3 8 38.0 Curriculum 3 3.2 22 23.6 66 70.9 9 40.9 13 59.1 22 Driver Traffic Safety 2 2.1 93 History, Philosophy, 6 Sociology of Education 1 2.8 4 11.4 30 85.7 35 Instructional Development £ Technology 2 8.6 5 21.7 16 69.5 23 Secondary Education 5 9.4 21 39.6 27 50.9 53 4 28.5 10 71.4 14 82 29.9 177 64.5 Miscellaneous Total 13 4.7 2 .7 274 Table 29.— Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning the Opportunity to Develop Strategies for Curriculum and Instructional Change. Major Pield Little or None No. % Agriculture Education Some No. A Great Deal % No. % No Answer No. Total Number % 7 53.8 6 46.1 13 21 Business £ Distributive Education 3 14.2 10 47.6 8 38.0 Curriculum 6 6.4 33 35.4 52 55.9 Driver Traffic Safety 1 4.5 12 54.5 9 40.9 22 History, Philosophy, & Sociology of Education 9 25.7 18 51.4 8 22.8 35 Instructional Development £ Technology 1 4.3 6 26.0 16 69.5 Secondary Education 8 15.0 39.6 24 45.2 53 Miscellaneous 2 14.2 42.8 6 42.8 14 30 10.9 41.2 129 47.0 113 2 2.1 .7 93 274 103 Total 2 104 thought there was a great deal of opportunity. The respondents in the area of Instructional Development and Technology were especially impressed with this aspect of their programs. Sixteen, or 69.5 per cent, of that group indicated a great deal of opportunity existed in their programs to develop strategies for curriculum and in­ structional change. Nine, or 25.7 per cent, of the respondents from History, Philosophy, and Sociology of Education indicated little or nothing in response to the development of change strategies. The written responses of the respondents in regard to the opportunities for the development of strategies for curriculum and instructional change are provided in Appendix C. Table 30 shows the number and per cent of responses concerning the opportunity to stimulate and facilitate change in education. Thirty-nine, or 14.2 per cent, of respondents indicated that their programs offered "little or no" opportunity. One hundred and fifty, or 54.7 per cent, indicated "some" opportunity; and 79, or 28.8 per cent, thought "a great deal." Th irty-three, or 35.4 per cent, of the Curriculum group indicated "a great deal." Eight, or 22.8 per cent, of the History, Philosophy, and Sociology groupB indicated "little or no" opportunity existed. The written responses concerning this aspect are provided in Appendix C. Table 30 shows the number and per cent of responses concerning the opportunity to develop an enlarged and more Table 30.— Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning the Opportunity to Stimulate and Facilitate Change in Education. Major Field Little or None No. % A Great Deal Some No. % No. % No Answer No. Total Number % 1 7.1 9 69.2 3 23.0 Business £ Distributive Education 3 14.2 12 57.1 5 23.8 1 4.7 21 19 20.4 38 23.8 33 35.4 3 3.2 93 Driver Traffic Safety 1 4.5 14 43.8 7 31.8 22 History, Philosophy, £ Sociology of Education 8 22.8 20 57.1 7 20.0 35 Instructional Development £ Technology 1 4.3 12 52.1 8 34.7 Secondary Education 6 11.3 35 66.0 12 22.6 53 10 71.4 4 28.5 14 150 54.7 79 28.8 Curriculum Miscellaneous Total 39 14.2 13 2 6 8.6 2.1 23 274 105 Agriculture Education 106 comprehensive philosophy of education, and Table 31 shows the number and per cent of responses regarding the opportunity to develop an enlarged philosophy of life. Seventeen, or 6.2 per cent, of the respondents thought their programs offered them little or nothing in the development of a philosophy of education. Thirty-eight, or 13.8 per cent, thought that little or nothing was done to develop a more comprehensive philosophy of life. Ninety-three, or 33.9 per cent, of the respondents thought some opportunity existed for the development of an enlarged, more compre­ hensive philosophy of education. A similar number, 112, or 40.8 per cent, thought that some opportunity existed in the development of an enlarged philosophy of life. One hundred and sixty, or 58.3 per cent, thought a great deal of opportunity existed in developing a philosophy of education and 118, or 4 3.0 per cent, thought a great deal of oppor­ tunity existed to develop a philosophy of life. The two areas most impressed by these aspects of their program were History, Philosophy and Sociology of Education and Curricu­ lum. Twenty-five, or 71.4 per cent, of History, Philosophy, and Sociology respondents indicated a great deal of oppor­ tunity existed to develop an enlarged philosophy of edu­ cation, and of life. Sixty-three, or 67.7 per cent, of Curriculum respondents thought a great deal of opportunity existed to develop an enlarged philosophy of education, and 48, or 51.6 per cent, of life. Six, or 11.3 per cent, of the Secondary Education respondents indicated that little Table 31.— Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning the Development of an Enlarged More Comprehensive Philosophy of Education. Major Field Little or None NO. % Some No. A Great Deal % NO. % No Answer No. Total Number 4 Agriculture Education 1 7.6 6 46.1 6 46.1 13 Business t Distributive Education 1 4.7 11 52.3 9 42.8 21 Curriculum 4 4.3 25 26.8 63 67.7 2 2.1 93 Driver Traffic Safety 1 4.5 9 40.9 12 54.5 22 History, Philosophy, £ Sociology of Education 2 5.7 8 22.8 25 71.4 35 Instructional Development £ Technology 2 8.6 8 34.7 13 56.5 23 Secondary Education 6 11.3 22 41.5 23 43.3 2 3.7 53 4 28.5 9 64.2 1 7.1 14 93 33.9 160 58.3 5 Miscellaneous Total 17 6.2 274 o 108 or no opportunity existed to develop an enlarged more comprehensive philosophy of education; and 6, or 26.0 per cent, of the respondents from Instructional Development and Technology reported that little or no opportunity existed to develop an enlarged philosophy of life. The written responses of the respondents regarding these two aspects of their programs are provided in Appendix C. Table 33 shows the number and per cent of responses concerning the respondents perceptions of how well their programs developed a thorough knowledge of their subject area. The respondents were well satisfied with this aspect of their programs. Only 10, or 3.6 per cent, indicated that little or no opportunity existed to develop this thorough knowledge. Eighty-six, or 31.3 per cent, reported some opportunity; and 176, or 64.2 per cent, reported a great deal. Most impressed with this aspect, were the respondents from Driver Traffic Safety, History, Philosophy, and Sociology of Education, Curriculum, and Business and Distributive Education. The written responses of the respondents regarding the opportunity to develop a thorough knowledge of their subject areas are found in Appendix C. Table 34 shows the number and per cent of responses concerning the opportunity to be adequately exposed to innovative school programs. Thirty-seven, or 13.5 per cent, of the respondents thought that little or no oppor­ tunity existed; 114, or 41.6 per cent, thought that some opportunity existed; and 118, or 43.0 per cent, thought Table 32.— Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgment Regarding an Enlarged Philosophy of Life. Hajor Field Little or None Sane A Great Deal No Answer Total Number No. % 53.8 4 30.7 13 12 57.1 5 23.8 21 11.8 33 35.4 48 51.6 1 1.0 93 2 9.0 8 36.3 10 45.4 2 9.0 22 History, Philosophy, fc Sociology of Education 1 2.8 8 22.8 25 71.4 1 2.8 35 Instructional Development & Technology 6 26.0 10 43.4 6 26.0 1 4.3 23 11 20.7 28 52.8 13 24.5 1 1.8 53 1 7.1 6 42.8 7 50.0 38 13.8 112 40.8 118 43.0 % No, Agriculture Education 2 15.3 7 Business & Distributive Education 4 19.0 11 Driver Traffic Safety Curriculum Secondary Education Miscellaneous Total % No. % 14 6 2.1 274 109 No. Table 3 3 Nvsnber and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning the Development of a Thorough Knowledge of the Respondent's Subject Area. Major Field Little or None No. % Agriculture Education Some No. A Great Deal % No. % No Answer No. Total Number % 8 61.5 5 38.4 13 21 3 14.2 5 23.8 13 61.9 Curriculum 4 4.3 27 29.0 61 65.5 3 13.6 19 86.3 22 7 20.0 27 77.1 35 8 34.7 15 65.2 23 22 41.5 28 52.8 6 42.8 8 57.1 86 31.3 176 64.2 Driver Traffic Safety History, Philosophy, & Sociology of Education 1 2.8 Instructional Development 6 Technology Secondary Education 2 3.7 Miscellaneous Total 10 3.6 1 1 1.0 1.8 93 53 14 2 .7 274 110 Business 6 Distributive Education Table 34.— Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning the Opportunity to be Adequately Exposed to Innovative School Programs. Major Field Little or None No. « Some No. A Great Deal % No. « No Answer No. Total f4UQD«r % Agriculture Education 1 7.6 6 46.1 6 46.1 Business t Distributive Education 4 19.0 6 38.0 8 38.0 1 4.7 21 12 12.9 42 45.1 36 30.7 3 3.2 93 Driver Traffic Safety 3 13.6 6 27.2 13 59.0 History, Philosophy, & Sociology of Education 9 25.7 17 48.5 8 22.8 Instructional Development s Technology 1 4.3 7 30.4 15 65.2 23 Secondary Education 6 11.3 20 37.7 27 50.9 53 Miscellaneous 1 7.1 8 57.1 5 35.7 14 37 13.5 114 41.6 118 43.0 Total 22 1 4 2.8 1.4 35 274 Ill Curriculum 13 112 a great deal of opportunity existed. The respondents from the area of Secondary Education were more impressed with this aspect of their personal-professional growth at Michigan State University than with any other. Twenty- seven, or 50.9 per cent, reported a great deal of oppor­ tunity existed. Respondents from the areas of Instructional Development and Technology and Driver Traffic Safety were also impressed by this aspect. Over 65 per cent of the Instructional Development and Technology group, and 59 per cent of the Driver Traffic Safety group rated this aspect Ma great deal." Three of the groups reporting "little or no" were, History, Philosophy, Sociology of Education, 9, or 25.7 per cent; Business and Distributive Education, 4, or 19.0 per cent; and Driver Traffic Safety, 3, or 13.6 per cent. The written comments of the respondents concerning the opportunities to be exposed to innovative school programs are provided in Appendix C. Table 35 shows the number and per cent of responses to the opportunity to develop a sense of professional ethics. Twenty-three, or 8.3 per cent, indicated that little or no opportunity existed. One hundred and thirty- five, or 49.2 per cent, reported some opportunity existed; and 97, or 35.4 per cent, thought a great deal of oppor­ tunity existed. Three of the groups responding "a great deal" most frequently were. Instructional Development and Technology, 13, or 56.5 per cent; Driver Traffic Safety, 11, or 50.0 per cent; and History, Philosophy and Sociology Table 35.--Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning the Opportunity to Develop a Sense of Professional Ethics. Major Field Little or None A Great Deal Some NO Answer Total KiUiRuiSL No. % No. % NO. t No. % Agriculture Education 1 7.6 9 69.2 3 23.0 Business & Distributive Education 3 14.2 12 57.1 4 19.0 2 9.5 21 Curriculum 7 7.5 49 52.6 32 34.4 5 5.3 93 Driver Traffic Safety 2 9.0 9 40.9 11 50.0 22 History, Philosophy, & Sociology of Education 5 14.2 13 37.1 17 48.5 35 Instructional Development & Technology 2 8.6 8 34.7 13 56.5 23 Secondary Education 2 3.7 29 54.7 10 18.8 Miscellaneous 1 7.1 6 42.8 7 50.0 23 8.3 135 49.2 97 35.4 3 5.6 53 14 10 3.6 274 113 Total 13 114 of Education with 17, or 48.5 per cent. The respondents indicating little or no opportunity to develop a sense of professional ethics were well distributed among the eight groups represented. The written comments concerning this aspect of the respondents doctoral program are provided in Appendix C. Table 36 shows the number and per cent of responses concerning the opportunity to develop skills in critical thinking. Twenty, or 7.2 per cent, of the respondents thought little or no opportunity existed; 113, or 41.2 per cent, thought some opportunity existed; and 134, or 48.9 per cent, thought a great deal. Among those groups most impressed by this aspect of their programs were History, Philosophy, and Sociology of Education, Agricultural Edu­ cation, and Curriculum. In the case of the Agricultural Education group, they were more impressed with this aspect of their doctoral programs than with any other personalprofessional growth component. The percentage of respondents indicating "little or no opportunity" were distributed fairly evenly among the eight groupB represented. The written comments concerning the opportunity to develop skills in critical thinking are provided in Appendix C. Table 37 shows the number and per cent of responses concerning the opportunity to gain skills in interpersonal relations. Thirty, or 12.0 per cent, of the respondents thought little or no opportunity existed in their programs to develop these skills. One hundred and thirty-one, or Table 36.— Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning the Opportunity to Develop Skills in Critical Thinking. Major Field Little or None Some A Great Deal NO Answer Total Number No. % 23.0 8 61.5 10 47.6 8 38.0 1 4.7 21 3.2 41 44.0 44 47.3 5 5.3 93 2 9.0 11 50.0 9 40.9 22 History, Philosophy, £ Sociology of Education 2 5.7 8 22.8 25 71.4 35 Instructional Development £ Technology 2 S.6 10 43.4 10 43.4 Secondary Education 6 11.2 23 43.3 24 45.2 53 Miscellaneous 1 7.1 7 50.0 6 42.8 14 20 7.2 113 41.2 134 48.9 % Agriculture Education 2 15.3 3 Business £ Distributive Education 2 9.5 Curriculum 3 Driver Traffic Safety Total NO % No. % 13 1 7 4.7 2.5 23 274 115 No. Table 37.— Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning the Opportunity to Gain Skills in Interpersonal Relations. Major Field Little or None No. % A Great Deal Some No. % No. t No Answer No. Total Number % 1 7.6 6 46.1 6 46.1 Business & Distributive Education 4 19.0 13 61.9 3 14.2 1 4.7 21 Curriculum 5 S.3 43 46.2 41 44.0 4 4.3 93 Driver Traffic Safety 1 4.5 11 50.0 10 45.4 22 History, Philosophy, & Sociology of Education 5 14.2 19 54.2 11 31.4 35 Instructional Development t Technology 5 21.7 12 52.1 6 26.0 23 Secondary Education 9 16.9 21 39.6 21 39.6 Miscellaneous 3 21.3 6 42.8 5 35.7 33 12.0 131 47.8 103 37.5 Total 13 2 3.7 53 14 7 2.5 274 116 Agriculture Education 117 47.8 per cent, indicated "some"; and 103, or 37.5 per cent, thought "a great deal." Three of the groups indicating "a great deal" moot frequently were Agricultural Education 46.1 per cent; Driver Traffic Safety, 45.4 per cent; and Curriculum, 44.0 per cent. The three groups responding "little or no" most frequently were Instructional Develop­ ment and Technology, 21.7 per cent; Business and Dis­ tributive Education, 19.0 per cent; and Secondary Education, 16.9 per cent. Table 38 shows the number and per cent of responses concerning the opportunity to develop an understanding of group behavior and the findings closely follow the data in Table 37. Thirty-seven, or 3 3.5 per cent, of the respondents indicated little or no opportunity to develop these skills. One hundred and thirty, or 47.4 per cent, reported "some" opportunity; and 101, or 36,8 per cent, reported "a great deal." The three groups most frequently reporting "a great deal" were Driver Traffic Safety, 45.4 per cent; Curriculum, 41.9 per cent; and Secondary Education, 39.6 per cent. Those groups responding most frequently to "little or none" were. Business and Distributive Education, 38.0 per cent; and Instructional Development and Technology, 21.7 per cent. The Business and Distributive Education group, in fact, responded more frequently to "little or none" on this item than on any other aspect of personal-professional growth. The written comments of the respondents concerning the opportunities to gain skills in interpersonal relations Table 38.— Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning the Opportunity to Develop an Understanding of Group Behavior. Little or None No. % Sane No. A Great Deal % No. % No. Total NumDer % Agriculture Education 1 7.6 7 53.8 5 38.4 Business & Distributive Education 8 38.0 10 47.6 2 9.5 1 4.7 21 Curriculum 6 6.4 43 46.2 39 41.9 5 5.3 93 12 54.5 10 45.4 22 Driver Traffic Safety 13 History, Philosophy, 6 Sociology of Education 6 17.1 16 45.7 13 37.1 35 Instructional Development & Technology 5 21.7 12 52.1 6 26.0 23 Secondary Education 9 16.9 23 43.3 21 39.6 53 Miscellaneous 2 14.2 7 50.0 5 35.7 14 37 13.5 130 47.4 101 36.8 Total 6 2.1 274 BIT Major Field No Answer 119 and understanding of group behavior are provided in Appendix c. Table 39 shows the number and per cent of responses concerning the opportunities to do original and creative thinking. Seventeen, or 6.2 per cent, of the respondents reported "little or no" opportunity; 116, or 42.3 per cent, reported "some"; and 135, or 49.2 per cent, reported "a great deal." The two groups responding "a great deal" most frequently were History, Philosophy, and Sociology of Edu­ cation, 65.7 per cent; and Curriculum, 55.9 per cent. The two groups responding "little or no" most frequently were Business and Distributive Education and the miscellaneous group, both with 14.2 per cent. Table 40 shows the number and per cent of responses concerning the opportunity to be prepared for a career in teaching. This aspect was second most frequently ranked as "little or none." Forty-one, or 14.9 per cent, of the respondents thought they had little or no opportunity to be prepared for a career in teaching. One hundred and twelve, or 40.8 per cent, thought they had some opportunity; and 107, or 39.0 per cent,indicated they of opportunity. Eight, or had a great deal 61.5 per cent, of the Agri­ cultural Education respondents; and 22, or 62.8 per cent, of the History, "a great deal." Philosophy, and Sociology group indicated Seven, or 30.4 per cent, of the In­ structional Development and Technology group; and 5, or Table 39.— Nuober and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning the Opportunity to Do Original and Creative Thinking. Major Field Little or None A Great Deal Some NO Answer Total i tiw n k a NUElDQr No. % Agriculture Education No % No. t 8 61.5 5 38.4 No. % 13 Business fi Distributive Education 3 14.2 9 42.8 8 38.0 1 4.7 21 Curriculum 6 6.4 32 34.4 52 55.9 3 3.2 93 Driver Traffic Safety 2 9.0 12 54.5 8 History, Philosophy, & Sociology of Education 1 2.8 11 31.4 23 65.7 10 43.4 12 52.1 1 4.3 23 1 1.8 53 Instructional Development & Technology Secondary Education 3 5.6 28 52.8 21 39.6 Miscellaneous 2 14.2 6 42.8 6 42.8 17 6.2 116 42.3 135 49.2 Total 22 36.3 35 14 6 2.1 274 Table 40.— Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgments Concerning the Opportunity to be Prepared for a Career in Teaching. Major Field No. l Agriculture Education Business G Distributive Education Some Little or None No. A Great Deal % No. % 5 38.4 8 61.5 No Answer No. Total Number % 13 23.8 9 42.8 6 28.5 1 4.7 21 12 12.9 41 44.0 33 35.4 7 7.5 93 Driver Traffic Safety 4 18.1 6 27.2 11 50.0 1 4.5 22 History, Philosophy, G Sociology of Education 1 2.8 11 31.4 22 62.8 1 2.8 35 Instructional Development G Technology 7 30.4 7 30.4 7 30.4 2 8.6 23 12 22.6 25 47.1 15 28.3 1 1.8 53 8 57.1 5 35.7 1 7.1 14 112 40.8 107 39.0 14 5.1 274 Curriculum Secondary Education Miscellaneous Total 41 14.9 121 5 122 23.8 per cent, of the Business and Distributive Education group indicated "little or no" opportunity. Table 41 shows the number and per cent of responses to the opportunity to prepare for a career in research. More candidates indicated "little or no" opportunity on this aspect of personal-professional growth than any other. Fifty-three, or 19.1 per cent, indicated little or no; 127, or 51.0 per cent, indicated some; and 75, or 27.1 per cent, thought a great deal. Eight, or 61.5 per cent, of the Agricultural Education group, and 17, or 48.5 per cent, of the History, Philosophy, and Sociology of Education group indicated a "great deal" of opportunity existed for the preparation for a career in research. Twenty-five, or 26.8 per cent, of the Curriculum group; and 5, or 2 3.6 per cent, of the Business and Distributive Education group responded "little or none" to this item. A review of the respondent's written comments regarding this aspect reveals that many of the respondents had no interest in, and felt no need for, the development of research skills. Table 42 shows a total of 202 comments from the 274 respondents who chose to comment on the question, "Having now had the opportunity to work with colleagues from other institutions, how would you generally compare your prepa­ ration with theirs?" The statements given by respondents to this question are grouped into three categories, positive, negative, and neutral. Most of the respondents Table 41.— Number and Per Cent of Responses Indicating Judgment Concerning the Opportunity to Prepare for a Career in Research. Major Field Little or None Ho. I Agriculture Education Business & Distributive Education Sane No, A Great Deal % No. % 5 38.4 8 61.5 No Answer No, Total Numoer % 13 23.8 13 61.9 2 9.5 1 4.7 21 25 26.8 44 47.3 17 18.2 7 7.5 93 Driver Traffic Safety 3 13.6 12 54.5 7 31.8 History, Philosophy, & Sociology of Education 3 8.5 13 37.1 17 48.5 2 5.7 35 Instructional Development 6 Technology 5 21.7 11 47.8 4 17.3 3 13.0 23 11 20.7 23 43.3 15 28.3 4 7.5 53 1 7.1 7 50.0 5 35.7 1 7.1 14 53 19.1 127 51.0 75 27.1 18 6.5 274 Curriculum Secondary Education Miscellaneous Total 22 123 5 124 T i b U 43. — R t i p o M U to the QUMt l o A , "Hiring How Had tha Opportunity to Work With Colleagues rrca other Institutions, h w Would You Generally C a m a r a Your Preparation at Michigan State University With Thalra?" Major rlalda of Respondents Grouped Responses K i sO U Ss :« -1H"ii 2s s s SU as > *4 I It JO w • £H2 a V n fil •A it n hi* t l 1J ^51 4 m i 0u Total Writing Coamenta U • 2 Poaltlva Battar Than Moat 1 Superior Vary Favorably Excellent 1 Above Average 1 Good 3 3 8 4 5 1 3 1 7 1 4 3 1 1 6 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 5 3 1 1 1 1 Coop eras Favorably 4 Outstanding 4 1 Generally Superior 1 3 Iaaaaaaurably Battar 1 Haad and Shoulders Above 1 Mora Than Adequate 3 3 1 1 1 as 9.1 14 5.1 14 5.1 11 4.0 11 4.0 10 1.6 9 1.3 5 l.B 4 1.4 4 1.4 1 1.0 1 1.0 1 3 .7 1 a .7 1 3 .7 3 More Than Comparable Surpassed by Nona 3 3 1 Negative 1 Mot aa Good Neutral Adequate 1 1 1 Comparable 1 Bather Similar About tha Serna 1 1 1 6 3 3 1 1 Equal to Others At Leaat aa Good 3 1 1 4 4 4 a 3 i 1 1 11 4.7 10 1.6 10 3.6 1 1 7 3.5 6 3.1 1 5 l.B 1 6 3.1 3 .7 Can't Bay Don't Know It's Hard to Say 3 1 1 3 1 125 responded positively to this question with a very small percentage responding negatively or responding, "I don't know." The Dissertation The graduates were asked a series of questions regarding their experience with many of the aspects of completing a dissertation. Table 4 3 shows the number and per cent of the responses to the procedure for the selection and approval of a dissertation topic. They were directed to indicate their degree of satisfaction with this phase by marking one of three categorical responses, "needs improvement," "adequate," and "outstanding." Forty-one, or 14.9 per cent, indicated that this phase needs improve­ ment. One hundred and forty-six, or 53.2 per cent, thought it was adequate; and 76, or 27.7 per cent, thought it was outstanding. Six, or 46.1 per cent, of the Agricultural Education group; and 6, or 42.8 per cent, of the Miscel­ laneous group thought this phase was outstanding. Five, or 22.7 per cent; and 5, or 21.7 per cent, of the Instructional Development and Technology group thought this phase needs improvement. The written responses of the respondents regarding the various aspects of the disser­ tation are provided in Appendix C. Table 44 shows the number and per cent of responses concerning the applicability of the respondents research preparation to the requirements of the dissertation. Table 43.— Number and Per Cent of Responses Concerning the Procedures for Selection and Approval of Dissertation Topic. Major Field Needs Improvement No, % Some Outstanding No. % No. % No Answer No. Total Numoer t 1 7.6 6 46.1 6 46.1 Business £ Distributive Education 3 14.2 12 57.1 5 23.8 1 4.7 21 10 10.7 53 56.9 27 29.0 3 3.2 93 Driver Traffic Safety 5 22.7 12 54.5 4 18.1 1 4.5 22 History, Philosophy, & Sociology of Education 3 8.5 17 48.5 13 37.1 2 5.7 35 Instructional Development & Technology 5 21.7 13 56.5 4 17.3 1 4.3 23 10 18.8 29 54.7 11 20.7 3 5.6 53 4 28.5 4 28.5 6 42.8 41 14.9 146 53.2 76 27.7 Curriculum Secondary Education Miscellaneous Total 13 14 11 4.0 274 126 Agriculture Education Table 44.— Humber and Per Cent of Responses Concerning the Applicability of Research Preparation to Requirements of the Dissertation. Major Field Heeds Improvement No. % Agriculture Education Adequate Outstanding % No. % No. B 61.5 5 38.4 No Answer No. Total Number % 13 19.0 12 57.1 4 19.0 1 4.7 21 15 16.1 51 54.8 25 26.8 2 2.1 93 Driver Traffic Safety 5 22.7 10 45.4 6 27.2 1 4.5 22 History, Philosophy, £ Sociology of Education 5 14.2 15 42.8 10 28.5 5 14.2 35 Instructional Development £ Technology 7 30.4 9 39.1 6 26.0 1 4.3 23 Secondary Education 9 16.9 30 56.6 11 20.7 3 5.6 53 Miscellaneous 2 14.2 8 57.1 4 28.5 47 17.1 143 52.1 71 25.9 Curriculum Total 14 13 4.7 274 127 4 Business £ Distributive Education 128 Forty-seven, or 17.1 per cent, thought their research preparation needed improvement; 143, or 52.1 per cent, thought it was adequate; and 71, or 25.9 per cent, thought it was outstanding. The respondents in Agricultural Education, History, Philosophy, and Sociology of Education, and Driver Traffic Safety were most impressed with the applicability of their research preparation to their dissertation requirements. The Instructional Development and Technology, and Business and Distributive Education groups were least impressed. Table 45 shows the number and per cent of responses concerning the satisfaction of the respondents with the oral defense of the dissertation. Generally, the respondents were satisfied with this part of their programs. Twenty- five, or 9.1 per cent, thought it needed improvement; 148, or 54.0 per cent, thought it was adequate; and 92, or 33.5 per cent, indicated it was outstanding. Seven, or 53.8 per cent, of the Agricultural Education and 36, or 38.7 per cent, of the Curriculum groups thought it was out­ standing. The responses indicating it needed improvement were fairly evenly distributed among the eight groups. Table 46 shows the number and per cent of responses concerning the respondents' satisfaction with the relevance of the dissertation to their professional goals. Thirty- five, or 12.7 per cent, thought that it could be more relevant. One hundred and ten, or 40.1 per cent, thought it was adequate; and 119, or 43.4 per cent, thought it Table 45.