INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy o f a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality o f the material submitted. The following explanation o f techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations 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 through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because o f movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image o f the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part o f the material being photographed, a definite method o f “sectioning” the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand com er o f a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed. University Micrcxilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 8400556 F in k elstein , M ark S te p h e n DESCRIPTIVE PROFILES OF MICHIGAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE MUSIC FACULTY Ph.D. Michigan Slate University University Microfilms International 300 N. Z eeb R oad, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 Copyright 1983 by Finkelstein, Mark Stephen All Rights Reserved 1983 PLEASE NOTE: In all c a s e s this material h a s b een filmed in the best p ossible way from th e available copy. Problem s en co u n tered with this d o cu m en t have b e e n identified h ere with a ch eck m ark V . 1. G lossy p h o to g rap h s o r p a g e s _______ 2. Colored illustrations, p ap er o r p rin t______ 3. P hotog rap h s with dark b a c k g ro u n d ______ 4. Illustrations a r e p o o r c o p y _______ 5. P a g e s with b lack m arks, n o t original copy_______ 6. Print show s th ro u g h a s th e re is te x t on both s id e s of p a g e _____ 7. Indistinct, b roken or small print on several p a g e s 8. Print e x c e e d s m argin re q u ire m e n ts ___ 9. Tightly bound co p y with print lost in spine_______ 10. C om puter prin to u t p a g e s with indistinct p rin t______ 11. P a g e (s )____________ lacking w hen material received, and not available from sch o o l or author. 12. P a g e (s )____________ se e m to b e missing in num bering only a s text follows. 13. 14. 15. i / Two p ag es n u m b e re d ____________ . Text follows. Curling and wrinkled p a g e s _______ O th er________________________________ — University Microfilms International DESCRIPTIVE PROFILES OF MICHIGAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE MUSIC FACULTY By Mark Stephen Fin k e ls te in A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan S t a te University in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of the requirements f o r the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Music 1983 ABSTRACT DESCRIPTIVE PROFILES OF MICHIGAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE MUSIC FACULTY By Mark Stephen F i n k e ls te i n Music teach ers from 23 Michigan community c o lleg e s served as su b j e c t s f o r t h i s d e s c r i p t i v e study. Demographic, s i t u a t i o n a l , and a t t i t u d i n a l data were c o l l e c t e d by mail q u e s t io n n a ir e from 123 respondents (65% of estim ated p o p u l a t i o n ) . . P r o f i l e s were con structed f o r t h r e e types of f a c u l t y : f u l l - t i m e i n s t r u c t o r s , p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y s o l e l y teaching p r i v a t e music l e s s o n s , and general p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y . Findings included: f a c u l t y were widespread: (a) Differences between f u l l - and p a rt - t im e f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y were more l i k e l y than p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y to be male (90% to 49%) and to have tau gh t in the public schools (80% to 34%). They were v i r t u a l l y the only f a c u l t y to have been granted ten u re (90%), academic rank (30%), and to become music a d m i n i s t r a t o r s (40%); (2) Differences between p a r t - t im e general and p a r t - t im e applied f a c u l t y were not so pronounced. The applied f a c u l t y , 52% of whom tau g h t off-campus e x c l u s i v e l y , displayed wider age and o n -th e-jo b experience d i s t r i b u t i o n s than did p a r t - t im e general f a c u l t y . General f a c u l t y were most l i k e l y t o have res id ed in t h e i r community be fore they accepted t h e i r p o s i t io n s and ex h ib ited Mark Stephen F i n k e ls te i n he te rog en e ity of academic background, range of professi onal expe­ r i e n c e , and musical t a s t e ; (3) f u l l - t i m e i n s t r u c t o r s de rived s i g n i f i ­ c a n t l y g r e a t e r s a t i s f a c t i o n than did p a rt - t im e i n s t r u c t o r s from personal and pro fessio nal b e n e f i t s and from use of campus f a c i l i t i e s . Part-tim e a pp lied f a c u l t y reported l e s s s a t i s f a c t i o n with p r e s t i g e than did o th er subgroups; (4) Subgroups g e n erally found the encourage­ ment of student musical involvement a primary professional concern and found l i t t l e or no d i f f i c u l t i e s performing i n s t r u c t i o n a l r e l a t e d org anizational t a s k s . Pa rt-tim e general f a c u l t y experienced g r e a t e r d i f f i c u l t y than o th e rs in u t i l i z i n g t h e i r s c h o o l 's resou rce s. Pa rt-tim e a pp lied i n s t r u c t o r s encountered fewer d i f f i c u l t i e s than f u l l - t i m e i n s t r u c t o r s in helping stud e nts meet course requirements. The data suggests t h a t many i n s t r u c t o r s , mostly p a rt- tim e f a c u l t y , expressed a t t i t u d e s c on tra ry to the i n s t i t u t i o n ' s stu d e n tcentered p o s i t i o n . Recommendations were made to in flu ence the work-group c u l t u r e through pre- and i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g , and through increased f a c u l t y p a r t i c i p a t i o n in th e national music e d u c a to r s ' association. To My Parents and Grandparents ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my sin c e r e a p p re c ia tio n to Dr. Robert Erbes, chairperso n of my committee, f o r h i s l i m i t l e s s patien ce and u n f a i l ­ ing support during production of t h i s study. P a r t i c u l a r thanks a re expressed to Dr. Charles McDermid f o r the time and e f f o r t expended on my be h alf. His comments and c r i t i c i s m s a re most highly a p p re c ia te d . Thanks a re a ls o expressed to Drs. Russell Friedewald and Rosalie Schellhau s, members of the guidance committee, f o r t h e i r i n t e r e s t and counsel. To Dr. Daniel Russell (now a t Northwestern University) and Dr. Dale Bonge, I owe a debt of g r a t i t u d e f o r t h e i r a s s i s t a n c e in the e a r l y st ages of the p r o j e c t . I would l i k e to acknowledge and thank the f a c u l t y members from the Michigan community c o lleg e s who gave of t h e i r time and advice. In a d d i t i o n , thanks a r e extended to Mary Dassance, technic al spe­ c i a l i s t a t Lansing Community C o lle g e 's Professional Resource Center, f o r providing ready access to the C e n te r 's e x c e l l e n t c o l l e c t i o n of m aterials. I am a l s o g r a t e f u l f o r the a s s i s t a n c e in the p rep aratio n of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n provided by J a n et Abramson, Sandra Gross, and Nancy Heath. Deepest a p p re c ia tio n goes to my loving w ife, Jody, who helped see t h i s p r o j e c t through t o completion, and to my parents and s i b l i n g who had confidence in me over thes e many y e a r s . TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF T A B L E S ......................... . ........................................................ vii LIST OF APPENDICES........................................................................................ x i i i BACKGROUND FOR THE STUDY..................................................................... Introd u ctio n ................................................................................. Need f o r the S t u d y ............................................................ 2 Statement of Purpose ............................................................. Statement of the Basic Questions . . . . . . ... .... . Sign ific anc e of th e Study . . . . . . . . . . Scope and L im ita tio ns of the S t u d y ........................................ Assumptions ........................................................................................ D e f in i t io n s ........................................................................................ Overview of the R e p o r t .............................................................. 1 1 4 5 6 8 8 9 11 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE..................................................................... 12 Intro du ctio n ................................................................................. Iss ues and Problems Concerning the Two-Year College F a c u l t y ........................................................................................ Two-Year College Faculty and Their Professional I d e n t i t y ................................................................................. Issues Concerning Part-Time Faculty .................................. Job S a t i s f a c t i o n ................................................................... Defining the Model Two-Year College Faculty Member . D esc rip tors of Two-Year College Faculty ............................ Summary of General L i t e r a t u r e About Two-Year College F a c u l t y ........................................................................................ The Two-Year College Music I n s t r u c t o r ................................ Music in the Two-Year C o l l e g e s .......................................... S t a f f i n g P a t te r n s f o r Two-Year College Music Programs . Duties and R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of Two-Year College Music F a c u l t y ........................................................................... D e scrip tors of Two-Year College Music Faculty . . Job Appraisals ........................................................................... Summary of L i t e r a t u r e P e r ta in in g to Two-Year College Music F a c u l t y ........................................................................... 12 iv 12 12 18 26 41 44 48 50 50 53 57 63 68 74 Page SAMPLE, INSTRUMENT, AND PROCEDURES .................................................. In tro d u ctio n . . ..................................................................... Methodol o g y ........................................................................................ Construction of the Community College Music Faculty Q u estio n n aire . Summary of th e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e 's Content ......................... Procedural Review ........................................................................... Construction of the Po s itio n S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale . . Construction of the I n s t r u c t i o n a l D i f f i c u l t i e s Scale . The S a m p l e ........................................................................................ Results of th e I n i t i a l Inquiry ............................................ Dissemination and Retrieval o f the Questionnaire . . Response t o the Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ............................................ Treatment of the D a t a ............................................................... E d i t o r i a l Decisions ............................................................... Factor Analysis of the A t t i t u d i n a l Measures . . . Factor Analysis of the Po sition S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale . Fa ctor Analysis of th e I n s t r u c t i o n a l D i f f i c u l t i e s S c a l e ........................................................................................ Ana lytical Procedures ............................................................... 76 76 76 78 78 81 84 86 88 88 90 90 92 92 93 95 97 99 ANALYSIS OF THE D A T A ................................................................................ 102 D e scrip tors of Respondents ......................................................... Breakdown by Employment S ta tu s ............................................ Demographic D e sc rip to rs ............................................................. E xperien tial D e sc rip to rs ............................................................. Profess io nal D e sc rip to rs ............................................................. Functional D escrip tors ............................................................. A t t i t u d i n a l D e sc rip tors ......................................................... C ate go riz ation of Environmental Va riables .............................. C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Po s itio n S a t i s f a c t i o n Va riables . C lassification of Instructional D ifficu ltie s V a r i a b l e s ...................................................................................... A t t i t u d i n a l Measure Subscale Analysis .................................... Analysis of the P o s itio n S a t i s f a c t i o n Subscale Means . Analysis of the I n s t r u c t i o n a l D i f f i c u l t i e s Subscale M e a n s ............................................................................. Content Analysis of Faculty Response to Open-Ended Q u e s t i o n s ...................................................................................... Content Analysis of Question 1 ................................................. Content Analysis of Question 2 ................................................. Content Analysis of Question 3 ................................................. 103 103 105 109 121 122 134 149 150 v 153 157 157 164 172 174 175 177 Page SUMMARY, PROFILES, ANDDISCUSSION ..................................................... 179 S u m m a r y .............................................................................................. C orrela te s of Subgroup S ta tu s . Findings Relating to Use of the P o s itio n S a t i s f a c t i o n S c a l e ........................................................................................ Findings Relating to Use of the I n s t r u c t i o n a l D i f f i c u l t i e s Scale ................................................................. Advice Given by the Music Faculty to Prospective T e a c h e r s .................................................................................. P r o f i l e of F u ll-tim e Community College Music I n s t r u c ­ t o r s .............................................................. P r o f i l e of Part-tim e General I n s t r u c t o r s of Music . . P r o f i l e of P r i v a te Music I n s t r u c t o r s . . . . . . Conclusions ............................................................... D i s c u s s i o n ........................................................................................ Recommendations ........................................................................ Recommendations f o r Fu rther Research . . . . .. . 179 180 APPENDICES.................................................................................................... 209 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................. 257 vi 181 183 184 185 188 191 193 196 199 206 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 2.1 Advantages of Hiring Part-Time Faculty 2.2 Sources of Part-Time Faculty D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n 2.3 Herzberg's C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Factors Influencing M o t i v a t i o n .................................................................................. 35 Course Offerings in Music on the Public and P r iv a te Two-Year College Campuses in Michigan (1977) . . . 59 2.4 .......................... . . . .... . . . 20 33 3.1 Summary of the Q u e s tio n n a ir e 's Content . 79 3.2 Subscale of th e S a t i s f a c t i o n Measure ................................ 96 3.3 Subscale of the D i f f i c u l t y M e a s u r e ................................ 98 4.1 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of F ull-tim e and Pa rt-tim e Employment S t a t u s .............................................................................................. 103 4.2 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of Part-tim e Subgroup S t a tu s . . . 104 4.3 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of F u ll-tim e Subgroup S t a tu s . . . 104 4.4 Breakdown of Sample by Faculty Subgroup .......................... 105 4.5 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Gender by S t a t u s ....................................... 105 4.6 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Gender Across Subgroups .......................... 106 4.7 Age: Central Tendencies f o r the S a m p l e .......................... 106 4.8 Age: 107 4.9 Staffing Patterns: Breakdown by S u b g r o u p .................................................. 4.10 S t a f f i n g P a t t e r n s : Breakdown by Locale ......................... 108 Breakdown by Subgroup 108 . . . . 4.11 Years in Current Po sition : Central Tendencies of the S a m p l e ................................................. v ii 109 Page Table 4.12 Years in Current P o s itio n : 4.13 Total Teaching Experience: Central Tendencies of the S a m p l e .............................................................................................. 110 4.14 Total Teaching Experience: . 110 4.15 Academic Degrees .................................................................... Ill 4.16 Current Enrollment Toward a Degree 4.17 Community College Attendance ........................................... 113 4.18 Formal Study of the I n s t i t u t i o n ..................................... 113 4.19 Performing A b i l i t i e s 114 4.20 P r iv a te Teaching Experience . . 115 4.21 Public School Teaching Experience ..................................... 115 4.22 Music Industry Experience 116 4.23 Experience as a Commercial/Studio Musician . . . . 4.24 Experience as a Graduate Teaching A s s i s t a n t . 117 4.25 Other Musical Experience ........................................................ 117 4.26 Summary of Profess iona l Experience P a t te r n s f o r the S a m p l e .............................................................................................. 118 Summary of Profess iona l Experience P a tte r n s by S u b g r o u p ........................................................................................ 119 4.28 Concurrent Employment .............................................................. 120 4.29 Source of Regional Recruitment ........................................... 120 4.30 Academic R a n k .......................................................................... 121 4.31 T e n u r e ............................................................................................. 122 4.32 Number of Hours Taught ........................................................ 123 4.33 Music Administrators .............................................................. 123 4.27 Breakdown by Subgroups Breakdown by Subgroup . ................................. .............................................................. . . . . . . . ................................................. v iii . . 109 112 116 Table Page 4.34 Place of I n s t r u c t i o n .............................................................. 124 4.35 Times of I n s t r u c t i o n .............................................................. 125 4.36 Kinds of Students T a u g h t ....................................................... 126 4.37 Applied Instrumental Lessons ........................................... 126 4.38 Applied Vocal Lessons .............................................................. 127 4.39 Class Applied I n s t r u c t i o n 127 4.40 Music Theory and Ear Training 4.41 Music A p p r e c i a t i o n .............................. 129 4.42 Music H i s t o r y .......................................................................... 129 4.43 Music f o r Education Majors . 129 4.44 Music Busin ess/In d ustry Courses .................................... 130 4.45 Conduct Vocal Ensemble ....................................................... 131 4.46 Conduct Instrumental Ensemble 4.47 Other Course Assignment 4.48 ................................................. . . ........................................... . . . . . ........................................... 131 ....................................................... 131 Rank Ordering of the Frequency with whichCourses Are A s s i g n e d .................................................................... 4.49 Apportionment of Course Assignments 4.50 Reason f o r Entry: 4.51 . 128 133 ............................ Professional Preparation . . 134 . 135 Reason f o r Entry: R ela tiv e was Employed in the V i c i n i t y ........................................................................................ 136 4.52 Reason f o r Entry: Needed a Second Job 4.53 Reason f o r Entry: To Avoid Public School Teaching . 137 4.54 Reason f o r Entry: To F i l l Leisure T i m e .......................... 137 4.55 Reason f o r Entry: For the P r e s t i g e ................................ 138 Reason f o r Entry: U n a v a i l a b i l it y of Public School P o s i t i o n ........................................................................................ 138 4.56 ix .......................... 136 Table 4.57 Page Reason f o r Entry: U n a v a i l a b i l it y of Senior College P o s i t i o n ........................................................................................ 139 4.58 Reason f o r Entry: To Gain Teaching Experience . 140 4.59 Reason f o r Entry: Graduate Degree Employment while Completing ..................................................................... 140 4.60 Reason f o r Entry: Other Factors 141 4.61 Rank-Ordering of Reasons f o r Entry into P o s itio n . . 142 4.62 Ordering by Subgroup of Reasons f o r Entry in to P o s i t i o n ........................................................................................ 143 4.63 Job P r e f e r e n c e .......................................................................... 144 4.64 Profess ional Allegiance 145 4.65 P referred Program O rienta tion . 146 4.66 Motivational S t a t e .................................................................... 147 4.67 Perception of Teaching Load 148 4.68 Musical P r e f e r e n c e ............................................................. 4.69 Professional Plans . 4.70 Summary Table: Faculty Perception of Positio n V a r i a b l e s ........................................................................................ 151 4.71 I n s t r u c t i o n a l D i f f i c u l t i e s Scale Summary 154 4.72 Survival Subscale: ................................ 158 4.73 Survival Subscale: ANOVA Showing FT and PT-A D i f f e r e n c e s .................................................................................. 158 Survival Subscale: ANOVA Showing FT and PT-G D i f f e r e n c e s ............................... 158 Survival Subscale: ANOVA Showing PT-G and PT-A S i m i l a r i t i e s .................................................................................. 159 F a c i l i t i e s Subscale: 159 4.74 4.75 4.76 . . ...................................... ........................................................ . . . . . . . . ............................... . . . Subgroup Means . . . . . . . . . . . Subscale Means ................................ x 148 149 Table 4.77 Page F a c i l i t i e s Subscale: ANOVA Showing FT and PT-G D i f f e r e n c e s .................................................................................. 160 F a c i l i t i e s Subscale: ANOVA Showing FT and PT-A D i f f e r e n c e s .................................................................................. 160 F a c i l i t i e s Subscale: ANOVA Showing PT-G and PT-A S i m i l a r i t i e s ..................................... ........................................... 160 4.80 Social Relations Subscale: Subscale Means. . . . 161 4.81 Social Subscale: ANOVAI n d ic a tin g Lack of S i g n i f i ­ cant D i f f e r e n c e s 161 4.78 4.79 4.82 P r e s t i g e Subscale: Subgroup Means 4.83 P r e s t i g e Subscale: feren ces ANOVA Showing PT-A and FT Dif­ . . . 4.84 4.85 4.86 4.87 4.88 . 162 162 P r e s t i g e Subscale: ANOVA Showing PT-A and PT-G D i f f e r e n c e s ..................................................................... 163 P r e s t i g e Subscale: ANOVA Showing FT and PT-G S i m i l a r i t i e s .................................................................................. 163 Summary Table: by S u b g r o u p . 165 Student Musical-Involvement Subscale: Subgroup Means ........................................................................................ 166 SMI Subscale: ANOVA I n d i c a ti n g Lack of S i g n i f i c a n t D i f f e r e n c e s ..................................... ............................................ 166 P o sition S a t i s f a c t i o n Subscale Means 4.89 Student Requirements Subscale: 4.90 Subgroup Means . . 167 SR Subscale: ANOVA Showing FT and PT-A Differences . 167 4.91 SR Subscale: ANOVA Showing FT and PT-G S i m i l a r i t i e s . 168 4.92 SR Subscale: ties ANOVA Showing PT-G and PT-A S i m i l a r i ­ 168 4.93 Organization Subscale: Subgroup Means ........................... 169 4.94 Organization Subscale: ANOVA I n d ic a tin g Lack of S i g n i f i c a n t Differences ............................................ 169 xi Table Page 4.95 M aterials Subscale: ................................. 170 4.96 Materials Subscale: ANOVA Showing PT-G and FT D i f f e r e n c e s .................................................................................. 170 Ma terials Subscale: ANOVA Showing PT-G and PT-A D i f f e r e n c e s .................................................................................. 170 Materials Subscale: ANOVA Showing FT and PT-A Sim ilarities ............................................................................ 171 Summary Table: I n s t r u c t i o n a l D i f f i c u l t i e s Subscale Means by S u b g r o u p ..................................................................... 173 A-3.1 Inventory of Questionnaire Items and Their Sources 218 A-4.1 Pote n tia l Sources of Po sition S a t i s f a c t i o n . . . . 220 A-5.1 P o te n tia l Sources of I n s t r u c t i o n a l - R e l a t e d D i f f i c u l t i e s .................................................................................. 223 Rank-Ordering o f Most S a t i s f y i n g P o s itio n Variables by Subgroup . 226 Rank-Ordering of Least S a t is f y in g P o s itio n Variables by S u b g r o u p .................................................................................. 229 Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n f o r the 40 P o s i ti o n S a t i s f a c ­ t io n I t e m s 232 Po s itio n Variables Rated In ap p lica b le by More than 20% of C a s e s .................................................................................. 235 A-10.1 Rank-Ordering o f Most Troublesome I n s t r u c t i o n a l Variables by Subgroup ............................................................... 237 A-11.1 I n s t r u c t i o n a l Variables Rated Moderately Problematic . 240 A-12.1 Rank-Ordering of Least Troublesome I n s t r u c t i o n a l Variables by Subgroup ......................................................... 243 A-13.1 Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n f o r the 56 I n s t r u c t i o n a l D i f f i c u l t i e s Items . . . 246 A-14.1 C o r r e l a te s of Se lecte d Va riables 240 4.97 4.98 4.99 A-6.1 A-7.1 A-8.1 A-9.1 Subgroup Means x ii . ..................................... LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page 1 Cover L e t t e r f o r Questionnaire 2 Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ............................................................... 212 3 Inventory of Questionnaire Items and Their Sources Table ........................................................................... 217 4 P o te n tia l Sources of P o sitio n S a t i s f a c t i o n Table . 219 5 P o te n tia l Sources of I n s t r u c t i o n a l - R e l a t e d D i f f i ­ c u l t i e s T a b l e ........................................................................... 222 Rank-Ordering of Most S a t i s f y i n g P o sitio n Variables by Subgroup Table ............................................ 225 Rank-Ordering of Least S a t is f y in g P osition Variables by Subgroup Table ............................................ 228 Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n f o r the 40 P osition S a t i s f a c t i o n Items Table .................................................. 231 Po s itio n Variables Rated Inapp lica b le by More Than 20% of Cases T a b l e .................................................. 234 Rank-Ordering of Most Troublesome I n s t r u c t i o n a l Variables by Subgroup Table ............................................ 236 I n s t r u c t i o n a l Variables Rated Moderately Problematic Table . . . . 239 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ....................................... Rank-Ordering o f Least Troublesome I n s t r u c t i o n a l • Va riables by Subgroup Table . . 210 242 Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n f o r t h e 56 I n s t r u c t i o n a l D i f f i c u l t i e s Items Table .................................................. 245 14 C o r r e la te s of Selected Va riables Table 248 15 Comparison of Full-Time and Part-Time Faculty C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ..................................................................... x iii . . . . 250 Appendix 16 Page Comparison of Part-Time General Faculty and P a r t Time Applied Faculty C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . . . . xiv 253 BACKGROUND FOR THE STUDY Introductio n Over the p a st two decades, the two-year community c o ll e g e s have grown in such numbers and p o p u la r ity as to command s t a te w i d e , n a t i o n a l , and even i n t e r n a t i o n a l a t t e n t i o n . In Michigan, f o r example, as one prominent spokesman f o r the community c o lleg e s s t a t e d , "The community c o lle g e s were [by 1976] no longer small p o ta to e s . They had grown in j u s t a s h o r t time from using about $50 m illio n t o $100 m illio n of s t a t e money" (Gleazer, 1980, p. 118), and Michigan i s no anomaly. While in some s t a t e s the community c o llege system has expanded more than in o t h e r s , t h e r e i s l i t t l e doubt t h a t i t s impact on education has been phenomenal. The community c o llege i s now widely acclaimed as "probably the most s i g n i f i c a n t development in American higher education thus f a r in the twentieth century" (B u rn ett, c. 1977, p. 1 ), and i t s p a t t e r n s and p r i n c i p l e s are studied and emulated as f a r away as Japan. The uniqueness of the i n s t i t u t i o n i t s e l f has made the community c o l l e g e , the p e o p le 's c o l l e g e , so popular. Students of a l l kinds a re a t t r a c t e d by the community c o l l e g e ' s informal atmosphere, c lo s e proximity to home, and inexpensive t u i t i o n . Through th e community c o l l e g e , students can t r a i n f o r c a r e e r s , pursue a t r a d i t i o n a l l i b e r a l a r t s education, or take courses f o r personal enjoyment. Because the community co llege o f f e r s i t s comprehensive se r v i c e s to a l l who apply, 1 2 i t i s considered t o have r e v o lu tio n iz e d post-secondary education in America. Music has long held i t s place within the two-year c o lle g e c u r ­ riculum. When an ad hoc Music Educators National Conference (MENC) Committee on Music in the J u n io r Colleges acknowledged in 1970 t h a t the " j u n i o r c olleg e s [were] playing an in c r e a s in g l y important r o l e in higher education" (Stover e t a l . , 1970, p. 3 6 ), the study of music had been p a r t of the j u n i o r c olleg e curriculum f o r a t l e a s t t h ir t y years. As e a r l y as 1939, such i n d iv i d u a ls as S. Earle Blakeslee and Esther Goetz, chairpersons of the f i r s t MENC Committees on Music in the Ju n io r Colleges from 1936-1940 and 1940-1942, r e s p e c t i v e l y , debated in public th e m erits of the j u n i o r c o ll e g e in f o s t e r i n g musical growth within a n o n t r a d i ti o n a l stu d e n t body (MENC Yearbook, 1939-1940). Need f o r the Study Although music has been a p a r t of j u n i o r c o lle g e education f o r several decades, r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e i s known about the circumstances under which i t has been ta u g h t . As Gagermeier s t a t e d in 1967: "To date t h e r e e x i s t s no a u t h o r i t a t i v e and comprehensive study of the r o l e of music in the j u n i o r c o ll e g e . Moreover, concern of any kind with the are a of music in the j u n i o r c o ll e g e has been conspicuously and sa dly lacking" (1967, p. 4 ) . In 1983 Gagermeier's obse rvation can s t i l l be accepted as v a l i d . C e r ta in l y l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n has been paid t o the music f a c u l t y members employed a t the community c o lleg e 1e v e l . 