— Humber and Per Cent of Responses Concerning the Oral Defense of the Dissertation. Major Field Heeds Improvement Adequate No No. % NO. % % Outstanding NO Answer No. Total Number % Agriculture Education 1 7.6 5 36.4 7 53.8 Business & Distributive Education 2 9.5 12 57.1 6 28.5 1 4.7 21 Curriculum 7 7.5 46 51.6 36 38.7 2 2.1 93 Driver Traffic Safety 3 13.6 10 45.4 8 36.3 1 4.5 22 History, Philosophy, & Sociology of Education 2 5.7 21 60.0 12 34.2 Instructional Development & Technology 3 13.0 11 47.8 8 34.7 1 4.3 23 Secondary Education 6 11.3 33 62.2 10 18.8 4 4.3 53 Miscellaneous 1 7.1 8 57.1 5 35.7 25 9.1 148 54.0 92 33.5 35 14 9 3.2 274 129 Total 13 Table 46.--Number and Per Cent of Responses Concerning the Relevance of the Dissertation to the Professional Goals of the Respondents. Major Field Needs Improvement Adequate No, No. % No. % No. 6 46.1 6 46.1 1 7.6 13 % Agriculture Education Outstanding No Answer Total Number % 9.5 9 42.8 9 42.8 1 4.7 21 11 11.8 36 38.7 44 47.3 2 2.1 93 Driver Traffic Safety 3 13.6 8 36.3 10 45.4 1 4.5 22 History, Philosophy, & Sociology of Education 4 11.4 16 45.7 14 40.0 1 2.8 35 Instructional Development & Technology 4 17.3 9 39.1 9 39.1 1 4.3 23 Secondary Education 9 16.9 21 39.6 20 37.7 3 5.6 53 Miscellaneous 2 14.2 5 35.7 7 50.0 35 12.7 110 40.1 119 43.4 Curriculum Total 14 10 274 130 2 Business 6 Distributive Education 131 was outstanding. The Curriculum group thought their dissertations were most relevant to their professional goals; 44, or 47.3 per cent, of that group indicated that it was outstanding. Ten, or 45.4 per cent, of the Driver Traffic Safety group, and 6, or 46.1 per cent, of the Agricultural Education group thought it was outstanding. Four, or 17.3 per cent, of the Instructional Development and Technology group; and 9, or 16.9 per cent, of the Secondary Education group thought it needed improvement. Table 47 shows the number and per cent of re­ spondents answering the question, "How did you approach the task of the dissertation?*' One hundred and twenty-four, or 45.2 per cent, answered, "with enthusiasm. Thirty-five, or 12.7 per cent, responded, "with appreciation," and 31, or 11.3 per cent, stated, "indifferently." The other respondents who answered this question gave a variety of other responses. In order to clarify these responses they are grouped according to positive, negative, and neutral responses. Table 48 shows the number of responses to the question, "What benefits, other than meeting a program requirement, did you derive from writing a dissertation?" The 225 responses to this question are presented by frequency and tabulated by doctoral major area. Twenty- eight, or 10.2 per cent, of the respondents thought they sharpened their research skills; and 26, or 9.4 per cent, thought they developed writing skills. Twenty-three, or 132 Table 47.— Number and Per Cent of Respondents Answering the Question, "How Did You Approach the Task of the Dissertation?" Answer Number Per Cent Positive 124 45.2 35 12.7 As a Good Experience 1 .4 With Determination 1 .4 With Interest 1 .4 162 59.1 18 6.5 With Fear 8 2.9 With Apprehension 5 l.B Reluctantly 4 1.4 With Dread 2 * With Anxiety 2 *f A Pain in the Posterior 1 a A Perpetual Struggle 1 ■ *S As a Meaningless Experience 1 • *e with Enthusiasm With Appreciation Total Negative With Loathing / *• 42 15.2 31 11.3 Another Hurdle 8 2.9 As a Necessity 4 1.4 A Program Requirement 4 1.4 With Ambivalence 1 .4 No Special Feeling 1 .4 49 17.8 253 92.3 Total Neutral Indifferently Total Total 133 Tabla 48.— Aaaponaaa to th# Question, "What Benefit, other Meeting a Program Did You Dariva Prom Writing a Dissertation?" Arranged by Praquency and Tabulatad According to Doctoral Major Piald. H w b t r of Raapondanta Reporting Prom Each Major Piald Total • <5 T* U “ H T O 8 -■ % ^ N° sponse no. % D ° % Total Number Agricultural Education 4 30.7 9 69.2 Business t Distributive Education 9 42.8 10 47.6 2 9.5 21 Curriculum 42 45.1 41 44.0 10 10.7 93 Driver Traffic Safety 12 54.5 10 45.4 9 25.7 24 68.5 2 5.7 35 Instructional Development & Technology 14 60.8 6 26.0 3 13.0 23 Secondary Education 19 35.8 24 45.2 10 18.8 53 6 42.8 7 50.0 1 7.1 14 115 41.9 131 47.0 28 10.2 274 History, Philosophy, & Sociology of Education Miscellaneous Total 13 22 Table 50.--Responses to the Question, "How Did Your Committee Regard the Purposes of the Dissertation?" Major Field of Respondents Training Exercise in Research Original Contribution to Knowledge Number Responding No. « No. 1 Agricultural Education 10 76.9 3 23.0 13 Business & Distributive Education 11 52.3 10 47.6 21 Curriculum 35 37.6 48 51.6 83 Driver Traffic Safety 11 50.0 11 50.0 22 History, Philosophy, 6 Sociology of Education 12 34.7 20 57.1 32 8 34.7 10 43.4 18 25 47.1 25 47.1 50 7 50.0 3 21.4 10 119 43.4 130 47.4 249 Instructional Development & Technology Secondary Education Miscellaneous Total 137 One hundred and nineteen, or 43.4 per cent, of the respondents indicated their committees regarded the purpose of the dissertation as an original contribution to knowledge. Twenty-two of the respondents indicated other purposes and three respondents did not respond. Table 51 shows the number of responses to "other" in regard to the respondents' perceptions to how their committee regarded the purposes of the dissertation. The purpose of Chapter IV has been to present the data gathered from the 274 doctoral recipients of the Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum who participated in this study. In order to make these data readily available, the findings, in most cases, have been grouped according to the recipients' major doctoral area. 138 Table 51.— Humber of Responses to "Other” in Regard to the Question, "How Did Your Committee Regard the Purposes of Disser­ tations?" Humber of Respondents Reporting From Each Major Field Total No. ■A Responses 3 3 %o tr• < u§ 3 • 3 m TJ (ftW s . •H 4-1 V) (ft n3 a 3 M U* • O to u H a>-H •H ft) ■ 3 •H TJ ■ HU •C P. «M fcg I o S 3 (ft LP X « •£O V4 4J fl> H Ms (« C <0 o o O « ■3o to to O 2 (ft Original Creative Enterprise 1.4 Exercise in Writing 3 1.0 Ritual Necessary for Ph.D. 3 1.0 It Would Help Me Grow 3 1.0 They Were Uninterested 1.0 A Necessary Evil .7 Research on Pet Projects 1 .4 Means to An End 1 .4 Pain in the Ass 1 .4 They Lacked Confidence in Me .4 CHAPTER V SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This study had two major purposes: (1) to appraise the quality and effectiveness of the programs leading to a Doctor of Education or a Doctor of Philosophy degree in the Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum in the College of Education at Michigan State University, and (2) to make recommendations based on the findings which will enable the Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum to strengthen those programs. There were four major aspects of the problem: 1. What do we know about the recent doctoral recipient; his educational and professional background; his professional experience since graduation; his reasons for selecting Michigan State University? 2. How do recent recipients appraise their own programs? What aspects and phases of their programs do they feel need improvement, were adequate, or were outstanding? 139 140 3. How do recent recipients appraise their personalprofessional growth as a direct result of the experiences of their programs? How well do they think their programs developed professional competencies ? 4. How do recent recipients view the educational value of their doctoral dissertation experience? Their satisfaction with topic selection procedures; their working relationships with their doctoral committees while writing the dissertation; their satisfaction with the oral defense of the dissertation; their satisfaction with the total experience? 5. How do the perceptions of doctoral recipients from the Department of Secondary Education and Cur­ riculum at Michigan State University in regard to their satisfaction with the major aspects of their programs compare with those of doctoral recipients involved in the other departmental and national surveys cited in this study? Summary of Findings The Respondents The population of this study included the 34 8 doctoral recipients from the Department of Secondary Edu­ cation and Curriculum. Of these 348 doctoral recipients, a total of 274, or 78.7 per cent, participated in the study 141 by returning completed questionnaires. In most cases, for the purposes of analysis, the respondents were grouped according to their major fields of study, except for a miscellaneous group of fourteen who were grouped for anonymity and because the small numbers would make the responses of little significance. For analysis of some data, respondents were grouped by vocational pattern. Fifty-eight per cent were in college or university teaching; 13 per cent were in college or university administration; 11 per cent were in public school administration; over 3 per cent were in public school teaching; and about 14 per cent were in other miscellaneous activities, some of which were of an edu­ cational nature. For one item of data, respondents were grouped by years of graduation. Thirty-four completed their degrees in 1967-1968; 56 in 1968-1969; 60 in 1969-1970; 65 in 1970-1971; and 59 in 1971-1972. About 2 3 per cent reported undergraduate major fields in the social sciences, 15 per cent were in edu­ cation, mathematics and the physical sciences accounted for 13.8 per cent, English had 8 per cent, and business, business education, economics and marketing claimed over 7 per cent; Agricultural Education had about 7 per cent. Various other disciplines made up the balance of under­ graduate major fields. 142 At the master's degree level, majors were reported as follows: Educational Administration, 15.6 per cent; Secondary and Elementary Education, over 15 per cent; Social Philosophic Foundations, over 11 per cent; Business Edu­ cation, almost 10 per cent; Agricultural Education over 5 per cent; and Industrial Education, over 5 per cent. Smaller numbers of respondents reported other majors. One hundred and forty-one, or 51.4 per cent, of the respondents completed their master's degree in Michigan universities. The remaining 133 respondents completed the master's degrees at universities and colleges across the United States. Respondents were asked to indicate the types of professional experience they had before and after the doctorate. Two hundred and eight had been secondary school teachers, 138 had been college or university instructors, and 55 had been elementary school teachers. Lesser numbers reported experience as elementary principals, secondary supervisors, and secondary principals. The respondents' work experience after the doctoral showed 178 employed as college or university instructors and 37 as college or university administrators. The remaining respondents reported experience as federal or state program directors, and public school teachers and administrators. The data show, however, that the great majority of doctoral recipi­ ents from the Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum are employed by colleges and universities. 143 The respondents were asked to indicate, within the context of their present positions, what activities they were involved in that were directly related to changing educational processes and programs. Over 70 per cent indicated they were involved in implementing curriculum and instructional change; again, over 70 per cent reported being involved in preparing and developing educational personnel. Over 60 per cent reported that they provided information on curriculum and instructional change and in evaluating educational programs. As a whole the respondents reported being actively involved in many of the aspects of providing for instructional change. The most frequent reason respondents gave for selecting Michigan State University for doctoral work was the reputation of key faculty personnel. Other reasons frequently given by respondents were the type of program available and the reputation of Michigan State University. The proximity of Michigan State University to the homes of respondents was also selected as a reason for attending this institution. The respondents reported spending an average of 14.5 terms on their programs from entry through completion. They spent an average of 11.5 terms enrolled, on and off campus, in classes, and an average of 8 terms in residence. 144 Respondents1 Reactions to the Broad Aspects o^ Their Programs About 38 per cent of the respondents rated the quality of classroom instruction in their major area as outstanding. About 44 per cent rated it adequate, and almost 14 per cent rated it as needing improvement. Over 17 per cent of the respondents rated classroom instruction in areas other than their major as outstanding. Over 63 per cent rated it as adequate, and over 13 per cent rated it as needing improvement. The respondents reported being very satisfied with the working relationship they had with their committees. In fact, over 60 per cent rated it as outstanding. Almost 30 per cent indicated it was adequate, and slightly over 6 per cent said it needed improvement. Respondents were also generally satisfied with the opportunities for dialogue with professors and graduate students in their major area. outstanding. Over 60 per cent rated it as Over 26 per cent rated it as adequate, and almost 11 per cent indicated it needed improvement. The respondents were much less impressed with the opportunities for dialogue with professors and graduate students in areas outside their major field. Slightly over 20 per cent rated this aspect as outstanding, and 47 per cent rated it as adequate. Seventy-six, or 27.7 per cent, of the respondents thought this aspect needed improvement. 145 The respondents were asked to Indicate their degree of satisfaction with the procedures for planning their doctoral programs. Over 36 per cent rated this aspect as outstanding and 47 per cent rated it as adequate. Twelve per cent stated that it needed improvement. The respondents were asked to indicate their degree of satisfaction with the graduate/teaching assistantship. Ninety-five of the respondents did not hold assistantships while in residence at Michigan State University, and therefore, this question was not applicable to them. Of the 179 who did hold assistantships, 86 reported that experience as being outstanding, and 74 reported it as adequate. Nineteen indicated that this aBpect needed improvement. About 33 per cent of the respondents rated the procedure for the selection of committee members as out­ standing, and over 52 per cent said they were adequate. Slightly over 13 per cent thought they needed improvement. Respondents were not so impressed with the pro­ cedures for comprehensive and oral defense examinations. While 2 8 per cent indicated they were outstanding, and 53 per cent thought they were adequate, 48, or 17.5 per cent of the respondents thought they needed improvement. The written comments of the respondents (see Appendix C) indicate that several of the respondents failed to see any value in these aspects. They indicated that it was a 146 ritual or just another hurdle and that* in several cases, they waited months before they received feedback. Respondents were asked to indicate their degree of satisfaction with the availability of committee members for consultation. Almost 50 per cent thought the availability of their committees was outstanding and over 36 per cent thought it was adequate. Forty-eight, or 17.5 per cent thought this aspect needed improvement. Their written comments reflect that several of the respondents thought professors carried too large a load and were too busy. Almost 60 per cent of the respondents rated their general working relationship with their entire committee to be outstanding. Over 33 per cent thought it was adequate and leBS than 7 per cent indicated it needed improvement. PerBonal-Professional Growth Respondents were impressed with the opportunities their programs afforded them to develop an understanding of the major issues in education. Almost 65 per cent of them thought this aspect of their programs was outstanding and almost 30 per cent of them thought some opportunity existed. Less than 5 per cent thought little or no opportunity existed. Respondents were asked to rate their programs as opportunities to develop strategies for curriculum and instructional change. They were also asked to rate their programs as opportunities to stimulate and facilitate 147 change in education. Forty-seven per cent thought a great deal of opportunity existed to develop strategies, and 28 per cent thought a great deal of opportunity existed to stimulate and facilitate change. Forty-one per cent and 54 per cent, respectively, thought some opportunity existed. Ten per cent, and 14 per cent, respectively, thought little or no opportunity existed. Sixty-four per cent of the respondents thought a great deal of opportunity to develop a thorough knowledge of their major area existed and 31 per cent thought some opportunity existed. Less than 4 per cent thought little or no opportunity existed. The respondents were asked to indicate their degree of satisfaction with the opportunity to be exposed to innovative school programs. Forty-three per cent rated this aspect "a great deal" and 41 per cent rated it "some." Thirty-seven, or 13.5 per cent, thought little or no opportunity existed. Several of the respondents, through their written comments, said that visitations to innovative schools were provided and that existing programs within the university provided for this. Other respondents stated that this aspect needed a push and that what opportunities did exist were in their major area, or because of their advisor. Respondents were asked to rate their program as an opportunity to develop an enlarged and more comprehensive philosophy of education. They were also asked to rate their 148 programs as an opportunity to develop an enlarged philosophy of life. Over 58 per cent, reported a great deal of opportunity existed to gain an enlarged philosophy of education. Forty-three per cent thought there waB some opportunity to develop an enlarged philosophy of life. Almost 34 per cent thought a great deal of opportunity existed to develop an enlarged philosophy of education, and over 40 per cent thought their was some opportunity to develop a philosophy of life. Six per cent thought the opportunity to develop a philosophy of education needed improvement, and 36, or 13.8 per cent, thought little or no opportunity existed to develop an enlarged philosophy of life. Thirty-seven per cent of the respondents thought their programs gave them an outstanding opportunity to gain skills in interpersonal relations. Over 47 per cent thought the opportunity was adequate, and 12 per cent thought it needed improvement. They were also asked to assess their programs as an opportunity to develop an awareness of group behavior. Over 36 per cent of the respondents thought this aspect was outstanding, 47 per cent thought it was adequate and 37, or 13.5 per cent, thought it needed improvement. Several of the respondents thought this aspect depended entirely on the student while others thought that this area could be strengthened by making it part of every doctoral candidate's program. 149 The respondents were asked to indicate their degree of satisfaction with the opportunity to develop skills in critical thinking. Almost 49 per cent thought this aspect was outstanding, and 41 per cent thought it was adequate. Twenty, or 7.2 per cent, of the respondents thought it needed improvement. They were also asked to indicate their degree of satisfaction with the opportunity to do original and creative thinking. Over 49 per cent thought a great deal of opportunity existed, and over 42 per cent thought some opportunity existed. Slightly over 6 per cent thought that little or no opportunity existed. Over 35 per cent of the respondents thought the opportunity to develop a sense of professional ethics was outstanding and over 49 per cent thought some opportunity was provided. Slightly over 8 per cent thought little or no opportunity existed. The written responses to this aspect suggest that the professional behavior of the faculty of the Department of Secondary Education and Cur­ riculum provided students with exemplary ethical models. Respondents were asked to rate their programs as an opportunity to prepare for a career in teaching. Thirty- nine per cent thought a great deal of opportunity existed, and 40 per cent thought some opportunity existed. Forty- one, or 14.9 per cent, thought little or no opportunity existed. These data are especially important in view of the percentage of doctoral recipients that go into college or university teaching. The written comments of the 150 respondents suggest that for some, teaching was not a goal, but for others, the need to develop teaching skills was apparent. Twenty-seven per cent of the respondents thought a great deal of opportunity existed in their programs to develop skills for a career in research and 51 per cent thought some opportunity existed. Fifty-three, or 19 per cent, of the respondents felt little or no opportunity existed. Their written comments provide some insight into the significance of these data. Twenty-six respondents indicated that a career in research was not their vocational objective. Others indicated that there was too much emphasis on research in the College of Education. The respondents were asked to respond to the question, "Having now had the opportunity to work with colleagues from other institutions, how would you generally compare your preparation at Michigan State University with theirs?" For the sake of brevity their answers are grouped into positive, negative, and neutral categories. Over 44 per cent responded positively, indicating their preparation was better than their colleagues, only 1.4 per cent responded negatively, indicating their preparation was inferior, and 27 per cent responded neutrally, indicating their preparation was about the same as their colleagues. These data must be treated with caution, however, since 27 per cent of the respondents did not answer the question. 151 The Dissertation Respondent* were asked to rate the procedures for selection of a dissertation topic. Over 27 per cent thought the procedures were outstanding, and over 53 per cent thought they were adequate. Forty-one, or 14.9 per cent, thought they needed improvement. The written comments of the respondents suggest that many were given considerable freedom in this aspect and that they generally enjoyed that freedom. Other recipients thought their committees had too much control over topic selection and that it was a difficult if not frustrating accomplishment. The respondents were asked to rate the applicability of their research preparation to the requirements of the dissertation. Twenty-six per cent thought this aspect outstanding and 52 per cent thought it was adequate. Forty-seven, or 17.1 per cent, of the respondents thought it needed improvement. Several of the respondents thought their research preparation was totally inadequate, and that they did not need the type of research preparation to which they were exposed. The respondents were asked to indicate their degree of satisfaction with the oral defense of the dissertation. Over 33 per cent thought it was outstanding; 54 per cent thought it was adequate; and 9 per cent thought it needed improvement. The respondents were generally impressed with this aspect of their programs. 152 The respondents were asked to indicate the degree of their satisfaction with the relevance of the disser­ tation to their professional goals. Forty-three per cent thought this aspect outstanding; 40 per cent thought it adequate; and 13 per cent thought it needed improvement. The respondents were asked to answer the question, "What benefits, other than meeting a program requirement, did you derive from writing a dissertation?” Two hundred and twenty-five respondents answered this question. Of that number, 205 reported gaining a variety of benefits, the most common of which were, sharpened research skills, investigated a topic of interest, and self-discipline. Twenty respondents indicated they gained little or no benefits from writing the dissertation. The respondents were asked to answer the question, "How did you approach the task of the dissertation?'