3 Of the few s t u d i e s p e rt a in i n g to music i n s t r u c t o r s employed within the two-year c o l l e g e s , perhaps th e most r e l e v a n t was conducted by Merkel (1977). Merkel surveyed the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of Michigan's two-year c o lle g e music f a c u l t y and concluded t h a t more d e s c r i p t i v e research of two-year c o ll e g e music f a c u l t y was needed: Although much research has been w r i t t e n about the f a c u l t y in community c o l l e g e s , i t y e t remains f o r someone t o do a d e f i n i t i v e study which will more thoroughly answer . . . [qu estio n s in regard t o the music f a c u l t y in the two-year c o ll e g e s ] (pp. 114-115). He s p e c i f i c a l l y c i t e d the need to a s c e r t a i n who the two-year c o lleg e music i n s t r u c t o r s were, why they were t h e r e , and how they f e l t about themselves and t h e i r work (1977, p. 114). Additional support f o r conducting d e s c r i p t i v e research on community c o lleg e music f a c u l t y may be gleaned from the w r itin g s of the music education res ea rche rs Schneider and Cady (1965) who stated that: The va rious a t t i t u d e s of t e a c h e r s , such toward non-musical endeavors in and out f e s s i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of d i f f e r i n g of stud e nts and o t h e r school personnel, t i o n (p. 322). as the a t t i t u d e s of s c h o o l , pro­ k ind s, v a r i e t i e s needs c l a r i f i c a ­ A t h i r d reason to support a d d itio n al research on community co llege music f a c u l t y r e l a t e s to the lack o f information about p a r t - t im e music t e a c h e r s . L e s l i e , Kellams, and Gunne (1982) reported t h a t " p a r t - t i m e r s a re e s s e n t i a l to th e opera tio n o f programs in music" (p. 22). In f a c t , according to Merkel (1977, p. 9 7 ) , p a r t - time music f a c u l t y outnumber f u l l - t i m e music f a c u l t y in Michigan two-year c o l l e g e s . Despite t h e i r prominence, however, p a rt - t im e 4 music f a c u l t y have almost always been s e l e c t i v e l y excluded from research s t u d i e s . Even within the realm of general community colleg e i n s t r u c t o r - o r i e n t e d r e s e a r c h , comparisons between p a r t - t im e and f u l l ­ time f a c u l t y have been notably lacking (Cohen & Brawer, 1977, p. x i ) . The questio ns Merkel and oth ers recommend be addressed a re those t h a t r e q u i r e research i n t o the demographic, e x p e r i e n t i a l , f u n c t i o n a l , p r o f e s s i o n a l , and a t t i t u d i n a l i d e n t i t y of community c o lle g e music faculty. While in quiry i n t o a l l th ese are as sh a ll be undertaken in t h i s study, special a t t e n t i o n sh a ll be paid to i n v e s t i g a t i n g the f a c u l t y ' s profes sional s e l f - p e r c e p t i o n . This area m erits special c o n sid er a tio n in l i g h t of the widespread complaint voiced by r e s e a rc h ­ ers t h a t th e pro fessional i d e n t i t y of th e community c olleg e i n s t r u c ­ t o r i s s t i l l in the process of formation (Cohen & Brawer, 1977; London, 1980; Jamerson, 1979). Statement of Purpose This study i s devoted t o th e d e s c r i p t i v e c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of music f a c u l t y employed within Michigan public community c o lleg e s based on data to be c o l l e c t e d by mail q u e s t io n n a ir e . The primary purpose of the study i s to c o n s t r u c t p r o f i l e s f o r t h r e e types of music f a c u l t y defined herein: f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y , p a r t - t im e general f a c u l t y , and p a rt - t im e applied f a c u l t y . Secondary purposes include an examination of s e l f - r e p o r t e d job s a t i s f a c t i o n of music f a c u l t y regarding the t h r e e f a c u l t y subgroupings, and a determination of what f u l l - t i m e , p a r t - t im e g e n e r a l , and p a rt - t im e a p p lied music f a c u l t y perceive to be t h e i r major i n s t r u c t i o n a l - r e l a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s . Additional purposes 5 are to summarize the advice given by f a c u l t y members to prospective community c o lleg e music i n s t r u c t o r s to app ra ise professional s e l f ­ perception and to recommend p r a c t i c e s intended to sti m u l a te pro­ fes s i o n a l growth. Statement of the Basic Questions The r e p r e s e n t a t i v e p r o f i l e s of community c o lleg e music f a c u l t y to be constructed will contain information t o answer the following qu estions: 1. How do community c o llege music f a c u l t y d e s c r i b e themselves, and in what ways do th e d e s c r i p t o r s of f u l l - t i m e and p a rt - t im e faculty d iffer? a. Do f a c u l t y subgroups d i f f e r demographically by sex or age? b. Do f a c u l t y subgroups d i f f e r e x p e r i e n t i a l l y by t h e i r length of s e r v i c e , academic background, or range of p ro fessional experience? Do they d i f f e r in t h e i r having been community c o ll e g e students themselves, having studied the philosophy and fu nctions of the community c o l l e g e , or being new to t h e i r community when they f i r s t accepted t h e i r p o s i t i o n s ? Do they d i f f e r in t h e i r performance s k i l l s , or in t h e i r members holding concurrent employment? c. Do f a c u l t y subgroups d i f f e r p r o f e s s i o n a l l y by academic rank or tenure? d. Do f a c u l t y subgroups d i f f e r f u n c t i o n a l l y by serving as music a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , or by where, when, who, what, or how many hours per week they teach? 6 e. Do f a c u l t y subgroups d i f f e r a t t i t u d i n a l l y by t h e i r reasons f o r e n te r in g community c o lleg e t ea ch in g , job prefe ren c e, pro fessio nal a l l e g i a n c e , p r e f e r r e d program o r i e n t a t i o n , motivational s t a t e , musical t a s t e , or plans to stay in community c o lleg e teaching? 2. From what environmental f a c t o r s do subgroup members de rive average p o s i t io n s a t i s f a c t i o n o r b e t t e r ? From what f a c t o r s do sub­ group members derive l e s s than average p o s i t io n s a t i s f a c t i o n ? 3. What the the most d i f f i c u l t i n s t r u c t i o n a l - r e l a t e d problems subgroup members face? 4. What advice do f a c u l t y members have t o give to prosp ective community c o lle g e music teachers? Sig n if ic a n c e of the Study The p o te n tia l b e n e f i c i a r i e s of a study of .community colleg e music f a c u l t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and a t t i t u d e s might include u n i v e r s i t y music e du ca to rs, c u r r e n t and p rospective community c o lle g e music t e a c h e r s , music a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and s u p e r v iso rs. University music educators r e q u i r e m a t e r i a ls which a c c u ra t e l y r e f l e c t c o nditions within the va rious music educational environments. The more information they have about the s a t i s f a c t i o n s and problems of th e community c o ll e g e music s t a f f , the more help they can give to prospective tea ch e rs in making a wise c a r e e r d e c i s i o n . Moreover, the r e s u l t s o f t h i s study might enable i n t e r e s t e d u n i v e r s i t y music educators involved with the Music Educators National Conference to help f o s t e r p ro fes sio n al development e f f o r t s aimed a t i n - s e r v i c e community c o lle g e music t e a c h e r s . 7 With the r e s u l t s o f t h i s stu dy , prosp ective community c o llege music t e a ch e rs might gain a b e t t e r a p p r e c i a ti o n of the problems they a re l i k e l y to encounter. They should a l s o be able to determine how e n te r in g th e f i e l d as e i t h e r a f u l l - t i m e or p a r t - t im e employee will in flu e n ce t h e i r perception o f what i s expected of them. In a d d i t i o n , knowledge about what c u r r e n t f a c u l t y th in k about t h e i r jobs might arm f u t u r e f a c u l t y with a p p ro p r i a te q uestio ns f o r t h e i r prospective employers. Research p e r t i n e n t to th e community c ollege music i n s t r u c t o r might a ls o provide v alu able information t o th e community c o lle g e music a d m i n i s t r a t o r . In order to maintain a music program respon­ sive t o s t u d e n t s ' needs, community c o lle g e music a d m i n i s t r a t o r s must a s s e s s th e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between f a c u l t y members and the i n s t r u c t i o n a l program. Only by monitoring these va ried r e l a t i o n ­ ships can an a d m i n i s t r a t o r hope to make the pe rio dic adjustments needed to r e - a l i g n h i s f a c u l t y ' s s t r e n g t h s with a program's objec­ tives. I t i s hoped t h a t the a d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s e f f o r t s can be made more productive through knowledge of general s t a f f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and attitudes. Resu lts of t h i s study may a ls o help a d m i n i s t r a t o r s i d e n t i f y f a c u l t y in immediate need o f professional r e v i t a l i z a t i o n . F i n a l l y , i t i s believed t h a t the information compiled here might prove b e n e f i c i a l t o the music te a c h e r in s e r v i c e a t the commu­ n i t y c o lle g e l e v e l . As Katz (1962) su g g e sts, information about o ne 's own a t t i t u d e s can prove e n lig h te n in g : At the pres en t time c olleg e t e a ch e rs a re not expected to have a d i s c i p l i n e d awareness o f t h e i r motivations 8 and a t t i t u d e s in tea ch in g . Given the in flu ence t h a t c o ll e g e tea che rs have or might have on t h e i r s t u d e n t s , some s e n s i ­ tiv e n e s s to human i n t e r a c t i o n s may come t o be regarded p a r t of the c o lle g e t e a c h e r ' s job (p. 368). From the r e s u l t s o f t h i s stud y , f a c u l t y members might f i n d t h a t they a re not alone in t h e i r response s, and t h a t they share c e r t a i n concerns with t h e i r c o lle a g u e s . This may encourage more fr e q u e n t d isc u ssio n of t h e i r f e e l i n g s about t h e i r job with c o ll e a g u e s . Other f a c u l t y members, when presented with the information from t h i s study, may wish to ree v a lu a te or c l a r i f y some of the values they hold. For thes e i n d i v i d u a l s , an a t t i t u d i n a l change may determine whether or not they s t a y a t the community c o lle g e level or choose to work elsewhere. Scope and L im ita tio ns of the Study The l i m i t a t i o n s f o r t h i s study were as follows: 1. Only c u r r e n t l y employed music f a c u l t y from the public community c o lle g e s within the S t a te of Michigan were surveyed. 2. Only f a c u l t y employed in community c o lleg e s p a r t i c i p a t i n g in the study were surveyed. 3. Only f a c u l t y members whose names had been provided by t h e i r music a d m i n i s t r a t o r s were s e n t q u e s t io n n a ir e s . Assumptions For purpose of t h i s study, th e following a r e accepted as v a li d assumptions: 1. Faculty c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and a t t i t u d e s can v a l i d l y and r e l i a b l y be measured by means of a q u e s t io n n a ir e . 9 2. All of the following f a c t o r s c o n t r i b u t e t o the v a l i d i t y of th e instrument: a. Items used in t h e q u e s t io n n a ir e were drawn from the l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t i n g t o t h e study of higher education f a c u l t y , and community/junior c o ll e g e f a c u l t y in particular b. The items p e r t a i n t o the environment of the community c o lle g e music t e a c h e r c. A n o n r e s t r i c t i v e response option ( " o th er" ) was added t o most questions d. The q u e stio n n a ir e was submitted f o r c r i t i c i s m to an e x p e r t panel of nonmusic community c o lle g e f a c u l t y and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s D e f in itio n s Certain terms which a re uncommon or p o t e n t i a l l y ambiguous appear in t h e s e c h a p t e r s . For the purpose of t h i s study they a r e defined as fo llo w s. Community College i s a term used .to i d e n t i f y a public twoy e a r postsecondary i n s t i t u t i o n which o f f e r s a g e n e r a l - , t r a n s f e r - , and term in al-ed ucation program. Music f a c u l t y r e p r e s e n ts a l l persons engaged in teaching music a t the community c olleg e l e v e l . I n s t r u c t o r i s used as a synonym f o r t e a c h e r . When the term i s used t o denote a p a r t i c u l a r academic rank, the phrase w ill i n v a r i a b l y read "rank of i n s t r u c t o r . " 10 Employment s t a t u s i s used to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between i n s t r u c t o r s employed on a f u l l - t i m e , or p a rt - t im e b a s i s . F ull-tim e f a c u l t y member i s used to r e p r e s e n t a person carrying ateaching load t h a t contains a t l e a s t the minimum number of con ta ct hours considered by h i s c o lleg e to be the recognized f u l l - t i m e load and i s c o n t r a c t u a l l y de signated to have f u l l - t i m e s t a t u s . P art-tim e f a c u l t y member i s a term used to i d e n t i f y a person whoe i t h e r c a r r i e s l e s s than th e minimum number of c o nta ct hours considered by his c o lle g e t o be the recognized f u l l - t i m e load or is c o n t r a c t u a l l y de signated to have p a rt - t im e s t a t u s . Employment fu nctio n i s used to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between i n s t r u c t o r s who a re assigned general classroom r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and those who have been hi re d to teach only p r i v a t e music l e s s o n s . General i n s t r u c t o r denotes a person employed by h i s / h e r c ollege to teach or d i r e c t one or more courses req u irin g preparation f o r more than a s i n g l e st u d e n t. Applied music i n s t r u c t o r i d e n t i f i e s a person employed by h i s / h e r c ollege to teach only p r i v a t e vocal or instrumental l e s s o n s . Because of th e nature of the population surveyed, t h i s term a p p li e s only to p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y . Employment subgroup i s a term used t o r e p r e s e n t a subcategory of f a c u l t y members drawn from among the e n t i r e f a c u l t y . The sub­ group i s s p e c i f i c a l l y defined by i t s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n according to both employment s t a t u s and employment f u n c tio n . groups are of i n t e r e s t in t h i s study: g e n e r a l , and the p a r t - t im e a p p lie d . Three f a c u l t y sub­ th e f u l l - t i m e , the p a rt- tim e 11 A t t it u d e i s defined as the p r e d i s p o s i ti o n to view an issu e in a c e r t a i n manner. Job s a t i s f a c t i o n i s defined as a g e n e r a l , p o s i t i v e f e e l i n g toward on e 's work, or p a r t i c u l a r asp ects of o n e 's work. I n s t r u c t i o n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s i s a term which denotes the d i f f i ­ c u l t i e s pers o n ally encountered in the p reparation f o r or performance of one's i n s t r u c t i o n a l d u t i e s . Overview of the Report In the following s e c t i o n , l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t e d to t h i s study was reviewed. The review d e a l t with general research s t u d i e s of two- y e a r co lleg e f a c u l t y , as well as with s t u d i e s r e s t r i c t e d to twoy e a r colleg e music f a c u l t y . In the Samples, Instrument, and Pro­ cedures s e c t i o n , the methodology of the study was discussed and the a n a l y ti c a l procedures used to i n t e r p r e t the data were described. Results of the study were then presented in the f o u rth se c tio n of this dissertation. A summary of the study, the newly constructed f a c u l t y p r o f i l e s , and a d isc u ssio n of means f o r promoting f a c u l t y p r o f e s s i o n a l i z a t i o n were contained in the l a s t s e c t i o n . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introductio n This s e c t i o n i s divided i n to two p a r t s . Within the f i r s t s e c t i o n , l i t e r a t u r e regarding the broader to p ic of two-year colleg e f a c u l t y i s reviewed. Consideration i s given t o the perception of the two-year c o lle g e i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t a f f by r e s e a r c h e r s , i s su e s concerning p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y , job s a t i s f a c t i o n , attempts t h a t have been made to de fine the ideal two-year co lleg e f a c u l t y member, and a d e s c r i p t io n of faculty c h a ra c te ristic s . The f i r s t p a r t concludes with a b r i e f summary. The next p a r t of th e s e ctio n i s devoted to the review of l i t e r a ­ t u r e t h a t r e l a t e s s p e c i f i c a l l y t o two-year c o lleg e music f a c u l t y . I t conta in s an examination of the incidence and scope of music in the two-year c o l l e g e s , the u t i l i z a t i o n of music f a c u l t y , music f a c u l t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , job s a t i s f a c t i o n , and r o l e awareness. This p a r t a ls o concludes with a summary. I ss ues and Problems Concerning the Two-Year College Faculty Two-Year College Faculty and Their Prof ess ional I d e n t i t y A new era f o r the two-year c o lleg e s was i n i t i a t e d during the 1960s. They experienced s i g n i f i c a n t growth, stim u la te d by such f a c ­ t o r s as th e i n cre as ing d e s i r a b i l i t y of obtaining a c o lle g e education, the attain m ent of c o ll e g e age by the baby boom g e n e r a t i o n , and an 12 13 in cre ase in federa l a s s i s t a n c e f o r occupational education programs. "By 1970," according to Schultz (1977, p. 15), "community c o lle g e teaching was widely accepted as a c a r e e r in i t s own r i g h t . " Along with r e c o g n i t i o n , however, more a t t e n t i o n than ever be fore was given t o qu estio ns regarding the issu e s a ss o c i a t e d with community co llege teaching. Professionalization: the predominant i s s u e . The predominant issu e in th e l i t e r a t u r e on two-year c o lle g e f a c u l t y i s p r o f e s s i o n a l i ­ z a t i o n , a term which, in p r a c t i c e , has come to mean the knowledge, acceptance, and f u l f i l l m e n t of th e o b l ig a t io n s accompanying employ­ ment a t the two-year c o ll e g e l e v e l . This issu e subsumes several o t h e r i s s u e s , such as f a c u l t y job s a t i s f a c t i o n and the u t i l i z a t i o n of p a r t - t im e i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t a f f . I t has become the o verr iding concern of f a c u l t y - o r i e n t e d r e s e a r c h e r s includ ing Garrison , O'Banion, and Cohen and Brawer, who have been a f f i l i t a t e d with the major o rganiz a ­ t i o n s res p o n sib le f o r i n i t i a t i n g and disseminating j u n i o r c o lle g e resea rch : th e Asso cia tio n of American Community and Ju n i o r Colleges (AACJC), the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) C lea r­ inghouse f o r Ju n i o r C o lle g es, and the Center f o r the Study of Community Colleges. The new c o n t e x t . In e f f e c t , the issu e s surrounding the p r o f e s ­ s i o n a l i z a t i o n o f t h e two-year c o lle g e te a c h e r emerged when j u n i o r co lleg e teaching came t o be considered a se p a r a t e p r o f e s s i o n . Garrison (1967) form ally i d e n t i f i e d th e j u n i o r c o lle g e te a c h e r as "a new breed of i n s t r u c t o r within higher education" (p. 15). Having 14 conducted 650 in te rvie ws with i n s t r u c t o r s , Garrison noted t h a t the j u n i o r c o lle g e te a c h e r " i s , in his own d e s i r e , and view, a colleague in a new c o l l e g i a t e e f f o r t " (p. 15). As a c o l l e g i a t e e f f o r t , the two-year community c o ll e g e fu nctio ns q u i t e d i f f e r e n t l y than does the f o u r - y e a r c o ll e g e . Gleazer (1980) s t a t e d t h a t the "community c o lleg e s and t h e i r p r o g e n i t o r s , pu blic j u n i o r c o l l e g e s , were e s t a b l i s h e d to extend educational opportunity [ t o a v a r i e t y of l e a r n e r s ] " (p. 78) beyond those served by f o u r - y e a r institutions. New r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . The primary r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f the two- y e a r c o ll e g e te a c h e r focus on serving the needs of h i s / h e r i n s t i t u ­ t i o n ' s stud e nt body. As Gleazer, a long-time l e a d e r within the community c o ll e g e movement, has s t a t e d : The p o in t of beginning and continuing r e fe ren c e [ i n community c o lle g e teaching] i s the learnin g needs and i n t e r e s t s of the people, not the s y l l a b u s , the book, the c o u rs e, the p r o f e s ­ s o r , th e i n s t i t u t i o n (1980, p. 88). The two-year c o ll e g e i n s t r u c t o r i s c l e a r l y expected to sub­ o r d i n a t e h i s / h e r research i n t e r e s t s , and h i s / h e r s u b j e c t - m a t t e r o r i e n ­ t a t i o n to th e needs of s t u d e n t s , as a t t e s t e d to by Garrison (1967, p. 78), Kelley and Wilbur (1970, p. 146), and Cohen and Brawer (1977, p. 46). This stu de n t o r i e n t a t i o n , according to Garrison (1967, p. 15), accounts f o r the s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in pro fession al and p h ilo s o ­ phical a t t i t u d e s which s e p ara te two-year and f o u r - y e a r c o lle g e f a c u l t y . The two-year c o ll e g e i n s t r u c t o r i s a l s o expected t o have been prepared academically t o accommodate individua l le a r n in g needs. According t o Kelley and Wilbur (1970), "the ty p ic a l j u n i o r co lleg e 15 teach er needs g r e a t e r depth of s u b j e c t m atter than the ty p ic a l high school t e a c h e r . And he r e q u i r e s g r e a t e r breadth in a f i e l d of knowl­ edge than does the ty p ic a l c o l l e g e - u n i v e r s i t y teacher" (p. 52). Living up to e x p e c t a t i o n s . Kelley and Wilbur (1970, p. 52) noted t h a t i n d iv id u a ls wishing t o teach a t the two-year c o ll e g e level must possess a body of knowledge to impart and be w i l l i n g and able t o teach stud e nts d isp la y in g a wide v a r i e t y of learnin g a b i l i t i e s . The second requirement i s g e n e r a l l y the more d i f f i c u l t t o f u l f i l l . I t i s a l l too easy f o r i n s t r u c t o r s to adopt a profe ssional a t t i ­ tude more s u i t a b l e to u n i v e r s i t y stu d e n ts than to community c o lle g e s tu d e n ts . Community c o lle g e i n s t r u c t o r s , un lik e s t a f f o f se n io r c o l l e g e s , must monitor more c a r e f u l l y th e degree o f independence they g rant t h e i r s t u d e n t s , t o pr event them from lo sin g s i g h t of t h e i r objectives. I n s t r u c t o r s must a ls o s e r i o u s l y consider l i m i t i n g the amount of a b s t r a c t material they p r e s e n t to community c o ll e g e s t u ­ d e n t s , f o r as i s widely rep o rte d (Gleazer, 1964, p. 3; Monroe, 1972, p. 255), many two-year c olleg e stud e n ts may be unable to process the information adequately. According to Monroe (1972) the academic l i m i t a t i o n s of the stu d en t body " i s a f a c t of l i f e which community co lleg e teachers will need to l e a r n to a ccep t g r a c e f u l l y " (p. 255). Those who do n o t , s t a t e s London (1980), tend to become demoralized, si nce "success with stud e n ts . . . can be s u f f i c i e n t l y i n s u b s t a n t i a l " (p. 70). A lac k of professio nalism c i t e d . Placing the stud e nt and h is needs a t the c e n t e r of the two-year c o l l e g e ' s mission helped 16 f a c u l t y - o r i e n t e d r e s ea rch e rs t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e between de sired f a c u l t y behavior and observed f a c u l t y behavior. Upon making t h i s compari­ son, O'Banion (1972) found t h a t th e ty p ic a l f a c u l t y member was "vo ca tio na lly and e d u ca tio n ally unprepared f o r s p e c i f i c employment in the community-junior college" (p. 55). He concluded from con­ temporary r e p o r t s t h a t "many f a c u l t y members do not have the a t t i t u d e s or graduate p reparation t h a t would aid t h e i r adjustment to the te a c h ­ ing college [ t h e community c o ll e g e ] " (p. 60): Many f a c u l t y members do not support b asic t e n e t s of the community-junior c o llege philosophy, and may have g r e a t d i s t a s t e f o r a s i g n i f i c a n t proportion of st ud en ts who a tt e n d the i n s t i t u t i o n s . Others c r i t i c a l of the two-year c o lle g e f a c u l t y ' s a d aptation to t h e i r p o s i t io n s include the research team of Cohen and Brawer. After analyzing the pr ofes sional i d e n t i t y of the two-year c o llege f a c u l t y , they concluded (1972, p. 12), t h a t th ese i n s t r u c t o r s had y e t to de fine a place f o r themselves as d i s t i n c t from s e n i o r c o lleg e and high school t e a c h e r s . Their most r e c e n t a pp ra isa l of two-year c o lleg e teachers was l i t t l e b e t t e r . In 1977, a f t e r having con­ ducted a nationwide survey of humanities i n s t r u c t o r s , they a s s e r t e d t h a t " c o l l e c t i v e l y the f a c u l t y e x h i b i t s a p i c t u r e of an occupational grouping in a nascent stage o f p r o f e s s i o n a l i z a t i o n " (Cohen & Brawer, p. x i ) . Cohen and Brawer (1977?, pp. 100-107) claimed t h a t the f a c u l t y d isplay "rec lu sive" tend e ncies , such as hiding behind conservativ e teaching p a tt e r n s which ignore important innovations in the manage­ ment of le a r n in g . They a ls o claimed t h a t f a c u l t y have spurned the 17 newer methods of st u d e n t e v a l u a t i o n , which sp ecify o b je c tiv e s designed to evaluate a c c u r a t e l y te a c h e r e f f e c t i v e n e s s . The authors concluded (1977, p. 105) t h a t f a c u l t y have f a i l e d as y e t to develop common g o a ls , tech n iq ues, and concerns: fledged p ro fes sio n. the hallmarks of a f u l l - I t was t h e i r observation t h a t f a c u l t y " i n t e r a c t with each o th e r more on questio ns of r i g h t s , w e l f a r e , and colleg e level concerns than on issues r e l a t i n g to t h e i r doing a b e t t e r job f o r t h e i r c l i e n t s " (p. 109). To promote the p r o f e s s i o n a l i z a t i o n of the two-year c o lleg e i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t a f f , O'Banion (1972) advocated the establishm ent and extension of p r e - s e r v i c e and i n - s e r v i c e s t a f f development programs. O'Banion (1974, p. 63) sought to c re a t e a "people-or iented" and "process -o rie nte d" s t a f f , knowledgeable in the techniques of c u r r i c u ­ lum development. Brawer's (1979, p. 22) d e f i n i t i o n of the mature, s e l f - a c t u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t o r was one who merges h i s / h e r personal and professional r o l e s . Garrison, O'Banion, and Cohen and Brawer have expressed a widely f e l t concern with the emerging c o rp orate i d e n t i t y of two-year c o lle g e instructors. In summary, Cohen and Brawer (1977) s t a t e d : Community c o lle g e i n s t r u c t o r s "are tea ch e rs f i r s t , members of th e [two-year c o l l e g e ] . t e a c h i n g p ro fessio n second" (p. 7 ) , when, in f a c t , a commu­ n i t y c o lleg e t e a c h e r s ' commitment should be j u s t the r e v e r s e . Missing from th ese a u t h o r s ' analyses was the c o n sid er a tio n of a growing sgement within the i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t a f f : the p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y . E specially in the f i e l d of community c o llege music education, p a r t time f a c u l t y have t r a d i t i o n a l l y played an important r o l e ( L e s l i e , 18 Kellams, & Gunne, 1982, p. 22). Because of t h i s , and o th e r com­ p e l l i n g f u n ction al r o l e s of the group, the needs and d e s i r e s of p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y should be given f u l l c o n s i d e r a ti o n . Issues Concerning Part-Time Faculty Within the p a st two decades, much has been w r i t t e n about the two-year c olleg e i n s t r u c t o r , y e t only sin ce the mid-1970s have the needs of p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y been s e r i o u s l y considered (Guthrie-Morse, 1979, p. 8 ) . As Harr is (1980) s t a t e s : "During the 1 95 0 's , 1960's, and e a r l y 1970 's, an unusual emphasis was placed upon h i r i n g f u l l ­ time f a c u l t y with a corresponding decreased emphasis on the r o l e of p a r t - t im e f a c u l ty " (p. 13). Both research and d isc u ssio n about two-year c o lle g e f a c u l t y produced during t h i s period v i r t u a l l y ignored p a rt - t im e s t a f f members. I n t e r e s t in p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y increased simultaneously with the sharp increas e of t h e i r numbers i n to the community c o l l e g e s , p a r a l l e l l i n g the rap id i n cre as e of stu d ents e n r o l l i n g in these i n s t i t u t i o n s . In 1971 p a rt- tim e f a c u l t y c o n s t i ­ tu te d 40% of the two-year c o lle g e teaching f o r c e . By 1975 t h e i r numbers had increased two-fold over 1971 to comprise a m a j o r i t y , 53% of f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y (AACJC, 1981, p. 61). Despite the i n t e r e s t r e c e n t l y d i r e c t e d to p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y , the l i t e r a t u r e p e r t a in i n g to p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y remains l i m i t e d . According to L e s l i e , Kellams, and Gunne (1982): "In g e n e r a l , very l i t t l e has been w r i t t e n about p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y . Data a re sc arce and t h e r e has been l i t t l e con­ t i n u i t y in the research e f f o r t s in t h i s f i e l d " (p. 11). 19 Importance of p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y . Ha rris (1980, p. 14) noted t h a t the e x i s t i n g d i v e r s i f i e d l i t e r a t u r e on p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y con­ s i s t s l a r g e l y of a r t i c l e s conta in ing assessments of the importance of p a r t - t i m e f a c u l t y t o the o v e ra ll c o lleg e environment. An example may be found in a f r e q u e n t l y c i t e d a r t i c l e by Kuhn (1971, p. 466) which contends t h a t without p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y , the j u n i o r c o lle g s could never o f f e r the d i v e r s i t y of courses t h a t they do. Now t h a t p a r t - t i m e f a c u l t y a re th e m ajo rity of a l l two-year c o lle g e t e a c h e r s , i t appears t h a t Kuhn's observation i s t r u e . Advantages and disadvantages o f h i r i n g p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y . A second t o p ic t h a t occurs in the l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t e s to the advantages and disadvantages of h i r i n g p a r t - t im e s t a f f . The advantages of h i r i n g p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y have been summarized by many a uth ors. Eliason (1980, pp. 2 and 6 ) , f o r example, c l a s s i f i e d th e b e n e f i t s derived through the use of p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y i n t o so c ial and economic c a t e g o r i e s . A l i s t i n g of such b e n e f i t s from th e works of Albert and Watson (1980), Eliason (1980),and Sillman (1980) appears tn Table 2.1. The disadvantages of h i r i n g p a r t - t i m e s t a f f have not been so widely t r e a t e d . Cosand's study (1979) i s the most cogent d iscussion of th e replacement of f u l l - t i m e s t a f f by p a r t - t im e s t a f f . Cosand (pp. 27-28) s t a t e d t h a t by repla cing f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y with p a rt- tim e f a c u l t y : (a) t he c o n t i n u i t y of both personnel and program i s s a c r i ­ f i c e d ; and (b) "the core f a c u l t y , decreased in s i z e , becomes l e s s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of th e t o t a l program, l e s s comprehending, and hence, 20 TABLE 2 . 1 . —Advantages of Hiring Part-tim e Faculty Albert &Watson Eliason Sillman X X X X X Economic 1. 2. 3. P o te n tia l savings (per course r a t e i s lower) No f r i n g e b e n e f i ts Minimal o f f i c e space requ i rements X 4. No long-term commitments X 5. Can share support se r v i c e s 6. Response to community needs within budget X Discouragement of c o l l e c t i v e bargaining due to f a c t i o n a l i zatio n X 7. X X Social 1. Curricular f l e x i b i l i t y 2. Scheduling f l e x i b i l i t y 3. Used to meet a f f i r m a t i v e actio n g u id elin es X 4. Link to community/industry X 5. Pool of t a l e n t X SOURCES: Albert and Watson' (1980, p. 74). Eliason (1980, pp. 2, 3, 6 , 7 ) . Sillman (1980, pp. 89-90). X X X 21 l e s s supportive of the colleg e as a whole." Moreover, according to Cosand, the employment of p a rt-tim e f a c u l t y may prove detrimental because:(a) p a rt- tim e f a c u l t y do not maintain the same o u t - o f - t h e classroom c o n ta cts with students as do f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y ; (b) p a r t time f a c u l t y may f eel d i s s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r pro fessio n al compensa­ t i o n s ; and (c) p a rt-tim e f a c u l t y are perceived as t h r e a te n i n g in c e r t a i n ways by f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y . Other problems a s s o c i a t e d with p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y , mentioned by Grymes (1976, p. 12} a r e t h a t : ( a ) p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y tend to be l e s s academically prepared than f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y ; (b) they o ften do not possess comparable teaching s k i l l s and experiences; and (cj they u sua lly have o th er employment to which tney devote a p o r tio n of t h e i r time and e f f o r t s . Another r e s e a r c h e r , Friedla nder (1979; a s s e r t e d t h a t p a rt - t im e and f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y d i f f e r q u i te markedly with regard to a v a r i e t y of i n s t r u c t i o n a l - r e l a t e d p r a c t i c e s . Fri edlander found t h a t p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y , in comparison with f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y had l e s s input i n to th e s e l e c t i o n of m a t e r i a ls to be used in t h e i r courses, assigned fewer pages to oe rea d, used l e s s i n s t r u c t i o n a l media, recommended or required stu d e n ts to a tt e n d fewer o u t - o f - c l a s s a c t i v i t i e s , and placed l e s s empha­ s i s on w r i t t e n assignments in determining stu d e n t grades (p. 12). Despite the functional d i f f e r e n c e s between p a r t - and f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y , i t remains to be proven conclusively t h a t p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y members are in h e r e n tly i n f e r i o r t e a c h e r s . L e s l i e , Kellams, and Gunne (1981, p. 16) concluded only t h a t th e p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y ' s i n s t r u c ­ tio n a l q u a l i t y is l e s s p r e d i c ta b l e than t h a t of f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y . 22 Negative tre atm ent of pa rt- tim e f a c u l t y . I t i s now commonly accepted t h a t p a rt- tim e f a c u l t y a re t r e a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y than f u l l ­ time f a c u l t y . Bender and Breuder (1973) stim ulate d widespread i n t e r ­ e s t in the p l i g h t of p a rt -tim e f a c u l t y with the d i s c lo s u r e t h a t many community college had not e s t a b l i s h e d p o l i c i e s or p r a c t i c e s to govern the u t i l i z a t i o n of p a rt - t im e s t a f f . Bender and Hammons (1972) and Abel (1976) reported s i m i l a r f in d in g s . Lombardi (1975) a ls o determined t h a t p a rt- tim e f a c u l t y have been abused. In a paper published during a period in which f a c u l t y a c t i v e l y organized t h e i r c o l l e c t i v e bargaining u n i t s , Lombardi noted t h a t "savings made pos­ s i b l e by h i r in g low-paid p a rt - t im e i n s t r u c t o r s . . . p a r t l y financed . . . the [contemporary] surge in enrollment" (p. 51). Leslie, Kellams, and Gunne (1982, pp. 144-145) c a l l e d f o r f a i r and e q u it a b l e p o l i c i e s to address such issues as compensation and achievement of ten u re . To solve some problems t h a t have emerged between p a rt-tim e f a c u l t y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , they recommended t h a t co n tra ctual a gre e ­ ments "should r e f l e c t a meeting of the minds, and not a t a k e - i t - o r l e a v e - i t arrangement" (p. 145). Part-tim e f a c u l t y development. One a d d itio n al to p ic in the l i t e r a t u r e concerns the d e s i r e to help r e a l i z e the p o t e n t i a l of p a rt- tim e f a c u l t y . As Sillman (1980) s t a t e s , t h i s d e s i r e i s r e l a ­ t i v e l y new: S t a f f development has been a major concern in community colleges f o r the p a s t decade; however, only in the l a s t few y e ars has t h ere been a real i n t e r e s t in the develop­ ment of programs f o r p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y (p. 94). 23 Various authors have o u t lin e d the o b j e c ti v e s of community c ollege s t a f f development programs. Hammons, Smith-Wallace, and Watts (1978, p. 4 ) , f o r example, have c i t e d the requirements to provide a l l f a c u l t y with information to u t i l i z e new tec hnologies of i n s t r u c t i o n and to cope with the needs of both " h ig h - ri s k " and o l d e r s t u d e n ts . Programs designed to a id the development of par- time s t a f f in p a r t i c u l a r , however, tend to take a broader s e t of o b jec tiv e s in to c o n s i d e r a ti o n . Parsons (1980, p. 48) co nstructed a d e t a i l e d p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y development model l a r g e l y because he perceived the need to maintain the p a r i t y of i n s t r u c t i o n between p a rt - t im e and f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y . Based on a plan implemented a t a Maryland community c o l l e g e , Parso n's model i s s t r u c t u r e d as follows: 1. I t counsels a d m i n i s t r a t o r s t o r e c r u i t f a c u l t y according to s u b j e c t m atter e x p e r t i s e and teaching p o t e n t i a l 2. I t provides o r i e n t a t i o n programs f o r course org aniza­ t i o n , and f a c i l i t a t e s social and campus-related i n tro du c tion s 3. I t e s t a b l i s h e s channels o f communication designed to maintain a sense of f a c u l t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the • c o llege 4. I t provides f o r the a v a i l a b i l i t y of and access to support s e r v ic e s 5. I t organizes i n s t r u c t i o n a l c l i n i c s to f o s t e r i n s t r u c ­ t io n a l e x p e r t i s e . 24 6. I t e s t a b l i s h e s processes of stu d e n t and superv isor y e v alu atio n of f a c u l t y , and encourages d isc u ssion of the r e s u l t s Parsons' format i s one of several developed to minimize the d i f f i c u l t i e s of p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y in performing t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i ­ ties. I t i s one plan t h a t p e r t a i n s to how p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y are s e l e c t e d , supported, and a ssign e d —elements t h a t a re considered by L e s l i e , Kellams, and Gunne (1982, p. 140) to be of primary importance in the successful use of p a r t - t i m e f a c u l t y . Faculty m otivations f o r accep tin g a p a r t - t im e p o s i t i o n . The reasons t h a t p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y choose t o work a t the community co lleg e level have been examined by L e s l i e , Kellams, and Gunne (1982). A fter interviewing 104 p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y from 14 c o lleg e s in Virgin ia (including both se n io r and community c o l l e g e s ) , t h e authors i d e n t i f i e d fo ur c l u s t e r s of v a r i a b l e s r e l a t i n g to the reasons f a c u l t y accepted th e ir positions. Faculty took employment p rim a rily f o r i n t r i n s i c reasons (p. 46) and s e con d a rily f o r nonacademic pro fes sio n al reasons. I n t r i n s i c a l l y , f a c u l t y were motivated to acc ept t h e i r p o s i t i o n s because they derived personal s a t i s f a c t i o n , a sense of accomplishment and enjoyment from teach ing . Some jo in e d the c o lle g e to escape "a more r o u t in e or l e s s s t i m u l a ti n g environment." with t h e i r co lleg e f o r the p r e s t i g e . S t i l l others a f f i l i a t e d Secondly, i n d iv i d u a ls holding nonacademic p o s i t i o n s were found t o e n t e r i n to community c o lle g e teaching in order to share t h e i r s p e c i a l i z e d knowledge and s k i l l s with t h e i r communities. A t h i r d s e t of reasons f o r f a c u l t y accepting 25 p o s i t io n s p e rt a in e d to what the authors termed " c a r e e r i s t " choices. Some f a c u l t y members had accepted t h e i r p o s i t io n s because they were unable to f i n d f u l l - t i m e employment a t the s e n i o r c o lle g e l e v e l . F i n a l l y , p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y accepted t h e i r jobs f o r economic reasons. According t o L e s l i e , Kellams, and Gunne, however, teaching f o r the money was " d e f i n i t e l y the l e a s t s a l i e n t of a l l reasons . . . uncov­ ered" (p. 45). Grymes (1976, p. 1 8 ) , in c o n t r a s t , found the monetary f a c t o r to be of immediate importance to p a rt- tim e f a c u l t y . He reported t h a t the most f r e q u e n t ly c i t e d reason f o r teaching a t his community c o lle g e p a r t - t im e was to secure " extra income." The f a c t o r was s p e c i f i e d by 65 % of th e 254 p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y included in h i s survey. The response, "Feel as i f doing something worthwhile," an i n t r i n s i c reason, was s e l e c t e d almost as o ften (63.4%). C haracte riz in g the d i v e r s i t y of the p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y . Research­ ers have o f t e n found t h a t a d i v e r s i t y e x i s t s among the pa rt- tim e faculty. L e s l i e , Kellams, and Gunne (1982, p. 144) noted, f o r example, t h a t p a r t - t i m e f a c u l t y with widely varying backgrounds a re employed a t most i n s t i t u t i o n s . Some p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y share i n t e r e s t s with the f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y ; many do n ot. At some c o l l e g e s , p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y a r e employed on a c o n tin u in g , long-term b a s i s . Elsewhere, p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y a r e employed more s p o r a d i c a l l y . Lombardi (1975) d i f f e r e n t i a t e d between day and evening p a r t time f a c u l t y , i n d ic a t i n g t h a t evening workers may be subjected to i n f e r i o r working c o n d it i o n s . He a l s o d i f f e r e n t i a t e d between p a r t - time s t a f f who maintained jo bs o u tsid e the c olleg e and those who 26 depend on t h e i r c o lle g e p o s i t io n f o r the major p a r t of t h e i r income. He in d ic ate d (pp. 2-3) t h a t p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y without o t h e r jobs were the most i n t e r e s t e d in continuous employment and fringe benefits. Most r e c e n t l y , r e s e a r c h e r s have begun t o hypothesize typologies to account f o r the d i v e r s i t y of the p a r t - t im e s t a f f . Quayle (1977, 1978), c i t e d by L e s l i e , Kellams, and Gunne (1982, p. 37), divided a population of p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y in to t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s : (a) educa­ tio n a l p r o f e s s i o n a l s (te a c h e r s concurr en tly employed in o th e r edu­ c atio n a l l e v e l s ) , (b) noneducational p ro f e s s i o n a l s ( c r a f t s people employed f u l l time in a noneducationally r e l a t e d p o s i t i o n ) , and (c) permanent p a r t - t im e s t a f f members (those hoping t o ob tain a f u l l ­ time p o s i t io n a t t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n ) . A more d e t a i l e d typology, encompassing both two-year and f o u r - y e a r c o lleg e f a c u l t y was formu­ l a t e d by Tuckman (1978). Research t h a t uses an a pp rop ria te typology might prove more acc ura te than res ea rch t h a t uses an u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d po pulation. Job S a t i s f a c t i o n Job s a t i s f a c t i o n , the s t a t e o f s e l f - r e p o r t e d contentedness with the whole or aspec ts o f one ’s job i s c l e a r l y d i f f i c u l t to measure. In order t o estim ate th e j o b - r e l a t e d s a t i s f a c t i o n of two-year co lleg e f a c u l t y , various approaches have been employed. Some r esearch ers have asked t h e i r su b j e c t s to answer a s i n g l e , d i r e c t qu estion: you s a t i s f i e d with what you a r e doing?" "Are Other have asked t h e i r sub­ j e c t s to respond to a s e r i e s of j o b - r e l a t e d q u e stio n s. Some 27 r e s ea rch e rs have c ategorized t h e i r qu estio n s , and then have examined t h e i r s u b j e c t s ' responses to each category s e p a r a t e l y to produce more d e t a i l e d analyses of f a c u l t y job s a t i s f a c t i o n . Differing approaches e x i s t f o r both measuring and i n t e r p r e t i n g job s a t i s f a c t i o n . While most r e s e a r c h e r s , l i k e Eckert and Williams (1972, p. 26) perceived s a t i s f a c t i o n to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y influenced by environmental c au se s, a few r esearch ers such as Cohen and Brawer (1977, p. 31) believed s a t i s f a c t i o n to be linked b a s i c a l l y to person­ ality: what s a t i s f i e s one individual sometimes d i s s a t i s f i e s another. Despite t h e o r e t i c a l disagreement, a consensus remains regarding the s a t i s f a c t i o n of two-year c olleg e f a c u l t y . According to reviewers of the l i t e r a t u r e (Frankel, 1973, p. 6; F riedla nder, 1976, p. 61), most st u d i e s of two-year c o llege f a c u l t y have indic ated t h a t the v a st majority of f a c u l t y members are generally s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r j o b s. However, res ea rche rs who questioned f a c u l t y members in g r e a t e r depth have often found t h a t f a c u l t y s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d u n s a t i s f a c t o r y asp ects of t h e i r jo b s. Inferences of ge n eralize d s a t i s f a c t i o n . Estimates of two-year co llege f a c u l t y job s a t i s f a c t i o n a re most often obtained by asking s u b je c ts a d i r e c t questio n. A dozen st u d i e s in d ic ate d t h a t more than 85% of f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y members responded p o s i t i v e l y to d i r e c t question s regarding t h e i r job s a t i s f a c t i o n . For example, 94% of Kurth and M i l ls ' (1968) sample of f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y from Florida responded p o s i t i v e l y t o the question: of your work?" "Are you happy with the na ture Eckert and Williams (1972) reported t h a t more than 28 80% of the f u l l - t i m e tea che rs they sampled responded a f f i r m a t i v e l y to the question: "Do you l i k e your job?" To the query: "How much do you enjoy teaching a t the j u n i o r co lleg e le v e l? " 94% of f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y surveyed by Kelley and Wilbur (1970, p. 191) r e p l i e d t h a t they enjoyed teaching e i t h e r very well or extremely w e ll. The q u e stio n , "Are you s a t i s f i e d with your job?" drew an a f f i r m a t i v e response from 95% of f u l l - t i m e s t a f f surveyed by Benoit (1978). In c o n t r a s t , a r e l a t i v e l y low percentage of f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y in d ic a te d t h e i r s a t i s ­ f a c t i o n in a study conducted by the National Educational As sociation (1979). When asked to complete the phrase: "My morale i s . . . , " 73.3% of f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y surveyed by the NEA (1979, p. 12) described t h e i r morale as " f a i r l y high" or "very h ig h ." Accounts of the degree of general s a t i s f a c t i o n experienced by p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y may be r e l a t i v e l y s c a r c e , but they a re c o n s i s t e n t . Part-tim e f a c u l t y appear t o be g e n erally content with t h e i r p o s i t i o n s . Quanty (1976) reported t h a t 95% of the pa rt- tim e f a c u l t y who comprised h i s lim ite d sample expressed general s a t i s f a c t i o n with t h e i r j o b s. Only 35% of his sample, however, expressed p a r t i c u l a r s a t i s f a c t i o n with t h e i r s a l a r i e s . S i m i l a r l y , Grymes (1976) report ed t h a t the p a r t - time f a c u l t y from the one Virginia community c o lleg e he s tu d ie d were g e n erally s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r job and with t h e i r s c h o o l 's f a c i l i t i e s . Cohen and Brawer (1977, p. 61) i n d ic ate d t h a t to t h e i r s u r p r i s e , they found no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in s a t i s f a c t i o n between p a rt - t im e and f u l l - t i m e humanities i n s t r u c t o r s . I t i s commonly i n d i c a t e d , how­ e v e r , (Cohen and Brawer, 1977, p. 29; Quayle, 1977) t h a t of the p a r t time f a c u l t y surveyed, those who were most l i k e l y to r e p o r t 29 s a t i s f a c t i o n with part-tme teaching were those who held concurrent f u l l - t i m e employment o utside of t h e i r c o ll e g e . Use of unidimensional or summative s c a l e s . C erta in r e s e a r c h e r s f e l t t h a t in order to e s t im a t e job s a t i s f a c t i o n more a c c u r a t e l y , a s u b j e c t should respond to a b a t t e r y of j o b - r e l a t e d questions r a t h e r than to a s i n g l e q ue stion . Among the r e s e a r c h e r s a s c r i b i n g to t h i s approach a re Cohen and Brawer (1977) and Wozniak (1973). Cohen and Brawer (1977, p. 16) measured job s a t i s f a c t i o n by asking s u b j e c t s to r e p o r t t h e i r level of agreement or disagreement to items such as the following: (a) " I f I had a chance to r e t r a c e my s t e p s , I would not choose an academic l i f e ; " and (b) " S a t i s f a c t o r y o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r in - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g a r e not a v a i l a b l e a t t h i s c o l l e g e . " A summative score f o r each s u b j e c t was acquired by a li g n i n g the p o l a r i t i e s of each item, c a l c u l a t i n g a value f o r each response (using a f i v e - s t e p r a t i n g s c a l e ) , and then adding the r e s u l t s . Brawer (1976, pp. 7-8) a s c e r t a i n e d t h a t of the 1493 humanities f a c u l t y surveyed, 17% exh ib ited high job s a t i s f a c t i o n , 59% e x h ib ite d medium job s a t i s f a c t i o n , and 24% e x h ib i t e d low job s a t i s f a c t i o n . A s i m i l a r procedure was employed by Wozniak (1973). Wozniak employed the Brayfield-Rothe s c a l e of items r e l a t i n g to job s a t i s ­ f a c t i o n , a s c a l e which was among the measures of job s a t i s f a c t i o n evaluated by Robinson, Athanasiou, and Head (1969). Wozniak's study, performed with two-year c ollege music f a c u l t y , w ill be d i s ­ cussed in d e t a i l l a t e r in t h i s s e c t i o n . 