* Forty-five per cent responded "with enthusiasm," and 12 per cent responded, "with appreciation." Over 17 per cent approached the task of the dissertation with feelings of loathing, fear, apprehension, anxiety, and reluctance. The respondents were asked to answer the question, "If an alternative to the dissertation (e.g., film making, internship, group project, etc.) had been available to you, would you have likely chosen it over the dissertation?" Forty-one per cent of the respondents answered "yeB," they would. Forty-eight per cent reported "no," they would not. 153 In regard to the respondents' perceptions of how their committees regarded the purposes of the dissertation, over 43 per cent indicated they thought their committees regarded it as "a training exercise in research," and over 47 per cent thought their committees regarded it as an "original contribution to knowledge." Other respondents cited "an opportunity to explore an area of interest to me” as the committee's purpose for this dissertation. Discussion of Results 1 2 3 The studies of Berelson, Doty, Broertjee and Heiss 4 are each different in several ways from the present study, and comparison of results is often difficult if not impossible. Some of the findings and conclusions of these earlier studies do, however, lend themselves to comparison. Those areas where comparisons can be made are as follows: Berelson's conclusion that the oral defense of the disser­ tation was becoming a mere formality and should be replaced by some kind of a ceremonial. The oral defense examination continues to be a viable experience for the majority of doctoral candidates. A number felt that both the compre­ hensive and oral defense examinations should be scrutinized and improved upon. Berelson's recommendation that graduate schools should be more energetic and systematic in their 1Berelson, op. cit. 3Broertje«, o£. cit. 2Doty, op. cit. o£. cit. 154 recruiting and selection procedures is borne-out by this study. The enthusiastic endorsement which most of the candidates gave to most of the aspects of their programs indicates that there exist good matches between people and programs. This study most strongly agrees with Berelson*s conclusion that dialogic relationships between graduate students from differing areas ought to be encouraged and made available. While recipients were generally pleased with the level of dialogue within their major areas, they did indicate a desire to develop dialogic relationships with professors and graduate students in other major areas of the college. Berelson also recommended that all doctoral candidates should do some teaching as part of their programs. A significant number of the respondents in this study thought this area could be strengthened. The fact that 71 per cent of the respondents are presently in college and university positions and many of the others are in occupations that called for instructional skills, coupled with the fact that over a third of the respondents in this study held no graduate/teaching assistantship while in residence, would seem to support this conclusion. The findings of this study generally support those of Doty. The doctoral respondents of this study did have broad and varied backgrounds of professional and educational experience. Many of the respondents combined teaching 155 responsibilities with administrative responsibilities and other professional activities. The respondents hold positions of trust and responsibility. The recommendation of Doty, however, that consideration should be given to increasing the amount of preparation in research and statistics, does not agree with the findings of this study. The majority of respondents of this study thought their preparation in research was adequate and a number of respondents thought what preparation they had received in research was not applicable to the requirements of their dissertations and irrelevant to their professional goals. The conclusions of this study do agree with Doty in two other areas. Doty's study concluded that colleges of education should consider the value of giving students a voice in the formulation of their programs. It also agrees that the doctoral committee load ought to be lightened. The results of this study are in closer alignment with those of Broertjes' 1965 study at Indiana University. The recommendation that course offerings in research, par­ ticularly statistics, should be more suitable to the needs of students is borne-out by the findings of this study. The responses of the recipients of this study also support Broertjes' recommendation that faculty loads must be lightened. Ann Heiss's 1967 study of Berkeley doctoral graduates provides some areas of comparison. She concluded 156 that teaching assistantships were often classified as slave labor. The respondents of this study were well satisfied with their graduate/teaching assistantships. Only two of the 274 respondents classified that experience as slave labor. The greatest concern centering around the assistantship was that there were not enough of them to go around. Heiss found that the dissertation experience was the "high water mark" of the Ph.D. program at Berkeley. The respondents in this study thought they derived benefits from writing a dissertation, namely the sharpening of research skills and the opportunity to investigate a topic of interest, and they were satisfied with the relevance of the dissertation to their vocational goals. Forty-seven per cent of them, however, would have chosen to do something other than a dissertation, if that alternative had been available. This study strongly supports Heiss* conclusion that the key to satisfaction seems to be the advisor and the extent to which he facilitated the candidate's encounter with the various aspects of a doctoral program. This is seen in the findings of this study in practically every aspect that was investigated. key to satisfaction. The advisor is, indeed, the 157 Limitations of the Study In the course of conducting this study it has become increasingly important to underscore its limitations. Those limitations follow: 1. A mailed questionnaire which has as its objective the gathering of accurate and unbiased information has certain built-in limitations. These limi­ tations are cited in Chapter III. 2. This study did not include the many ABD's (All But Dissertation) from the Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum many of whom may have terminated their studies because of dissatisfaction with certain aspects of the doctoral program. 3. The seventy-four doctoral graduates from the Department of Secondary Education who did not participate in this study by returning completed questionnaires or by returning questionnaires after the deadline date may have slightly altered the results. 4. Much of the design, and certainly the length, of the questionnaire, was dictated by the contingencies of time and funds. A balance had to be struck providing a questionnaire that would be long enough to cover the major aspects of doctoral programs adequately and not so long as to discourage the recipients from completing it. 158 5. The Department of Secondary Education and Cur­ riculum is, perhaps, the most diverse department within the College of Education. The kinds of experiences doctoral students are exposed to in each interest area differ markedly. Designing a questionnaire that would be broad enough to encompass the common features of all these areas was difficult. Conclusions Subject to the limitations of the study, the findings, based on the responses of the 274 who participated in the study from the Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum at Michigan State University, the following conclusions are made: 1. They have a broad and varied educational and professional background prior to their doctoral study, much of which is in secondary teaching and secondary and elementary administration. 2. They tend to go on to college or university positions upon completion of their programs. In those positions they often combine teaching and administrative responsibilities with other pro­ fessional activities. 3. They are actively involved in providing for cur­ riculum and instructional change. 159 4. They hold positions of trust and responsibility in educational institutions throughout the United States. 5. Most of the respondents are satisfied with the major aspects of their doctoral experience in the College of Education at Michigan State University. 6. Significant numbers of respondents have indicated enough concern about several aspects of their programs to warrent scrutiny by the faculty of the Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum. These specific areas are considered under the recommendations which follow. Recommendations In view of the findings of this study, the following suggestions are made regarding the programs leading to the Doctor of Education and Doctor of Philosophy degrees in the Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum at Michigan State University; 1. Selection and admission procedures should be kept under scrutiny to insure the continued matching of students to programs. The respondents' favorable reactions to the many aspects of their programs is evidence of the successful matching of students to programs. This study indicates no weakness in this area, in fact, it accounts for a great strength, and one which ought to be perpetuated. Consideration should be given to the development of enough latitude within students' programs to enable them to select courses in several widely separated fields. Encouragement of this sort will facilitate dialogue between the varying areas of the College of Education. Consideration should be given to reviewing the research course requirements, particularly sta­ tistics, in order to determine their relevance to the student's professional goals and objectives. The importance placed on the development of research techniques should be judged by the career aims and objectives of the doctoral candidate. Consideration should be given to better dis­ semination of information about comprehensive and oral defense examinations. The procedures for these examinations, and the criteria of evaluation should be provided well in advance of the exami­ nation. Consideration should be given to the creation of more informal opportunities for graduate students and professors to meet and initiate dialogic relationships within the College of Education. 161 6. Consideration should be given to increasing the opportunities for doctoral candidates to teach while in residence. 7. Consideration Bhould be given to creating oppor­ tunities for doctoral candidates to meet and to get to know all the professors in the major area before the major area advisor 8. Consideration should be given is selected. to permitting doctoral students a greater voice in planning their programs. The student's competence to appraise his own areas of weakness should be a factor considered in program planning. 9. Consideration should be given to finding ways lighten the loads of faculty who graduate students. to are working with All too frequent criticism of recipients about delays in receiving feedback and the inability to see busy advisors point to this as a real need. Suggestions for Further Study This study has had the unavoidable effect of raising questions about several aspects of doctoral programs that were not included in this study. Because of this the following suggestions for further study are made: 1. A study of ABD's (All But Dissertation) from the Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum should be conducted. Unfortunately, very little is known about their reasons for not completing the requirements of their programs. This study would seek to determine the degree of satisfaction this population has toward the various aspects of their doctoral programs and their reasons for not completing the requirements of their programs. A study of the employers' perceptions of the preparation of doctoral candidates ought to be undertaken with a view to determining their purposes for doctoral study. A study determining the degree of satisfaction students presently enrolled in doctoral programs in the Department of Secondary Education and Cur­ riculum have toward their experiences ought to be undertaken. A study similar to the present one ought to be made periodically. The reactions of doctoral recipients to the many aspects of their programs will serve to keep the faculty of the Department of Secondary Education aware of the effectiveness of their doctoral programs. 163 Personal Reflections What is a Doctorate? Throughout this study the author has been troubled by the persistence of the question, what is a doctorate? The nagging reality of this question became increasingly demanding as the study progressed through its various stages. At the conclusion of the study I felt an un­ avoidable compulsion to face this inescapable force and to address myself to it. When I observed the bewildering array of doctoral programs and experiences within the Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum, each interest area with its own objectives and faculty expectations, it was difficult at the outset to discern any commonality or any quality that was universal to the doctorate. What, for instance, could a doctorate in the area of Driver-Traffic Safety share with a doctorate in History, Philosophy, and Sociology of Education? Certainly these differing disciplines of this most diverse department took their students down divergent paths of scholarly inquiry. What then do recipients of doctoral degrees share that is a direct result of their programs? What essences or qualities do those who have earned a doctorate have, or should have, in common? The answers to these questions slowly unfolded as the data from recent recipients were analyzed for some deeper meaning. 