30 Advantages and disadvantages of teaching a t the community co llege level. The study t h a t most e x p l i c i t l y i d e n t i f i e d plea sing and d i s ­ pleasing j o b - r e l a t e d components was conducted in the f a l l of 1967 by Kelley and Wilbur. Their sample c o n siste d of 118 f u l l - t i m e two-year c olleg e f a c u l t y members from 23 community/junior c o lleg e s nationwide. Faculty members s p e c i f i e d (1970, pp. 191-193) by f r e e response t h a t the ten most enjoyable asp ects of teaching a t th e two-year c o llege level were (in o r d e r ) : 1. Experiencing academic and personal freedom 2. Placing an emphasis on teaching ( r a t h e r than on research) 3. Encountering stu d e n ts of d i f f e r i n g a b i l i t i e s 4. E sta b lish in g c lo s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s with stu de n ts 5. E stab lish in g c lo s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s with f a c u l t y 6. Encountering higher level of stu d e n ts (compared t o the high school l e v e l ) 7. Dealing with a responsive a d m i n i s t r a t io n 8. Experiencing a f e e l i n g of s e r v i c e to stu de nts 9. Teaching w ith in rela x in g working con ditions 10. Experiencing t h e excitement of th e j u n i o r c o lleg e philosophy and i t s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Among the problems t h a t f a c u l t y members perceived as c u r r e n t l y perplexing (Kelley and Wilbur, 1970, pp. 199-120) were the following: 1. Maintaining motivation and i n s t r u c t i o n a l standards 2. Maintaining good i n t e r - p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s and communica­ t io n s 3. Securing adequate working con ditions 31 4. Planning curriculum with refe ren c e to s t u d e n ts ' needs and a b i l i t i e s 5. I n t e r p r e t i n g th e two-year c o l l e g e ' s r o l e in education 6. Nurturing pro fessio nal a b i l i t i e s and i n s i g h t s 7. Accepting the c o l l e g e ' s open-door admissions policy 8. Coping with immature and aimless students 9. Providing e f f e c t i v e and e f f i c i e n t academic counseling 10. A t t r a c t i n g q u a l i f i e d s t a f f members Kelley and Wilbur summarized t h e i r fin d in g s by l i s t i n g the s e r v i c e s , c o u r t e s i e s , and rewards desired by community-junior c o llege faculty. According to the authors (pp. 214-215), f a c u l t y wanted b e t t e r or improved: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Salaries Teaching loads Free time Working r e l a t i o n s with a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and s t a f f Lines of communication Standards o f teaching and lea rn in g Student follow-up r e s u l t s Counseling and stu de n t placement Sta tu s and p r e s t i g e Faculty o r i e n t a t i o n Opp or tunities f o r pro fession al growth Public r e l a t i o n s Administrative le a d e r s h ip Quality among the s t a f f Financing Cooperation among s t a f f members A r t i c u l a t i o n and coord ination within and between •educational l e v e l s A t t it u d e s among stud e nts and teachers Methods of t e a c h e r e v aluation Methods of s t a f f i n g Agreement on philosophy, g o a ls , purposes, and fu nctions Co ntinuity of lea rn ing Faculty voice in c o lle g e government Freedom from unnecessary pres sures Faculty f r i n g e b e n e f i t s 32 Kelley and W ilbur's study i s p a r t i c u l a r l y r e l e v a n t to the pres ent study because i t serves as a primary source f o r many of the items included within the a t t i t u d i n a l measures. No o t h e r study i s nearly as comprehensive in i t s s p e c i f i c a t i o n of environmental v a r i a b l e s p e r t i n e n t to f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y . The study i s , however, d e f i c i e n t in i t s treatment of problems encountered s p e c i f i c a l l y by p a rt-tim e faculty. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of p a rt- tim e f a c u l t y needs. In 1975 F e r r e t t conducted a study to determine the needs of p a rt- tim e f a c u l t y employed a t a s in g le Michigan community c o ll e g e . She formulated a l i s t of 12 problems of g r e a t concern to p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y , and asked her sample of 150 p a rt - t im e s t a f f members to i d e n t i f y and rank order the f i v e most important problems they faced. The f i v e most important needs i d e n t i f i e d by p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y were as follows (p. 131): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Learning the range of r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s t h a t pa rt-tim e f a c u l t y a re expected to undertake Understanding the a d m i n i s t r a t iv e s t r u c t u r e o f the c o lle g e to know whom to c onsult regarding a p a r t i c u l a r problem Obtaining needed i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a ls Obtaining help in i n s t r u c t i o n a l improvement Adapting i n s t r u c t i o n to individual academic d i f f e r e n c e s These needs appear to r e l a t e to the fu nctionin g of pa rt-tim e f a c u l t y within t h e i r i n s t r u c t i o n a l r o l e . met, job d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n might ensue. Should these needs not be A completely d i f f e r e n t i s s u e , however, appeared among p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y who perceived themselves as members of an u n d e rc las s. Among the most p r e v a le n t complaints 33 from several st u d i e s of p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y are those l i s t e d in the following t a b l e . TABLE 2 . 2 . —Sources of Part-tim e Faculty D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n Source of D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n Source 1. Low s a l a r i e s 2. Lack of job s e c u r i t y 3. Lack of f r i n g e b e n e f i t s 4. Lack of support s e r v ic e s 1, 2, 5 2, 4 5. Relegation to evening and outreach courses 5 6. Lack of voice in planning 7. Ignored by f u l l - t i m e s t a f f in own f i e l d 2. 6 6 8. I r r e g u l a r pay increments or o th er payment problems 5 9. Low s t a t u s 1 1, 2, 7 7 10. P ro h ib ite d from f u l l - t i m e employment by economics 11. Lack of academic rank SOURCES: 1 2 3 4 Abel (1976) Anderson (1975) Cohen (1976) Eliason (1980) 2, 7 2 5 F e r r i s (1976) 6 Greenwood (1980) 7 Obetz (1976) I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of f a c t o r s influ encing job s a t i s f a c t i o n . To c l a r i f y the broader dynamics a t work within the environment, various re s e a r c h e r s have sought to i d e n t i f y c l u s t e r s of v a r i a b l e s , or f a c t o r s , t h a t influ ence job s a t i s f a c t i o n . Garrison (1968, pp. 9 - 1 1 ) , noted t h a t f a c u l t y expressed major concerns in s i x are as : (1) lack of time, (2) r e l a t i n g c o lleg e p o l i c i e s to i n s t r u c t i o n , (3) p a r t i c i p a t i n g in c o lle g e governance, (4) adapting i n s t r u c t i o n to the v a r i e t y of stu dent 34 a b i l i t i e s , (5) e valu atin g and grading stu dent work, and (6) lack of c l e r i c a l he lp. His c a t e g o r i z a t i o n p a r a l l e l l e d q u ite c l o s e l y t h a t used by S ie h r e t a l . (1963, p. 26). F e r r e t t (1975, p. 106) i n t u i t i v e l y categor ized the s e t of needs i d e n t i f i e d by p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y in to t h r e e broad f a c t o r s : (a) per­ sonal development and growth, (b) need to c l a r i f y o rganizational s t r u c t u r e , and (c) need to insure i n s t r u c t i o n a l improvement. Cohen and Fried!ander (1980) d i s t i l l e d t h e i r fin d in g s even f u r t h e r . They c ateg o rize d th e d e s i r e s of i n s t r u c t o r s according to what i n s t r u c t o r s want f o r themselves and what they want f o r t h e i r work s i t u a t i o n s . According to the a u t h o r s , i n s t r u c t o r s want more tim e, more i n t e r a c t i o n with c o ll e a g u e s , and b e t t e r pr ofes sional development o p p o r t u n it i e s f o r themselves; f o r t h e i r work s i t u a t i o n , they want b e t t e r su pport, b e t t e r s t u d e n ts , and b e t t e r media and m a t e r i a l s . Use of p re- d e f in e d f a c t o r s . Herzberg (1959) i s o ften c r e d i t e d with having influenced an e n t i r e generation of j o b - s a t i s f a c t i o n researchers. In 1957, he conducted a study of what i n d u s t r i a l workers d e sired from t h e i r j o b s , and concluded th at p o s i t i v e f e e l i n g s toward work tended t o be a s s o c i a t e d with t a s k - o r i e n t e d , i n t r i n s i c f a c t o r s , while negativ e work a t t i t u d e s tended to be a ss o c i a t e d with environ­ mental, or e x t r i n s i c f a c t o r s . In h i s o r i g in a l study, Herzberg c l a s s i f i e d a s e t of j o b - r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s as shown in Table 2.3 . Many r e s e a rc h e r s have sought to t e s t Herzberg*s c o n s t r u c t . Recently, r e s e a r c h e r s such as Shank (1968) and Wittenauer (1980) have 35 TABLE 2 . 3 .- - H e r z b e r g 's C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Factors Influencing Motivat io n S a t i s f a c t i o n Producing Factors (Intrinsic) D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n Producing Factors (Extrinsic) Achievement Policy and a d m i n i s t r a t io n Recognition Supervision Work i t s e l f Interp erson al r e l a t i o n s R e sp o n s i b i li t y Working c o nditions Advancement Salary S tatu s Personal l i f e Job s e c u r i t y P o s s i b i l i t y of growth SOURCE: Hoy and Miskel (1982, p. 150). r e p l i c a t e d Herzberg’s f i n d i n g s . They agree t h a t s a t i s f a c t i o n tends to be r e l a t e d to the presence of i n t r i n s i c rewards. Other r e s e a r c h ­ e rs have found evidence c o n t r a d i c t i n g Herzberg's th eory. Moorehead (1979), f o r example, surveying 173 f u l l - t i m e community c o lle g e f a c u l t y in Connecticut, found t h a t e x t r i n s i c f a c t o r s proved more highly c o r r e l a t e d with o v e ra ll s a t i s f a c t i o n than did i n t r i n s i c f a c t o r s . In an attempt to account f o r some o f thes e div erge n t f i n d i n g s , a competing theory has been formulated. Hoy and Miskel (1978) modi­ f i e d Herzberg's theory of s a t i s f a c t i o n / d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n by e x t r a p o la t in g a t h i r d f a c t o r , composed of v a r i a b l e s t h a t may be a s s o c i a t e d with e i t h e r s a t i s f a c t i o n or d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n , under d i f f e r e n t c o n d it i o n s . Hoth (1979) r e p l i c a t e d Hoy and M iskel's t h r e e - f a c t o r t h e o r y . study of 68 academic f a c u l t y members from a Michigan community In her 36 c o l l e g e , she found t h a t i n t r i n s i c f a c t o r s were more s t r o n g l y a s s o ­ c i a t e d with high s a t i s f a c t i o n than with low s a t i s f a c t i o n , e x t r i n s i c f a c t o r s more stro n g ly a s s o c i a t e d with low s a t i s f a c t i o n than with high s a t i s f a c t i o n , and ambient f a c t o r s (the t h i r d f a c t o r ) stro n g ly a s s o c i a t e d with n e i t h e r high nor with low s a t i s f a c t i o n . In a study s i m i l a r t o t h a t of Hoy and Miskel, F riedla nder (1976) s t a t e d t h a t s a t i s f a c t i o n i s a s s o c i a t e d with both i n t r i n s i c as well as extrinsic factors. Pointing to a paradox in the Kurth and Mills study (1968), he hypothesized and concluded (p. 61) t h a t community c o ll e g e f a c u l t y a re indeed s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r j o b s ; i t i s only t h a t they a re d i s s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r working c o n d it i o n s . F r i e d l a n d e r 's (1979) and Hoth's (1979) work i nd ic ate d t h a t l a b e l i n g f a c t o r s as i n t r i n s i c o r e x t r i n s i c may help t o i d e n t i f y c e r t a i n determinants of job s a t i s f a c t i o n , but not o t h e r s . Use of the f a c t o r a n a l y t i c te c h n iq u e . Inst ead of p r e ­ c a t e g o r i z i n g v a r i a b l e s in to i n t r i n s i c , e x t r i n s i c , o r ambient f a c t o r s , the f a c t o r a n a l y t i c technique permits are as to be i d e n t i f i e d accord­ ing to the way v a r i a b l e s e m p ir ic a lly c l u s t e r . The most r e l e v a n t research using f a c t o r a n a l y s i s was conducted by Sanders (1971). In a study of 195 f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y members employed within the Uni versity . of Kentucky community c o lle g e system, Sanders discerned f o u r f a c t o r s r e l a t i n g to f a c u l t y morale: (a) Factor I contained items p e rta in in g to inte rperson al r e l a t i o n s , communication with th e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , personal s e c u r i t y , r e l a t i o n s h i p with an immediate s u p e r v i s o r , and growth and advancement; (b) Factor II r e l a t e d to physical working 37 co n d itio n s; (c) Factor I I I included v a r i a b le s r e l a t e d to adequacy of s a l a r y , and s a l a r y schedule; and f i n a l l y , (d) Factor IV pe rt a in e d to n o n in stru ctio n al workload. Sanders found (p. 50) t h a t h is f i r s t , composite f a c t o r was the most important in explaining moral d i f f e r ­ ences. He observed t h a t "where the f a c u l t y member f e l t more person­ a l l y se cu re , he tended to have b e t t e r communication with colleagues and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , and as a r e s u l t was more l i k e l y t o be a sso c iated with the higher morale group" (1971, p. 50). Implied i n d i c a t o r s of .job s a t i s f a c t i o n . Certain s i t u a t i o n a l responses reveal information about how f a c u l t y view t h e i r j o b s , but from which a d i r e c t infere nce o f job s a t i s f a c t i o n cannot be made. Among t h es e implied i n d i c a t o r s are expressed job p refe ren c e, specu­ l a t i o n s as to f u t u r e p l a n s , and observed f a c u l t y tu rnover. H i s t o r i c a l l y , a l arg e proportion of two-year c o llege f a c u l t y have viewed with envy a se n io r c o llege teaching p o s i t i o n . According to Cohen and Brawer (1977), "Many [ s t a f f members] r e a d i l y admit t h a t they would r a t h e r teach in a f o u r - y e a r c ollege or u n i v e r s i t y than in the two-year c ollege" (p. 81). Siehr (1963), f o r example, found t h a t 75% of new f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y e n te r in g in to th e community co lleg es of Michigan openly a s p i r e d to a se n io r c o lle g e p o s i t i o n . In a n ational study, Medsker (1960, p. 175) noted t h a t 46% of f u l l - t i m e two-year co lleg e f a c u l t y pr e f e r r e d t h e i r c u r r e n t teaching p o s itio n as compared to a m ajo rity (52%) who p r e f e r r e d f o u r - y e a r c o lle g e t ea ch in g . Later research suggests t h a t a m ajo rity of f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y now tend t o consider community c o lle g e teaching t h e i r primary 38 choice. Kurth and Mills (1968), f o r i n s t a n c e , found t h a t 54.2% of t h e i r Florida sample p r e f e r r e d two-year co llege t ea ch in g , while 34.8% of those surveyed p r e f e r r e d to teach a t the s e n i o r co llege l e v e l , i f s a l a r y , promotion, and job s e c u r i t y were equal. Similarly, Medsker and T i l l e r y (1971, p. 91) found a m ajority (53.8%) of f u l l ­ time f a c u l t y pr e f e rr e d working within the two-year c o ll e g e s . The a t t i t u d e s o f p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y toward t h i s issu e are l e s s well known. Cohen and Brawer (1977, p. 60) observed t h a t a l a r g e r proportion of p a r t - t i m e humanities f a c u l t y than f u l l - t i m e humanities f a c u l t y (51% vs. 35%) report ed find in g a f o u r-y ea r c o ll e g e p o sitio n "very a t t r a c t i v e . " No o th e r data a re a v a i l a b l e . time f a c u l t y , a r e l a t e d issu e a r i s e s : n i t y c o lleg e employment. Among th e p a r t - a s p i r in g to f u l l - t i m e commu­ Grymes (1976) reported t h a t a majority (68%) of p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y surveyed sought community c olleg e employment with the aim of supplementing t h e i r income; only a few (2%) indic ated they hoped to gain f u l l - t i m e employment. S i m i l a r l y , Abel (1976) noted t h a t 65% of p a rt - t im e s t a f f surveyed p r e f e r r e d t o remain p art-tim e employees. Nonetheless, 70% of her sample ind ic ate d t h a t they would accept f u l l - t i m e employment should the opportunity a r i s e . Gradually, an i n cre as in g percentage of f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y have i nd ic ate d t h e i r i n t e n t i o n to sta y in community c o lleg e teaching. In 1963, Siehr found t h a t only one in t h ree new f u l l - t i m e teach ers s u r ­ veyed viewed community c o llege teaching as a c a r e e r . Kurth and Mills reported during the l a t e 1960s (1968) t h a t 58.5% of f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y from Florida planned to remain in t h e i r p o s i t i o n s , r a t h e r 39 than f in d employment elsewhere. A s i g n i f i c a n t proportion of Kurth and M i l l s ' sample, however, (29.6%) were undecided about t h e i r f u t u r e in the pr o f es sio n . A l a t e r r e p o r t by Bushnell (1973, p. 35) i n d i ­ cated t h a t 80% of the f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y surveyed nationwide intended to sta y in community c o ll e g e teaching. Extensive data regarding the f u t u r e plans of p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y a re not a v a i l a b l e . A study by Quanty (1976) i n d ic a te d t h a t 78% of p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y surveyed from one Kansas community co lleg e were w i l l i n g to commit themselves to one a d d itio n a l y e a r of community c o lle g e teaching. One r e l i a b l e i n d i c a t o r of te a c h e r s a t i s f a c t i o n might be the r a t e of f a c u l t y tu rno v er. Turnover r e l a t e s to both expressed job preference and to sp e cula tion about f u t u r e employment plan s . U nfo rtunately , the lim ite d data a v a i l a b l e on turnover makes i t d i f f i c u l t to determine c l e a r l y the r e l a t i o n s h i p between f a c u l t y turn over and job s a t i s f a c ­ tion. Moreover, with a slowing economy, f a c u l t y t u r n o v e r , or m o b il i ty , may be a r t i f i c i a l l y re p r e ss e d . The fo llo w in g, however, may be c i t e d . Kelly ( c . f . , Kelly and Connolly, 1968, p. 6 ) , who reported the r e s u l t s of a follow-up study t o h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n , s t a t e d t h a t 48% of 1500 new two-year c o lle g e f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y employed in New York S t a t e had vacated t h e i r p o s i t io n within t h r e e years of t h e i r i n i t i a l employment. In a r e p o r t t h a t r e f l e c t s more c u r r e n t economic c o n d i t i o n s , however, Abel (1976) found t h a t between f a l l 1975 and f a l l 1976, only 4% of f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y employed a t one C a l i f o r n i a community c o lle g e had relin qu is hed t h e i r p o s i t i o n s , in c o n t r a s t to the 35% of p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y who had done so. 40 C orrela te s of s a t i s f a c t i o n . Researchers of ten seek t o i d e n t i f y the demographic v a r i a b l e s t h a t c o r r e l a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y with t h e i r measure of s a t i s f a c t i o n . ous. To d a t e , however, fin d in g s have been ambigu­ Kelley and Wilbur (1970) found t h a t , "answers seemed to r e f 1e c t l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e s among sex, r e l i g i o n , and o t h e r p r o f i l e c h a r a c t e r ­ i s t i c s " (p. 251). Eckert and Williams (1972) observed t h a t within t h e i r sample of Minnesota community c o lle g e f a c u l t y , o l d e r f a c u l t y members displayed g r e a t e r s a t i s f a c t i o n than did younger f a c u l t y , and t h a t vocational f a c u l t y expressed g r e a t e r s a t i s f a c t i o n than did academic f a c u l t y . Cohen and Brawer (1977, pp. 25-32) in d ic a t e d t h a t among community c o ll e g e humanities f a c u l t y , age, f u t u r e p l a n s , secon­ dary school teaching e x perien ce, and possession of a con current p o s i t io n c o r r e l a t e d p o s i t i v e l y with higher s a t i s f a c t i o n . Race, sex, and " s u r p r i s i n g l y " (p. 28 ), employment s t a t u s ( p a r t - t im e or f u l l - t i m e ) were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o s a t i s f a c t i o n . Kepple (1978), in h i s nationwide survey o f 374 f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y , found t h a t f a c u l t y over th e age of 50 e x h ib i t e d g r e a t e r s a t i s f a c t i o n than did younger f a c u l t y , and t h a t tenured f a c u l t y expressed g r e a t e r s a t i s f a c t i o n than did nontenured f a c u l t y . In a d d i t i o n , those who had taug h t f o r s i x y e a r s or more displayed g r e a t e r s a t i s f a c t i o n than did f a c u l t y who had t a u g h t l e s s than two y e a r s , and i n s t r u c t o r s holding a m a s t e r 's degree proved more s a t i s f i e d than f a c u l t y holding a d o c to r a te . S a t i s f a c t i o n proved u n r e l a t e d , however, t o such f a c t o r s as sex, formal study of the community c o l l e g e , and p r i o r enrollment as a community c o ll e g e s t u d e n t. 41 F i n a l l y , in Moorehead's (1979) study of 173 f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y in Conne cticut, the following r e s u l t s were observed. Of the f a c t o r s of age, sex, educational l e v e l , teaching experience, and r a c e , only race r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y to s a t i s f a c t i o n . In Moorehead's study, Caucasians displayed s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher s a t i s f a c t i o n than did m in ority f a c u l t y members. Defining the Model Two-Year College Faculty Member The l i t e r a t u r e c o n ta in s several d e s c r i p t i o n s of t h e model twoy e a r c olleg e f a c u l t y member which r e f l e c t the values of the two-year colleges in terms of th e personal q u a l i t i e s , a t t i t u d e s , and a b i l i t i e s believed necessary t o in sure e f f i c i e n t and happy community co lleg e teach in g . below. The most prominent of th ese d e s c r i p t i o n s a re summarized Included a r e Kelley and Wilbur's (1970, pp. 55-57) "Ten Commandments" f o r successful senior-community c o lle g e te a c h i n g , B l a i ' s (1975, p. 187) d e s c r i p t o r s of "A good community c ollege t e a c h e r . . . ." and t h r e e sources bearing strong s i m i l a r i t y : P a l in c h a k 's (1973, pp. 261-266), Jamerson's (1979, p. 7 ) , and Lansing Community College, Michigan, Open Admissions Committee's (1980, pp. 40-41) p r o f i l e s of the " i d e a l" f a c u l t y member. 1. The ideal community c o lleg e f a c u l t y member i s se l e c te d f o r h i s / h e r teaching a b i l i t i e s and p o t e n t i a l . You must d e s i r e and enjoy teaching (Kelley & Wilbur, Item #1) You must be dedic ated to your ta s k (Kelly & Wilbur, Item #6) A f a c u l t y member should be s e l e c t e d f o r p o t e n t i a l teaching competence and performance a p t i t u d e as matched to job competency r a t h e r than f o r assumed competence based on c r e d e n t i a l s , d e g re e s , and s o - c a l l e d "eq uivalent" expe­ r ience (Lansing Community Colle ge, Item #1). 42 A f a c u l t y member should have had p r i o r teaching experience (Lansing Community College, Item #6) 2. The model community c o llege f a c u l t y member i s v i t a l l y concerned about h i s s t u d e n t s . A f a c u l t y member should perceive h i s / h e r r o l e as a t e a c h e r f i r s t and s u b j e c t - m a t te r s p e c i a l i s t second (Lansing Community College, Item #2). You must be v i t a l l y concerned about the growth and development o f your stu d e n ts (Kelley and Wilbur, Item #7). A f a c u l t y member should have a firm commitment to involve­ ment in st u d e n t and community a f f a i r s p r i o r to employ­ ment (Lansing Community College, Item #3). You must p r e f e r teaching a v a r i e t y of a d u l t s , young and old (Kelley and Wilbur, Item #2). You must have o t h e r personal a t t r i b u t e s t h a t make you a genuine, emphathetic human being (Kelley & Wilbur, Item #10). A good community c o lle g e t e a c h e r gives most of h is time to stu d e n ts ( B a l i , Item #1). A good community c o lle g e t e a c h e r i s student o rien ted ( B l a i , Item #2). A good community co lleg e t e a c h e r i s admired by st ud en ts ( B l a i , Item #3). [Asuccessful two-year c o lle g e te a c h e r ] p la c e s the i n t e r ­ e s t s and concerns of students above h is f i e l d of study or h i s o u t s i d e - o f - c o l l e g e a c t i v i t i e s (Monore, 1972, p. 278). 3. The ideal community c o lleg e f a c u l t y member i s an advocate of th e community c o lle g e philosoph y. You must be so ld on the values and c o n tr i b u ti o n s of j u n i o r c o lle g e education to s o c i e t y (Kelley & Wilbur, Item #3). A f a c u l t y member should be committed to the concept o f the community c o ll e g e and help to keep i n d iv i d u a ls within the community informed of the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f i t s e x is te n c e (Lansing Community College, Item #9). 43 Teachers have a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to be committed to the idea of the community c o lleg e i f they choose to be employed by one (Jamerson, 1979, p. 7). You must know your s u b j e c t m atter and students and express p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s toward both (Kelley & Wilbur, Item #9). 4. The ideal community colleg e f a c u l t y member i s accepting of the c o l l e g e ' s m is sion . A f a c u l t y member should understand the concept of equal access and open admissions to the community co llege (Lansing Community College, Item #4) A f a c u l t y member should recognize t h a t counse ling, remedia­ t i o n , and r e f e r r a l s e rv ice s a r e primary concerns (Lansing Community College, Item # 5). 5. The ideal community college f a c u l t y member i s a p r o f e s ­ sional e d u c a to r . You must s t r i v e to become an e x c e l l e n t t e a c h e r , one who knows and uses e f f e c t i v e methods and techniques (Kelley & Wilbur, Item #8). A f a c u l t y member should have some knowledge or t r a i n i n g in the are as of learnin g theory,, program plann ing, c u r r i c u ­ l a r s t r a t e g i e s , e v aluation techniques (Lansing Community College, Item #10). A f a c u l t y member should recognize and accept the concept of e v aluation and educational assessment a t the broadest l e v e l s of a p p l i c a t i o n . Evaluation p r i n c i p l e s should be discussed and developed as they a r e applied to s t u d e n ts , t e a c h e r s , a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , and i n s t i t u t i o n s (Lansing Community College, Item #7). A f a c u l t y member should have the a b i l i t y to deal with stu d en ts who r e q u i r e special a t t e n t i o n to overcome d e f i c i e n c i e s (Lansing Community College, Item #11). A f a c u l t y member should be aware t h a t he/she will be expected to conduct informal re search which might involve i n q u i r i e s i n to the e f f e c t s of teaching and l e a r n i n g , stu d e n t a t t i t u d e s and v a lu e s, varying grading systems, te a c h e r e f f e c t i v e n e s s , e v aluation o f g o a l s , e t c . [ s i c ] , with th e a id of the Office of I n s t i t u t i o n a l Research (Lansing Community College, Item #8). 44 6. The ideal community c o llege f a c u l t y member i s attuned with h i s / h e r professional environment^ A f a c u l t y member should have f l e x i b i l i t y in adapting and a d ju s ti n g t o changes (Lansing Community Colle ge, Item #12). You must l i k e a community c olleg e atmosphere of academic work and l i f e (Kelley & Wilbur, Item #4). You must be reasonably s a t i s f i e d with the maximum s a l a r i e s and b e n e f i t s you can obtain a t the twoy e ar c o lle g e level (Kelley & Wilbur, Item #5). Desc riptors of Two-Year College Faculty Demographic d e s c r i p t o r s . 1. Size of population—The number of community c o ll e g e tea ch­ e r s has increased s u b s t a n t i a l l y over the p a st two decades from 29,000 in 1960 to 105,000 in 1970 (0'Banion, 1972, p. 79) to over 220,000 in 1981 (AACJC, 1982, p. 75). Since 1975 p a rt- tim e f a c u l t y have comprised the m ajority of a l l two-year c olleg e i n s t r u c t o r s (Cohen & Brawer, 1977, p. 56; AACJC, 1982, p. 75). 2. Age—The average f u l l - t i m e two-year c o lleg e f a c u l t y member was in h i s or her e a r l y 40s (Kurth & M i l ls , 1970; National Educa­ t i o n a l A ssoc ia tio n , 1979). The average p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y member was 35 years o f age or younger (Grymes, 1976; Quanty, 1976; Cohen & Brawer, 1977). According to Cosand (1979, p. 25), th e average age of te a ch e rs has increased due to a de clin e in academic m o bility a t the community c o lleg e l e v e l . 3. Sex—The male-to-female r a t i o among two-year c o lle g e f a c u l t y was approximately 3:2 (AACJC, 1978). Women, however, have been 45 e n te r in g in to community c o lleg e teaching with in cre asin g frequency, and t h e i r growing presence has been noted e s p e c i a l l y within the p a rt - t im e ranks (Abel, 1976; L e s l i e , Kellams, & Gunne, 1982, p. 15). 4. Race—Caucasians made up 90% of more of both f u l l - t i m e and p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y (Bayer, 1970, 1973; Bushnell, 1973; Quanty, 1976; Grymes, 1976; Cohen & Brawer, 1977). Ex perien tial d e s c r i p t o r s . 1. Sources of r e c ru itm en t—Many i n d iv i d u a ls were coming in to community c o lle g e teaching a f t e r t h e i r m a s t e r 's and d o c to r a te degrees (Palinchak, 1973, p. 219). Some were e n te r in g th e p rofessio n during t h e i r graduate s t u d i e s (Cohen & Brawer, 1977, p. 60). Fewer were being r e c r u i t e d away from public school teaching ( P h a i r , 1975; Kelly & Connolly, 1970). 2. (For o ld e r d a t a , see O'Banion, 1972, p. 120). Teaching experience—About h a l f of a l l f u l l - t i m e two-year c ollege i n s t r u c t o r s have had p r i o r public school teaching experience (Knurth & M i l l s , 1968; Kelley & Wilbur, 1970; Bushnell, 1973; NEA, 1979), P a r t-tim e f a c u l t y were l e s s l i k e l y to have had any teaching experience (Grymes, 1976; F rie d la n d er, 1979) or to have had as much teaching experience (Cohen & Brawer, 1977, p. 60). 3. Highest degree held—Approximately 75% of a l l f u l l - t i m e two-year c o lle g e tea ch e rs had earned a m a s t e r 's degree (Bayer, 1973; Grymes, 1976, NEA, 1979). Approximately 55% of a l l p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y had earned a m a s t e r 's degree as t h e i r h i g h e s t academic c r e d e n t i a l (Grymes, 1976; Quanty, 1976). Approximately 15% of a l l f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y had earned a d o c to r a te (Grymes, 1976; Cohen & Brawer, 1977; 46 NEA, 1979). Estimates o f p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y holding a d o c to r a te range from 7.5% (Grymes, 1976) through about 12%.(Bender & Breuder, 1973; Cohen & Brawer, 1977) t o as high as 15% (Quanty, 1976). (For o ld er d a t a , see O'Banion, 1972, p. 120). 4. Currently e n ro l l e d - -L e s s than o n e - t h i r d of a l l f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y were c u r r e n t l y pursuing a higher degree (Bushnell, 1973; Cohen & Brawer, 1977, p. 60). 5. Knowledge of th e community c o ll e g e environment—Few f a c u l t y members formally s tu d ie d the community c o ll e g e as an educational institution. Estimates range from 46% (Knurth & M i l l s , 1968) to 33% (Medsker & T i l l e r y , 1971) of f a c u l t y who have undertaken such study. 6. Attendance a t the community c o l l e g e —Less than o n e - t h i r d , and perhaps only on e-fourth of a l l f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y had ever attended a two-year c o lleg e themselves (Medsker, 1960; Knurth & M i l l s , 1968; Medsker & T i l l e r y , 1971; Cohen &Brawer, 1977). 7. Years in the employ of t h e i r c o l l e g e s —A chronological i n t e r ­ p r e t a t i o n o f a v a i l a b l e data i n d i c a t e t h a t the most f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y employed within the two-year c o lle g e s were r e c r u i t e d between 1965 and 1970 and have, f o r the most p a r t , remained in t h e i r p o s i t io n ( c . f . , Medsker & T i l l e r y , 1971; Bushnell, 1973; Bayer, 1973; Cohen & Brawer, 1977; NEA, 1979). More than h a l f of t h e p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y surveyed had been employed a t t h e i r c o ll e g e f o r two y e a r s or l e s s (Quanty, 1976; Cohen & Brawer, 1977). 47 Professional d e s c r i p t o r s . 1. Rank—Only about o n e -t h i r d of a l l f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y were accorded p r o f e s s o r i a l rank (Bayer, 1970, 1973; NEA, 1979). Not a l l two-year c o lle g e s co nfer academic rank upon t h e i r f a c u l t y . 2. Tenure—The percentage of f u l l - t i m e two-year c o lle g e f a c u l t y holding tenure has been r i s i n g (Cosand, 1979, p. 25; National Center f o r Education S t a t i s t i c s , 1980, p. 184). According to the NCES, approximately 74% of a l l f u l l - t i m e public two-year c olleg e f a c u l t y had been granted tenure as of the 1978-1979 academic y e a r . Their f i g u r e s i n d i c a t e t h a t more men than women a r e te n u r e d , but t h a t women have been making s i g n i f i c a n t g a in s . In a supplementary f i n d ­ ing, the NEA (1979) rep orte d t h a t the average f u l l - t i m e community co lleg e tea che r received tenure a f t e r f i v e y e ars of s e r v i c e . Functional d e s c r i p t o r s . 