164 I am now convinced that there is a dimension to the doctorate that transcends the cognitive demands of any discipline that goes beyond mastery of the essential elements of any major field. It is this dimension, as important as any other, that provides a common quality and meaning to the doctorate. The awarding of a doctorate should signal the achievement of a degree of self-reliance and selfactualization that truly distinguishes the individual as he acts and reacts to the world around him. It should mark a level of growth and maturation that allows the recipient to state well thought out positions on topics of general concern as well as those on problems within his own discipline. Here to-fore, as a graduate student, he has been acted upon and his role, to varying degrees, has been largely defined by the exigencies of his major field. As a doctoral graduate he must reach beyond his discipline in grappling with the mundane and monumental problems of the human condition. His concern for the growth of those around him will require an understanding of individual and collective behavior that will often lead him outside the province of his major field. I feel there are some common purposes and expec­ tations for a doctoral degree. That, while acquiring a high level of competence in any major field, the candidate should grow in his awareness and understanding of himself 165 and of others. As I reflect on my own experience within the area of Curriculum in the College of Education at Michigan State University I cannot help but see that I had perhaps, the best of all possible programs. It was an action orientated program that combined dynamic classroom experiences with opportunities to deal with the pressing problems of the public schools. It encouraged dialogic relationships between students and professors that allowed for full analysis of those field experiences. It provided for an understanding and comprehension of the art of change agentry that is truly unique in the College of Education. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. The Doctorate in Education, I. Washington, D.C.: The Association, 1960-61. . The Doctorate in Education, Vol. I, The Graduate. Washington, D.C.^ The Association, 1960- 1961. Anderson, Charles J., ed. A Fact Book on Higher Education Washington, D.C. : American Council on Education, 1967. ________. A Fact Book on Higher Education. Washington, D.cTi American Council on Education, 196B. Arrowsmith, W. The Shame of the Graduate Schools. New York: Harpers, 1966. Ashton, John W. "Other Doctorates." Graduate Education Today. Edited by Everett Walters. Washington, D.(3.: American Council on Education, 1965. Bent, Henry E. "The Meaning of the Ph.D. Degree." Journal of Higher Education, XXXITI, No. 1 (January, 196it) . Berelson, Bernard. Graduate Education in the United States. New York: Mcdraw-Hill BooV Company, Inc., 1960. Blegen, Theodore C., and Cooper, Russel M., eds. The Preparation of College Teachers. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 19 50. Broertjes, Vernon Harry. "An Appraisal of the Doctoral Program in Higher Education in the School of Edu­ cation, Indiana University, Based on a Follow-Up Study of Its Graduates." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1965. 166 167 Carmichael, Oliver. Graduate Education: A Critique and a Program. New VorJc: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1341. Doty, Gerald H. "An Appraisal of the Program Leading to the Doctor of Education Degree at Indiana Uni­ versity, Based on a Follow-Up Study of Its Graduates." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1962. Eells, Walter Crosby. Degrees in Higher Education. New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1963. Final Degree Lists. Graduate Affairs Office, 252 Erickson Hall, Walster Scott, Director. Graduate Education: Purposes, Problems, and Potential. Washington, D.C. : A Report o£ the National Board on Graduate Education, November, 1972. Grigg, Charles M. Graduate Education. New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1965. Heiss, Ann M. "Berkeley Doctoral Students Appraise Their Academic Programs." Education Record, XLVIII, No. 1 (Winter, 1967). . Challenges to Graduate Schools. San Francisco: Jossey-baBB, Inc., Publishers, IT70. Kelly, Fred J., ed. Toward Better College Teaching. Washington, D.C.: United States Office of Education, 19 50. Koenker, Robert H. "Status of the Doctor of Arts Degree Programs for Preparing Junior College and College Teachers." Unpublished report, Ball State Uni­ versity, November 22, 1971. Lockers, R. J. "An Evaluation of the Doctoral Program in Education at the University of Michigan in Terms of Fulfillment of the Expectations of the Recipients and the Expectations of the University," Un­ published doctor's thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 19 59. McConnell, T. R. "The Individual and the Organized Uni­ versity." Paper read at the Seminar on Organization and Administration, University of Toledo, October 30, 1969. 168 Mayhew, Lewis B. Arrogance on Campus. San Francisco: Jossey-BasiT] Inc. , Publishers, 1970. Muelder, Milton E. "Graduate Education: Orientation for New Faculty, The Graduate School." Unpublished report, Michigan State University, September 13, 1972. National Education Association. "Teacher Supply and Demand in Colleges and Universities, 1955-56 and 1956-57." Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1957. President's Commission on Higher Education. "Staffing Higher Education." Higher Education for American Democracy. New York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1947, IV. Prior, Moody. "The Doctor of Philosophy Degree." Graduate Education Today. Edited by Everett Walters. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1965. Publications Division. A Fact Book on Higher Education. Issue No. 4. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1969. "Report of Responses to the Questionnaire About Proposed Changes in Doctoral Procedures." Unpublished report by the Office of Graduate Student Affairs, College of Education, Michigan State University, January, 1966. Robertson, Neville, and Sistier, Jack. The Doctorate in Education: Vol. I, The Institutions. Bloomington, Ind.: Phi Delta Kappa and the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1971. Sax, Gilbert. Empirical Foundations of Education Research. Englewood Cliffs,"~H7j.: Prentice-toall, Inc., 19(>8. Singltary, Otis A., ed. American Colleges and Universities 10th Edition. Washington, D.C.: American CouncTf on Education, 1968. Sistler, Jack Kent. "A Study of Certain Aspects of Doctoral Degree Production in the Field of Edu­ cation in United States Universities Since 1958." Unpublished doctoral thesis. Southern Illinois University, 1964. 169 Spriestersbach, D. C. "The Place of the Dissertation in the Training of Graduate Students." Speech before the Council of Graduate Schools of the United States, Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting, Miami Beach, Florida, December 2, 1970. Sproull, Natalie. "Prolonged Duration, Attrition, Research Communication, and Research Preparation of Doctoral Candidates in Education at Michigan State Uni­ versity," Occasional paper No. 17, Office of Research Communication, School for Advanced Studies, College of Education, Michigan State University, January, 1972. Spurr, Stephan. Academic Degree Structures: Innovative Approaches. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Strauss, Samual. "On the Doctorate in Education." The Journal of Teacher Education, XVI, No. 1 (March, "The Doctor of Arts Degree." The Council of Graduate Schoo Schools in the United States, Committee on Prepa­ ration of College Teachers, December 5, 1969. (Phamplet.) This is Michigan State University; 1973 Fact Book. Complied by the Department of InformationServices, W. Lowell TreaBter, Director. Van Dalen, Deobold B. Understanding Educational Research! An Introduction-! New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1962. Walters, Everett. "Editor's Introduction." In Graduate Education Today. Edited by Everett Walters. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1965. Williams, David. "Stop the Dissertation." Educational Leadership, XXVIII, No. 7 (April, 197TT"! APPENDICES APPENDIX A LETTERS APPENDIX A LETTERS January 31, 197 3 Dear The Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum at Michigan State University is presently conducting a survey of its* doctoral recipi­ ents. The Department, working with the School for Advanced Studies, asks for your assistance in this study in order to help provide the vital information necessary to strengthen those programs. As a doctoral recipient, you are in a crucial position to assiBt us in the appraisal of doctoral programs. Because you are a vital source of information, we ask that you complete the enclosed questionnaire as completely and frankly as possible. Your responses in the questionnaire will not be made known, nor will any member of the departmental faculty have access to the returned questionnaires. It is very important that we receive your completed questionnaire within ten days. For your convenience, a stamped and self-addressed envelope is provided. Thank you for your invaluable assistance. Cordially, John A. Furak, Associate Dean Director-School For Advanced Studies JAFtall Enclosures 170 Michael J. Kenney Graduate Assistant 171 February 24, 1973 On January 31, 1973, a questionnaire that asked for an appraisal of your doctoral experience was mailed to you. As of this date, we have not received your completed questionnaire. This follow-up letter is sent to you with the assurance that your participation in this study is still wanted and needed. Your participation in this study is important, for without it, an objective appraisal of our doctoral programs in the Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum is impossible. Realizing that your crowded calendar may be one reason why the questionnaire was not returned, we hope that now is a more opportune moment to ask for your participation. To facilitate the completion of this questionnaire, another copy with a stamped self-addressed envelope is enclosed. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Cordially, Michael J. Kenney Enclosure APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE TO GRADUATES APPEXDIX B fiCEsnomiK to gmooates The fallowing information la sought in order to give the Department of Secondary Education and Curricula* a eora comprehensive understanding of the professional activities of Its graduates. Please indicate your response with an "I* and a written coe t n t la the space (a) following each question. if sufficient space is not provided, please tae the bade portion of the page. 1. Tsar Fh.D./Ed.D. was swarded 6- Master's major 2. Present Position 7• Hester's college or University 3. Major Doctoral Area (check one) 8. Type of Professional experience: Agricultural Education m m b e r of years before doctorate Business and Distributive Education elMentary teacher__________________ ____ ____ elementary principal _____ _____ C. secooiary teacher___________________ ____ ____ D- secondary principal___________________ _____ _____ Instructional Development ( Technology 8. elMsntary supervisor Secondary Education f- secondary si^ervisor__________________ _____ _____ Comparative and International Education A. _____ Curricultm History, Philosophy, and Sociology ofEducation _____ Industrial Education instructor Other (specify) 5. Undergraduate College or university _____ _____ _ _ ______ _ H. undergraduate major ____ co lleqs/uniTvr* ic y _____ Vocational £ Technical Education 4. Miaher of years after doctorate college/university ateinistrator other(s) please indicate _ _____ _____ 9. Indicate any of the categories below which describe tr»i* la whldi you haws worked aloe* the ctmpleticn of your doctorate: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ a. 10. __________ b. Developing instructional system. __________ c. Preparing and developing educational personnel. d. Planning educational fadlitlaa. __________ a. Evaluating educational programs. f. Providing information on curriculum aad instructional change. g. other ^ Why did you choose Klcdilgaa Stata O&lversity as the Institution to do your doctoral work? (Rank flea in order of Importance: 1 • moat l^wrtant, 2 “ aam n d in iBportanca, 3 • third in importance, 4 ■ fourth in importance, 5 - fifth in importance•) a. Reputation of tba Department of SecondaryEducation and Currltrulim. Reputation or Richigan stata university. _ _ _ _ _ c. Reputation or knowledge of key faculty personnel. d. Advice from colleagues aad friends. _ Proximity to home. f. Type of program available. g. Availability of financial aid. h. Others (please indicate) The following question is asked in order to determine the time spent in the doctoral progran: a. Rtmher of acadwic terms (fall, winter, spring, and aismr) that elapsed between the time you entered tha p r o g r M and the time yoo oompleted tha program. b. Ihmfear of terms spent in residence. __________ c. Rtmber of terms actually enrolled [on and off campus]. 173 _ _ _ _ _ _ b. __________ a. 11. initiating and iup 1renting curriculimi and instructional ajarame 12. Xndicata any thraa of tha following act!vltit* that rapraaant* roar p r o m t major rasponaihilitiaa. a. ___________ b. Dssaarch Actiwitias. __________c. Prsparlng Manuscript* for Publication. __________d. Pifelic Spanking. a. __________ f. ___________ g. a. CBMitta* Sarrica. Profaaslocal Organisation*. Othar _ Othar Plaaaa lndicata tha dagrss of your satisfaction with tha following broad aapacta of your doctoral program at Michigan Stata (hiivarsity. Tour aowaota about tbaaa aapacta of yoor doctoral preparation will ba aoat halpful. Mads 14. Quality of classro— in major araa Adaquata Outstanding _____ _____ _____ ____ ____ ____ Co— tuts instruction Quality of classroom instruction in othar araaa 15. Dorking ralatlonShip with « — ittnn mambars 16. Opportunitias for dialogua with gradoata stodanta and/or profaaaora in major araa 17. Opportunitias to mast and carry an dialogua with profassors and/or graduata atudanta in othar araaa with tha collaga 16. Frocaduraa for planning doctoral progr— ________ __________________ 174 13. Tgirormaat Baada Tapm v a n t 19. bparianca of graduata/taarti 1ng aaaiatantahip (If applicatola) 20. Procaduraa for aalaction of doctoral cx^aittaa Barbara 21. Prooadurua for Ooaprubanaiva and Oral Dafaoaa C u m 22. 23. Availability of oaaaittaa ooaaultatiaa ■atan for Ganaral working rulationahip with antira oowittaa Tha following quaatiaoa daal with tha broad purpoaas of dagraa program. Plaaaa indicate tha dagraa to which your prograa contributad to tha fulfillment of thaaa purpoaaa: (again your aoamrnts will ba aoat halpful). Llttla or Hooa 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Cfanta Qqtatandlnq Saa A Graat Daal Cfanta Aa an opportunity to develop an rederetandlng of tha aajor iaaoaa in aducatioo_______________________________ _____ _____ _____ Aa an opportunity to davalop atratagiaa for currlcolon and lnatructlonal change _____ _____ _____ __________________________________________________ Aa an opportunity to davalop an anlargad aora w a y rahanalve phlloaopby of aducation _____ _____ _____ ._________________________________ ^ _ Aa an apportonity to develop an anlargad philoeophy of U f a Aa an opportunity to davalop a thorough kaovladga of your subject araa _ — 175 C. MwnuU tittle or Ho p * Ju an opportunity to bn adequately espoeed to innovative ediool jirmji m m in rour aajor area 30. As an opportisiity to da— lop a aanaa of professional ntblca 31. Aa an opportunity to davalop akilla In critical thinking 32. Aa an oppoi tinity to gain akilla in intarpersonal relations 33. Aa an opportunity to davalop aa uadarstaadlag of gro*y behavior 34. Aa an opportunity to atlnulata aad facilitata change in A Greet Ditl CCHBtl §(hicitioti 33. Aa an opportiaiity to do original and creative thinking 36. Aa an opporttmity to prapara for a career of teaching 37. Aa aa opportiaiity to prapara for a earner la research 38. Haring oo* had the opportiaiity to work with colleagues froa othar institution!, hew would you generally caapere your preparation at Michigan State university with thaira? 176 29. So — D. the following qoaationa apply to roar diaaartation «p*rt*oc*. that experience, t* t o o con well recall, wma a najor port of jour doctoral progran. Bacaaae of its iaportaaca in the doctoral procooa, wo oood p u reepooaea to the following aepecta of that experience. f U i m Indicate tho dogroo of roar eetla faction with tho following pheeea of tho diaaartation proceaa: Beeda T^in.n— lit 39. Prooedaxae for eelectioo and approval of diaaortatioo topic_________________________ 40. applicability of raoaatch preparation to roqoirwaota of dleeertation 41. Oral defaneo of diaeertatior 42. Belwrance of diaaortatioo to profaaaiooal goala _____ MuMti Ootvtending _____ _____ _____ _____ «h«t benefita, othar than aaatlng a p r o g r w reqairaneot, did you derive frtra writing a diaaartation? 44. Bow did you approardi the tank of the diaaartation? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ with enthnaiaan __________ indifferently with appreciation __________ with loathing nta _______________________ 177 43. Co— 45. If an altaraativa to tha diaaartation (a,?., film making, iatamahip, group pxojact, ate.) had baan available to you, would you harm likaly ehoman it crrar tha diaaartation?__________ YES ____________no Explain: ________________________________________________________________ *4. Bow did your ooMittaa rmgard tha porpoaaa of tha diaaartation? aa a training axarciaa in raaaarch __________ aa an original contribution to knowladga 17B othar (plaaaa apacify) _____________________________ APPENDIX TABLES Tab la 0-1. — taapondente* Written Co In Their Major Areas. anta Concerning tha Quality of Classroom Inetructlon Htntoer of Respondents Reporting rron Each Major rield ► ■ uo T ) a hi 3 H Responses 8 t /> B 3 O I hi s ai ♦ 1 -m 4 S # i tc A great deal of quality outatanding Curriculum ataff outatanding Quality, in moat cuai Usually good Contacted aoaa fine inatructora Could bo battor atructurad Education claaaaa vara worthlaaa Little exposure to other faculty Head aiore aelf-lnatruction Quality going down Too ouch lecture A waned over M.A. program Heat part of program Coureee in my program Driver-Traffic Safety, beat in nation Eduoation couraea contained little 1 raw couraea offered in science Education 1 I resent doc, studenta teaching 1 Juat excellent 1 1 1 1 1 1 Language requirement Laaa aenaitlvity groups Major advisor had direct effect More field experiences More contact with public schools Heeds coordination 179 Total NO, % u> 1 2 2 7 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Depends on instructor (oh vara +* t! •H S & 9 7 6 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 180 Table c-2/— Respondents' Written Cosenente Concerning the Quality or Classroom Instruction In Other Areee. Huefeer of Respondents Reporting From Each Major rield ► 0 w o r5 Responses s pU * -H 1 1 2 It varied Ranged front terrible to excellent “ 1 & ro* 8 H 55 - jj J s i ’H n •*■ -U4 • > *J * H S 5 1 1 1 Could be better etructured 1 1 Differing polnta of view 1 1 s S* Total ! 1 2 1 No. 1 i 6 4 1 1 3 1 3 1 Many In education were weak 1 2 1 3 Satisfied with total program 1 Depended on area 1 1 2 Didn't have tlee for other courses 1 1 2 Less than adequate 1 Hathemetics Department strong 2 3 1 2 2 1 Too much lecture 1 1 2 Ueuelly good 1 AAsinietration courses useless 1 1 Id Psych and Statistics strong 1 1 2 1 1 Resented graduate assistants teaching 1 1 I selected knowledgeable 1 International M i outstanding 1 1 Labor and industrial relations strong 1 1 Laxity of standards Hany classes just bull sessions 1 1 Just excellent 1 1 1 Had no opportunity 1 1 Too text-baaed 1 1 Philosophy and curriculum helpful Uninspired teaching 1 1 1 1 a 181 Table 0-3.--Respondents’ Written Comments Concerning Their Working Relationship With Committee Members. Number of Respondents Reporting From Fach Major Field > *o u ID Responses VI 3 o H 5 •H O’ < My chairman was outstanding 1 Committee members very helpful 1 o ■H •o w in •H Q •a B H 1 •H 0) U kl W 3 m 3 u 4 > ■T* Q 3 Nothing could be finer 2 in •H <0 C O ■H x: n. O o 4J B ■U X M to -H 2 U) C 1 1 1 Friends of mine 1 had the best 1 Major professor could have been more helpful 1 1 They could have helped more 1 1 Advisor was changed 8 times 1 No. % a u V m u in 2 8 1 7 1 5 1 4 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 I was lucky Major professor gave a damn fr TJ 3 o 1 I got through , that's what counts 1 hand picked my committee Total U) 1 Some members felt I infringed Varies with committee T3 ■rl 1 2 Major reason for picking MSU s rH 3 * * “4 O 1 1 1 1 My own involvement was responsible 1 1 No community of scholars extant 1 1 They need to treat students as humans 1 1 They were not available 1 1 Very cooperative 1 1 182 Tlbl* C -4.--Respondent•' written Cowwiiti Concerning the opportunities for Dialogue With Graduate Students and/or Profeeeore In Major Area. NiaM^er of Respondents Reporting Treat Cecil Major Field ■0 « -Or4 W 'd e SH H 8 H 2 Q p * D {j v4 • T 4 * -U F ! I B i M 3 U 8 &■ tj p t* ** i ! * N Needed Treeendoue opportunities 1 As graduate aealatent I had opportunities P I Two-way ooaeeuni cation aleelog 1 Usually good 1 Major source of growth 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 With students, not profeeeore 1 1 fteple 1 Continuous 1 Cephasla wee on getting through 1 Everybody Is too busy 1 Everyone In 1eolation 1 Good astainara 1 1 knew thaw for eight years 1 1 wasn't outgoing enough 1 Main reason for picking HSU 1 Heed graduate assistant lounge 1 Outstanding until professors loads Increased 1 They ware too busy 1 Tins Availability 1 No. t 1 Needed store related to research Terrible C 1 1 1 k etajor asset Total 5 1 1B3 Table C-5.--Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the Opportunities to Meet and Carry-On Dialogue With Professors and Graduate Students in Other Areas Within the College. Number of Respondents Reporting From Each Major Field > T» Ul Responses 4> H 0 AA —1 0 U -H Aa O' < •O w AJ n LB 3 O •r4 V) •H Q 3 m Aa 3 O Aa Major professor too busy o ••A UA VM * Aa H 1 Aa •rA Aa Q U o t/1 o a o 3 H X AA tn ■H z: 3 Ample 1 Particularly poor 1 HMCD— very helpful tn C M & 'O c o o 0) C/1 1 1 1 1 1 Long term enrollment helped 1 No desire or need for this 1 Only at handball and steambaths 1 Professors wouldn't get off high horses 1 3 2 1 1 I wasn't outgoing enough u to 3 1 1 I didn't take advantage No. % 4 1 Everyone in isolation Terrible Aa AJ Total U] 1 Especially good with grad students Fifth floor lounge, great a »““t *0 c 1 184 Table c-6.— Respondents * Written Comnents Concerning the Procedures for Planning a Doctoral Program. Number of Respondents Reporting From Each Major Field > *o IO Responses 01 U 3 Vl H O •H ’O to tn •H O B r-4 3 3 (4 H IT* V) u •h M H 01 U < 3 3 Allowed great flexibility 3 Excellent advisor 2 id u H 1 Vi 0) > Vj Q O O & in H iH o •rl .c id c ■H VI u •o ' 3 U VI u « •a c v> tn u -H X c M Total to o 0) No. % u tn tn 6 3 1 1 6 A major professor, a great help An individually tailored program needed Designed around my needs 1 planned my own 2 1 1 1 2 2 Little help from staff 2 Alot of mickey mouse 1 Appreciated developing topic early Clear-cut guidelines Completed before I started No real problems 1 1 1 The rule book lays it out 1 Consulted with a friend I was never sure Concept of planned program questionable 185 Table C-7.— Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the Experience of the Graduate/Teaching Assistantship. Number of Respondents Reporting From Each Major Field > *0 3 O •O (O 4J cn -H Q O M tn to V Responses u 4J ft tP < A good experience 3 m -H 0 O O in g <0 r-4 r-t H 1 M « > M Q a. 9 3 0 •H 3 0 1 1 4J tn sc 8 r~< c 0 ■H u 3 u +J m C H 4 ■o to Total >1 u to No. % 0 c 8 01 u to U) 2 Not enough pay 1 All should have experience 1 8 1 2 1 Assistants need more responsibilities 1 1 Could replace course work 1 1 Directly related to career 1 1 I was promised one, but didn't get it 1 1 1 Little opportunity to teach Most important aspect No complaints 1 1 Gained working relationship with faculty Personally guided and aided Somewhat low level 1 1 1 1 Professors should be more involved Slave labor 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 186 Table c~9.— Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the Procedures for Selection of Doctoral Committee Members. Number of Respondents Reporting From Each Major Field •o Responses w ftt 0 *J H 3 u •rt tP < I had the most latitude Students would welcome any help No complaints Too rushed Committee members at odds Difficult, but not impossible Extremely pleased I didn't know many faculty Its done too late Procedures unclear Rules are rules Temporary advisor sees himself as permanent Too much trial and error Its done too soon 1 *EJ W 4-» tn Q in 3 m 1 > s f—1 Q C o •H 1 a* u a) > •H a 4J tn •H O •H <4-t IM « M H P H P G •H M Kl 3 U 1 u o (/> w f—1 ♦H u 1 1 4 3 ■U tn c *-t T3 W t* ft m c o o 0) tn Total No. % o tn £ 1 1 10 1 3 1 2 2 187 Table C-9.— Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the Procedures for Comprehensive and Oral Defense Examinations. Number of Respondents Reporting From Each Major Field > 'O UJ Responses at V4 3 *> r-i 3 u V4 < U TJ [J •r4 tM U4 4 M (« 1 *J in n 3 H r-t UJ •H CJ tn 3 03 M 3 U ■H M O n 3 O > O o in H •H jn o* tn *•4 sc A trauma No complaints 1 1 Ought to be done away with 3 Valuable experience 1 Failed to see value Appreciated direct involvement A ritual Just another hurdle Comps integral to my growth Comps were poorly done Forced me to begin reading Has improved If they are really necessary Nobody died, took leave, or had vacation Pleasant and challenging Too much weight given Unclear, but not unfair Waited 6 months for feedback Waited two months for feedback 1 1 1 1 s *6 C O *H 4J U e ** tn c M 13 t.J Total (7 4 No. * C o l> «J in o V) sc 188 Table 0-10.--Respondents* Written Comments Concerning the Availability of Committee Members for Consultation. Number of Respondents Reporting From Each Major Field T J w u n w Responses 0 1 M rH •U w -H Q o L S M * 3 m o Always available and helpful B H 5 W i k< 3 U ■ H V .. V K m M H 1 M « > •H H Q 1 2 U O tn H •H fZ a. * tn -H ac s r-t n c o t5 2 in c H Total & T> c o u No. % 0) tn o S tn 1 5 4 Major advisor, terrific 3 1 Professors c a n y too large a load 2 1 Too busy 2 1 I had the best committee •o w 1 1 1 4 3 2 One person always hard to find 2 Some very accessible 2 Too hard to get them together Always interrupted during conferences Curriculum area terrific Depends on student's aggressiveness Except for major professor 1 I was lucky 1 In most cases, good Meeting had to be arranged months in advance Never felt close Sincere people, who gave support 189 Table 0-11.— Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the General Working Relationship With Entire Committee. Number of Respondents Reporting From Each Major Field Responses 'O u o 3 *Jt r 3 u ■H M O' < Very helpful No complaints •O w o ■ri Vj UJ i C n H 1 n o -> rJ H o u o m *—t •ri A to 3 (Q § r-H 3 U -H M tj 3 U 1 1 1 1 1 to *H Q 1 A cat and mouse game Disagreements between members, frustrating Generally good 1 Great 1 Limited contact Real people The best They helped and didn't hurt This should be studied Unavailable 1 Was told, "It's your baby" 1 u tn ■i-t > 3 r—t 0) c o ■H +J o 3 •H to C n 1 111 Total & No. % rrj c o o Q> tn o to ■a 4 3 190 Table C-12.— Respondents' Comments Concerning the Opportunity to Develop an Understanding of the Major Issues in Education. Number of Respondents Reporting From Each Major Field > Responses x> cu n 3 •u ■—t 3 u •H Wt O' < Preparing for comps helped o 'O w 4J tn Q lS 3 tn ■H y H 3 O n 3 u tn m u H 1 u <0 > ■rA ^1 O O o V) •tA X. P< V a r—1 nl a o •ri -P U 2 to •r~i X 01 e •H 1 XI UJ XI c o u 0) U) 1 Faculty is involved in issues■ Very good Curriculum does this Depended on instructor Didn't see as crucial Depends on research skills Doing "one's own thing" has diminishing returns Good instruction I was self-motivated I lacked the time My program had little to do with this Need a better vehicle 1 Only in my interest area 1 Quality of staff important 1 Seminars were helpful Total & Hi o u> ■a No. % 191 Table C-13.--Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the Opportunity to Develop Strategies for Curriculum and Instructional Change. Number of Respondents Reporting From Each Major Field > •o Responses o w •o 4) U 3 w 3 U •H O’ < ■r4 a ut in 0 to o o V) 9 H 3 O -H M Kt 3 O m H 1 4) > U a s 4J e **-4 & 4J (ft n: o +J o 3 s M •a Total w 4) T3 c o o QJ Ln No. % o V) £ The Sciencc-Math Teaching Center was terrific 3 Certainly not enough Only partially touched 1 A monumental task 1 Didn't see this as crucial Dynamic demonstrations Exposure to other educators helped 1 came with expertise Internship helped here More emphasis on learning theory needed More process models are now available Only in theory Self-motivated 1 2 1 2 192 Table 0 1 4 . — Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the Opportunity to Develop an Enlarged More Comprehensive Philosophy of Education. Number of Respondents Reporting From Each Major Field > •a w Cl Responses to A J p V) H Q P o ■H tt t7> rf A major contribution to my growth U ■H •0 W 8 in H H •H o fO c B 9 H p 0 -H M U) P CQ a O P U «j w H 1 ai > -rA n. •H 4J U p 14 V tn •H Q tn c H My best experience 1 Only help at coffee hours 1 Only through major advisor 1 Seminars do this 1 Students need to be on campus The Title V and VI were fantastic & c o O V to 1 1 1 1 Total No. % 'O 1 Already prepared in this area Differing viewpoints were helpful TJ w o in '£ 193 Table C-l5.--Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the Opportunity to Develop an Enlarged Philosophy of Life. Number of Respondents Reporting From Each Major Field > Responses •o u a> n 3 v> 3 O •H u g* Because of major advisor Depends on student No school should try this much On my own One of the most meaningful aspects Probably the greatest plus Student housing provided this This could be expanded Through reading, faculty contact O TJ u VI V) *H a m to 3 tn £ 3 3 u *H re c n in ♦M 1 Vi 3 to •a c o u H t* M a 8 rH «J c o -H *1 o 3 M VI (0 «Vt M U u o tn xz (U ■H Total •u tn L 0) No. % o s! 19 4 Tabic C-16.— Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the Opportunity to Develop a Thorough Knowledge of Subject Area. Number of Respondents Reporting From Each Hajor Field i» TJ Responses W *r( U« a p—4 x •H p. tn X s H C o •H t! 3 U *> in a M Plenty of opportunity 2 Depends on the student 1 Doctoral seminar helped Had to compromise with other needs Z now realize I know very li ttle Little guidance from faculty More freedom for directed study More than I realized On the job training is needed Professors lacked that broad knowledge The opportunity is there Theoritical knowledge The greatest efforts made TJ Total & IB •o C o O at No. % UJ V) u tn P. 195 Table C-17.— Respondents’ Written Comments Concerning the Opportunity to be Adequately Exposed to Innovative School Programs in Major Area. Number of Respondents Reporting From Each Major Field Responses Needed more of a push UJ 0) H 3 4J H 3 o -H n tJt < tn •H Q 1-0 tn 3 m E 3 rH 3 O -H H 3 (J 1 1 1 Laid a foundation for us u O UJ O ■H tw <*-» <0 M H 1 M 0) > •rl Q Tt UJ - pj -pj x: cu tn •H X 1 > ill 8 H e o -H o 3 Ul ■U tn c M Total •o UJ u ft TJ C o u 0) U) No. % o in •H 35 1 4 1 2 Very good 1 1 Visitations were provided 1 Advisor assisted in this area 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 Depends on studont Didn’t go beyond assigned subject matter 1 1 Due to fantastic advisor 1 1 1 Ed 450 assistantship helped 1 1 I sought these out 1 1 Many professors unaware My program was a forerunner 1 1 1 1 No opportunity here 1 None first hand 1 1 Not a program objective 1 1 1 OKERAD provided this 1 Only in major area The R&D Program waB excellent Tough reading 1 1 1 1 1 1 196 Table C-18.--Respondents* Written Comnents Concerning the Opportunity to Develop a Sense of Professional Ethics. Number of Respondents Reporting From Each Major Field > Responses *o w 0) M 3 +J H 3 U O' < 'V w V) •H Q lS tn 3 m b H 3 O •H U 3 U U •H <44 VM m u V V4 0) > 14 n o O 10 * 1— I si a* *> jj tn ■H a: Instructors helped hero Because of high staff ethics Close contact with true professionals Depends on definitions Depends on student Due to advisor I already had this Limited Many faculty were poor examples Models were given 1 Most gave emphasis to this 1 My value system was re­ enforced Never discussed Teaching cannot be profes­ sional 1 Yes, informally 1 & *—i fl c O •rl •P 2 (0 c H •o w Total fc No. * TJ G O U o W Responses U M 3 ■ * J H 3 U to m •r4 «H a 3 -H -ri U tr> < u ■H in 'O U 3 (D 4 H H 1 Wi u ■ri u o rt u o a 4 C f t -H JC n. ■U in SC o u 3 14 * > tn c M Depends on students Faculty asked the right questions A great plus Activities, but little critical thinking Could be improved Especially from statistics Good dialogue with staff Had skills already If one is ready Only during exams 1 Program designed for this 1 Very much so Total U) tJ w & 4 •O C O O 0) U) No. % n tn >1 19 B Table C-20.— Respondents’ Written Comments Concerning the Opportunity to Gain Skills in Interpersonal Relations. Humber of Respondents Reporting From Each Major Field > *0 tu 4) Responses Li 3 AJ H 3 O ■M U O' < Depends on student A course in this area would help A most meaningful aspect Artificial situations inadequate Counseling courses could be better Good experience with student teachers I had more skills than staff members I learned to keep my mouth shut Instructional development area terrific Mott program helped Needs considerable improvement None in a formal sense Not appropriate to program Not enough Perhaps, too much Thanks to curriculum area T3 ta AJ tn ■H Q U) tn 3 tn G 9 1—t 3 u •H M Li 3 (J U O O •rl if) iH *• c o tu tM <0 Li H 1 Li 4) H -H XX CL s •H AJ O 3 ts u u It) Li AJ C sc W c M O 4) l/l 1 2 > L* L< Q ■ri m Total o No. % O tn •H SC 199 Table 0 2 1 . - - Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the Opportunity to Develop an Understanding of Group Behavior. Number of Respondents Reporting From Kach Major Field > Responses * Uo 1 o n p 4 H-> p o xi m •H a eg •H M S' O TJ W 3 ID 9 H B •H U u u flj HU I l -i 0 ) > -H o ( J o tn x z a. + j VI X s m c o ■H O 2 u tn c M TJ w « C O Total No. % TJ U <11 tn o v> •H 5C Not enough 1 2 Too little time to think 1 2 1 A real limitation in program Artificial situations inadequate As much as wanted Courses must be carefully chosen I already had skills 1 Mott program helped 1 No explicit training Overemphasized in some areas Seminars were excellent 200 Table C-22.— Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the Opportunity to Stimulate and Facilitate Change in Education. Number of Respondents Reporting From Each Major Field TJ Responses W 0) u 3 4 J H p G •H u tr> < u ■o w IQ •r4 a 4 in 3 m •H q H9 n> G u p *H M u ) H •rl 3 U a o o IQ > & C *H JC Ch w •H re o -r-( 4 J o 3 £ in c H Needs more emphasis n Total £ *8 No. % tn T3 n o o 0) LQ 1 1 2 Academic assignments helped 1 1 Applied on the job 1 1 Encouragement given 1 1 Mostly informal 1 1 No explicit training 1 1 Strong emphasis The opportunity is there 1 1 1 1 201 Table C-23.--Respondents* Written Cofiments Concerning the Opportunity to Do Original and Creative Thinking. Number of Respondents Reporting From Each Major Field > ilk T > W o w W U Responses 3 f—i to -H Q 3 o •B 1 4 tr < (II 3 (Q e * H H 1 3 3 o •H 3 U u o o in h H -H d. > ■ r~i -u u ■ H n 1 A great deal 1 Tl U o 3 C l 4 J (ft c (-1 •d •o c o o a i Total XL U Q) One of the good features 8 iH < 0 C o in 1 No. % o in 2 2 1 A rather open experience 1 1 Dissertation provided this 1 1 Except for the dissertation 1 1 1 In classes My ideas were rejected 1 Not enough independent study Too busy doing dull assignments Wasn't as great as I hoped 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 202 Table C-24.— Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the Opportunity to Prepare for a Career in Teaching. Number of Respondents Reporting Prom Each Major Field Responses TJ w 0) p 3 P f—i 0 u u O' < T) W P in ■H Q l9 10 3 (Q o lu H P a ■rl B 3 f—1 3 u *rl P p 3 O u o in H *H XX p. h. P *IDH X 2 rH « c *oH P u 2 p tn C w tJ w & « •a r: o u OJ in Total u tn 2 No. % This was not my goal Luckily, I was already a teacher 2 Needed more skills here 1 2 Good experience 1 1 Had opportunity to practice Needed more audio­ visual experience 20 3 Table C-25.— Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the Opportunity to Prepare for a Career in Research. Number of Respondents Reporting From E a c h Major Field •o w ci a Responses 5 •H t-C tr < T3 w M -H a LB to 3 m B *—4 S •H u u a o o •H in (0 M H 1 14 01 > P U o if) h H •H x. tn ■H ac > s H 4 C o T) W u 2 +j tn e n Ej 4 •O C O o 0) in o 6 2 Not my interest 10 5 3 A real weakness 2 2 1 Too much emphasis on research by college 2 2 Total tn No. 26 5 1 5 Statistics should be required 1 1 Good cogniturelyweaks affectively 1 1 1 I learned on my own Second floor was great help 1 1 1 % 204 Table C-26.— Respondents* Written Comments Concerning the Procedure for Selection and Approval of Dissertation Topic. Number of Respondents Reporting From Each Major Field > T ) m Responses 01 3 rH 3 O *H M O ' < Given great freedom 1 Liked the flexibility The responsibility was mine O ■ rl Uj U •X3 U} W •H D LB V) 3 03 E 3 H Lack of direction C f —4 •H ■H n . ■P O «■ 4J U) •H > -H M a O •o c o u a w 01 tn 3 Ci 1 4 2 3 1 1 1 1 u a 8 1 2 8 6 1 1 1 No. % 4 -* in 5 1 Total w nJ 01 3 U 1— 1 n i 3 u •H s ■o k. n Committee had too much say Excellent guidance o o IT ) 1 3 1 3 2 3 V' Should begin earlier 2 1 3 Frustrating 1 1 2 1 A hit or miss affair 1 A most trying time Another hurdle 1 Clarification of process needed Great in my area 1 1 205 Table C-27.— Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the Applicability of Research Preparation to Requirements of the Disser­ tation. Number of Respondents Reporting From Each Major Field TJ !•] 3 u H a 3 u o l/l * H s H ( 0 c o •o Total til -ri 3 CL ■M o ■U in 4J 2 X 2 H & ITJ •O c o o > 0 LO No. % u in 3 Research classes desirable Research methods totally inadequate 1 Statistics irrelevant to goals 1 Committee's responsibility 1 Didn't need research preparation 1 1 2 1 Ed. 999 has no provision for historical research 1 Research advisors only prepared in pure research 1 Research for the sake of research is senseless 1 Statistics classes too large 1 2 206 Table 0 2 6 . — Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the Oral Defense of Dissertation. Number of Respondents Reporting From Each Major Field Ti w a> Responses u 3 4J H 3 u *o w in -H a •H tp < A good experience u -H tn 3 CQ 1 p H 3 u o tn W u H 1 0) > u u •H 3 u n s: cu *. iJ V} *H 5C S r-H to c H Experience assisted me professionally Worthless w-A o u u <3J > ■rA u > <13 O TJ M Total fc nj n c o u 01 (/) ■ sH: 1 1 No. % o (A 2 2 1 1 2 208 Table C-22.— Respondents' Written Comments Concerning the Opportunity to Stimulate and Facilitate Ohanqc in Kducation. N u m b e r of R e s p o n d e n t s Re porting From F ach M a j o r F i e l d > TJ 1.1 Responses (U p 3 P H 3 U •H P tn < 'O (il P V) ■H Q W) W 3 m |5 3 p c ■H P P 3 U O -H P U-l n) P H 1 P 0 ) > ■p p Q O O s 10 t-4 «» iH *H c o ■H u 3 JC Cu p p VI ■H u iJ U) c M Needs more emphasis T3 Tot a 1 S’ •O c o o 0) in No. ^ 111 1 u UI 1 2 Academic assignments helped 1 1 Applied on the job 1 1 encouragement given 1 1 Mostly informal 1 1 No explicit training 1 1 Strong emphasis The opportunity is there 1 1 1 1