1. Work load—The average f u l l - t i m e two-year c o lle g e i n s t r u c t o r taught f o u r c l a s s s e c t i o n s per week f o r f i f t e e n c o n ta c t hours, or a t o t a l of approximately 41 in-school hours (NEA, 1979). Bayer (1973) found t h a t h a l f of a l l f u l l - t i m e i n s t r u c t o r s tau g h t a f i f t h c l a s s as w e ll. Most p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y were assigned a s i n g l e course to teach (Quanty, 1976), o r two c o u rs e s , a t most (Abel, 1976). The two- y e a r c o lle g e te a c h e r spends most of her or h i s time teaching and not in research (Cohen & Brawer, 1977, p. 52). Bayer (1973) r e p o r t e d , f o r example, t h a t 60% of a l l f u l l - t i m e i n s t r u c t o r s surveyed spent no time a t a l l planning or conducting r e s e a r c h . 48 2. Scheduling of f a c u l t y —According t o Lombardi (1975), f u l l ­ time community co llege f a c u l t y tau g ht p rim a rily during the daytime, but some supplemented t h e i r income by teaching evening courses. Both Abel (1976) and Quanty (1976) i nd ic ate d t h a t a majority of p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y were assigned t o teach evening cou rses . Only 17% of Quanty's (1976) sample of p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y taught s o l e l y daytime c l a s s e s . Summary of General L i t e r a t u r e About Two-Year College Facul t.y The l i t e r a t u r e r e v e a l s t h a t prominent r e s e a r c h e r s , such as O'Banion (1974),and Cohen and Brawer (1972, 1977) remain highly c r i t i ­ cal o f the low p r o f e s sio n a l level a t which community co lleg e i n s t r u c ­ tors function. They f i n d t h a t many i n s t r u c t o r s disag ree with the s t u d e n t - o r i e n t e d , open-admissions philosophies of the community co lleg es and lack empathy f o r the many students who disp lay low aca­ demic a b i l i t i e s . They c r i t i c i z e the m ajority of i n s t r u c t o r s f o r remaining s u b j e c t - m a t t e r s p e c i a l i s t s f i r s t and members of the commu­ n i t y c o lle g e teaching p rofessio n second. Various r e s e a r c h e r s , in clud­ ing O'Banion (1972, 1974), Gaff (1976), and Hammons, Smith-Wallace, and Watts (1978) recommend t h a t p r e - s e r v i c e and i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g o p p o r t u n it i e s be extended. Several models of the ideal community c o llege i n s t r u c t o r have been published. date s: The community co lleg e a u t h o r i t i e s are seeking candi­ (a) who have developed teaching a b i l i t i e s and who show p o t e n t i a l ; (b) who a r e v i t a l l y concerned about t h e i r s t u d e n ts ; (c) who a r e advocates o f the community co llege philosophy; (d) who are 49 accepting of t h e i r c o l l e g e ' s mission; (e) who intend to assume the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f th e pro fessio nal educato r; and ( f ) who a re attuned to t h e i r pro fessio n al environment. R e la tiv e ly l i t t l e research has been performed using p a r t - t im e i n s t r u c t o r s , a f a c u l t y subpopulation t h a t became a m ajority of the i n s t r u c t i o n a l fo rce in 1975. Among th e numerous economic and social advantages reported f o r t h e i r employment, f l e x i b i l i t y of programming i s primary. Among the di sadvantages, however, i s t h a t compared with f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y , t h e i r q u a l i t y i s l e s s dependable ( L e s l i e , Kellams, & Gunne, 1982), and t h e i r i n s t r u c t i o n a l - r e l a t e d p r a c t i c e s a re generally l e s s s t r i n g e n t . According to r e c e n t s t u d i e s , the p a r t - time f a c u l t y appears t o be a heterogeneous group. Some pa rt- tim e i n s t r u c t o r s share many a t t r i b u t e s and i n t e r e s t s in common with f u l l ­ time f a c u l t y , while o t h e r s do not. Most s t u d i e s demonstrate t h a t the v a s t m ajo rity of community c o llege i n s t r u c t o r s a r e g e n erally s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r j o b s . f a c u l t y commonly f i n d f a u l t with t h e i r working c o n d it i o n s . Yet Part- time f a c u l t y express concerns about t h e i r job s e c u r i t y , s a l a r y , and status. Inf erences of job s a t i s f a c t i o n have been derived from responses to s i n g l e , d i r e c t q u e s t io n s , as well as from responses to a b a t t e r y of j o b - r e l a t e d q u e stio n s . Responses to b a t t e r i e s of ques­ t i o n s have been rank-ordered, summated monodimensionally, and grouped i n to f a c t o r s . Variable c l u s t e r s have been defined both i n t u i t i v e l y and by f a c t o r a n a l y s i s . 50 O'Barn"on's (1972) often reproduced summary of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of two-year c o lle g e f a c u l t y reads as follows: The ty pic al community-junior c o lle g e f a c u l t y member i s a 30-to-50 y e a r - o l d m idd le-class male whose previous work experience has been in public schools or in business and in d u str y . He has a m a s t e r 's degree in h is s u b j e c t a r e a . His course work has been taken a t f o u r - y e a r i n s t i t u t i o n s e x c l u s i v e l y ; i t has seldom included the study of the community-junior c o ll e g e . This lack of experience in the academic f i e l d and in work i s compounded by the f a c u l t y member's r e l a t i v e l y r ecen t e n tr y i n to a communityj u n i o r c o lle g e p o s i t i o n , a new p o s i t io n t h a t he may have found by chance in h i s local region (p. 55). Among the r e c e n t changes a f f e c t i n g the community c o ll e g e f a c u l t y p r o f i l e a re (a) women e n te r in g i n t o community c o lleg e teaching with incre asin g frequency, (b) a decrease in the percentage of f a c u l t y t h a t has taught in the lower grad e s, (c) a d e cline in academic mobil­ i t y a t the community c o ll e g e level which has increased both the average age of i n - s e r v i c e t e a ch e rs and the percentage of tenured faculty. The Two-Year College Music I n s t r u c t o r Music in the Two-Year Colleges The incidence of music in th e two y e ar c o l l e g e s . Music has long been offered a t most two-year colleg e s acro ss the n a ti o n . Among the e a r l y surveyors of two-year c o llege curriculum, Eels (1930, p. 489) reported t h a t 57% of 279 public and p r i v a t e two-year colleges across the nation were o f f e r i n g music. A decade l a t e r , Colvert (1939, p. 87) found t h a t 61.5% of 195 public j u n i o r c o llege s surveyed included music in t h e i r curriculum. Although the f i g u r e s c i t e d suggest t h a t some music was a v a i l a b l e a t most j u n i o r c o l l e g e s , two f a c t o r s 51 influenced the general d i s t r i b u t i o n of music within thes e i n s t i t u ­ tions. The f i r s t i s t h e regional d i s p a r i t i e s in the d i s t r i b u t i o n of music. For example, Temple (1939), c i t e d by Feman (1962, p. 27) a s s e r t e d t h a t music was a v a i l a b l e within 75% o f the j u n i o r c o lleg e s in the North Central region of th e United S t a t e s , a percentage higher than t h a t r ep o rte d f o r th e country as a whole. The second f a c t o r p e rta in e d t o th e p a r t i c u l a r i t i e s o f indiv idual i n s t i t u t i o n s . Col v e r t (1939, p. 87) observed t h a t the l a r g e r a j u n i o r c o l l e g e ' s stu d e n t enro llm ent, t h e g r e a t e r the p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t i t o ffere d music. Later f i g u r e s i n d ic a t e d t h a t by 1970, music had gained a c c e p t ­ ance i n to the v a s t m a jo r ity of two-year c o l l e g e s . A Music Educators National Conference (MENC) study conducted by Stover e t a l . (1970) in d ic ated t h a t 90% of 586 public and p r i v a t e j u n i o r c o lleg e s included music in t h e i r o f f e r i n g s . A r e c e n t survey in Michigan by Merkel (1977) demonstrated t h a t music was of f e r e d a t most two-year colleg es within the s t a t e . Merkel (1977) s t a t e d t h a t , " all [ t h r e e of th e ] c h u rc h - r e la te d [t wo-yea r] c o l l e g e s , and [ a l l but one] o f the [29] public community c o ll e g e s [ i n the s t a t e ] o f f e r some music. None, [however] o f t h e [ t h r e e ] p r i v a t e business c o lle g e s o f f e r s music" (p. 117). Scope of music c u r r i c u l a . The two-year c o l l e g e , as an i n s t i t u ­ t i o n , i s known f o r the v a r i e t y o f stu d e n ts i t s e r v e s . In keeping with the community c o ll e g e philosophy, music programs tend to be 52 designed f o r more than j u s t the music major. As Feman (1968) s t a t e d , the study of music as a l i v i n g a r t , i s b e n e f i c i a l f o r a l l stu de nts : The purpose of introducin g music to th e public j u n i o r c o lle g e program was to meet avocational and vocational needs by s t r e s s i n g music no t only as an academic p u r s u i t but as an area f o r the development of a p p r e c i a t i v e , i n t e r ­ p r e t i v e , c u l t u r a l , and c r e a t i v e a b i l i t i e s f o r the i n d i ­ vidual st u d e n t. In many s i t u a t i o n s , th ese musical a c t i v i ­ t i e s have involved c o nsid era b le community p a r t i c i p a t i o n (p. 28). MerkeT (1977) rep o rted t h a t in Michigan, the needs of th e general s t u d e n t a re addressed by the v a s t m ajo rity of two-year co lleg e music programs. The r o l e of music in 55% of the public community c o lleg e s [ i n Michigan] i s c u r r e n t l y d i r e c t e d toward s a t i s f y i n g the needs of both music-majors and the general s t u d e n t. 39% of th e c o ll e g e s have programs geared only toward th e general s t u d e n t , and only 6% o f the c o lle g e s have music programs designed e x p re ss ly f o r the music major (p. 118). He f u r t h e r rep o rted (p. 118) an in c r e a s in g trend of c o lle g e s t o l i s t in t h e i r c atalo g s nonconventional c ou rs es , such as barbershop sin g ­ in g, harmonica, and o ld-tim e f i d d l e . The im p lica tio n s a r e , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t the community c o l l e g e s need nonconventional types of teachers to cover the spectrum o f courses o f f e r e d within a d i v e r s i f i e d c u r r i c u ­ lum. One f a c t o r t h a t has h i s t o r i c a l l y lim i te d the scope of two-year c o ll e g e music programs has been the s i z e of a c o l l e g e ' s student e nrollment. C o l v e r t 's 1939 data (p. 87) i n d ic ate d t h a t schools with l a r g e r enrollments tended t o o f f e r more music per semester than did schools with sm aller enro llments. most r e c e n t l y by Merkel (1977). This observation has been supported Merkel's c h a r t (p. 109) in d ic ate d 53 t h a t community c o lle g e s in Michigan with stu d e n t enrollments of over 3,000 a d v e r t is e d twice as many d i f f e r e n t c la s s e s in music as did c o lle g e s with enrollments below 3,000. Po llard (1977) con­ t r i b u t e d a d d it i o n a l i n s i g h t i n to the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the scope of the music c u r r i c u l a and student enrollment. Po llard found t h a t ru ral public community co lleg e s tended to have small stu d e n t e n r o l l ­ ments, fewer course o f f e r i n g s , and consequently, sm aller music f a c u l ­ t i e s than did public community c o lleg e s s i t u a t i o n in e i t h e r metro­ p o l it a n or urban a r e a s . S t a f f i n g P a t te r n s f o r Two-Year College Music Programs H i s t o r i c a l l y , the two-year c olleg e s have employed very few music teachers. The e a r l i e s t r efe ren c es to th e s t a f f i n g of two-year c o llege music programs ( T a l le y , 1938, p. 141; D a n iels, 1946, p. 8 0 ) . in d ic ate d t h a t only one or two f a c u l t y members were assigned to teach a l l the music included within the curriculum. White (1967, p. 21) in h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n to the s t a t u s o f music a t the j u n i o r c o lle g e l e v e l , noted t h a t j u n i o r c o ll e g e music departments were operated most oft en by two f a c u l t y members: one, a choir-voice-keyboard t e a c h e r , and the o t h e r , an instrumental-music h i s t o r y , and theory te a c h e r . a l . (1970, p. 19) came to a s i m i l a r conclusio n. Stover e t They found t h a t n early h a l f of a l l j u n i o r c o lle g e s o f f e r i n g music supported e i t h e r a one- or two-person s t a f f . I t has long been recognized t h a t many j u n i o r c o lle g e music programs were u n d e r s t a f f e d . Martensen (1940) reported: 54 Because of s t r a i n e d f i n a n c i a l c onditions many a d m i n i s t r a t o r s d e s i r in g to maintain a music department, decide the only way t o run i t economically i s to c u t the f a c u l t y number as low as p o s s ib l e . [But] the r e s u l t i s an overload f o r teachers (p. 403). More r e c e n t l y , Campbell (1968) concluded t h a t "many [two-year] co lleg e s do not have an adequate number of music i n s t r u c t o r s f o r the number of courses they o f f e r , and in some i n s t a n c e s , appear not to o f f e r courses due to i n s u f f i c i e n t f a c u l t y " ( a b s t r a c t ) . e t a l . (1970) s t a t e d : As Stover " [ t h e ] d i v e r s i t y o f music cou rses, c a t e r i n g t o both community and s e n i o r c o lleg e needs, i s very of ten attempted by a very small s t a f f " (p. 19). During the 1970s, responding to in cre asin g stu d en t enro llments, the number of two-year c o lle g e music f a c u l t y incre ased. A comparison of two e d i t i o n s of the Directory of Music F a c u lt i e s in Colleges and U n i v e r s i t i e s provides evidence f o r t h i s . The 1967 e d i t i o n o f the Directory reported t h a t of the 12 Michigan two-year c o lleg e s l i s t e d , six c o lle g e s employed only one f a c u l t y member each. The 1974 e d i t i o n , however, i nd ic ate d an in cre ase in the number o f music f a c u l t y employed, with only two of the 13 l i s t e d community c o lleg e s employing one f a c u l t y member each. Two c ollege s each in 1974 were shown to employ two through f i v e music f a c u l t y members. More r e c e n t l y , Merkel (1977, p. 109) i n d i c a t e d t h a t l a r g e r community college s in the s t a t e of Michigan employed a t o t a l o f e i t h e r e i g h t or nine music f a c u l t y mem­ bers a p ie ce , while sm aller community college s with stu d e n t enrollments of under 3,000 tended to employ e i t h e r one or two music te a c h e r s . 55 Employment s t a t u s of music i n s t r u c t o r s . was At some sch oo ls, music taught by a s i n g l e i n s t r u c t o r h ired on a p a r t - t im e b a s i s . (1968) r e p o r t e d , f o r i n s t a n c e , on Greene music in the e a r l y community c o lleg e s of New York S t a te : Student involvement with music was l im i te d t o e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r p a r t i c i p a t i o n in a glee club or band, often d i r e c te d by e i t h e r a p a rt - t im e music tea ch e r from a local high school or in many cases by a member of the general s t u d i e s f a c u l t y who had i n t e r e s t (but l i t t l e o r no background) in music (p. 56). In o t h e r sc hools, however, th e music program had been e n tr u s te d to a f u l l - t i m e music i n s t r u c t o r . Feman (1962) reported such a case in a community co lleg e program a l s o in New York S t a t e . He recounted (pp. 56-57) t h a t during the 1950s, one f u l l - t i m e music i n s t r u c t o r taug h t the e n t i r e program. Eventually, a p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y member was added to teach "voice production." Several years l a t e r , a second f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y member was assigned the voice c l a s s ; he ncefo rth, p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y were employed to teach any music c l a s s e s o ffere d s p o r a d i c a ll y . According to r e c e n t data (Merkel, 1977, p. 9 7), a g r e a t e r percentage of p a r t - t im e music i n s t r u c t o r s a re now in the i n s t r u c ­ tio n a l f o r ce than every befo re. Goetz's data (1940, p. 393) account­ ing f o r 223 f a c u l t y members employed by 105 schools in 35 s t a t e s , demonstrated t h a t 89% of a l l music f a c u l t y were employed on a f u l l ­ time b a s i s . By the l a t e 1960s, Stover e t a l . (1970, p. 6) reported and were supported by o t h e r so u rc es , t h a t f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y com­ p ri sed approximately 60% of music f a c u l t y employed within the j u n i o r c o ll e g e s . Most r e c e n t l y , Merkel (1977, p. 97) in d ic a te d t h a t in 56 Michigan, only 30% of a l l two-year c o lle g e music i n s t r u c t o r s were employed f u l l time. A m ajority of two-year colleg es employ pa rt- tim e music f a c u l t y . Stover and h i s a s s o c i a t e s (1970, p. 15) a s c e r t a i n e d t h a t p a r t - t im e s t a f f were working within 62% of a l l j u n i o r c o lle g e s o f f e r i n g music. The percentage of ru ral community co lleg e s using p a r t - t im e music i n s t r u c t o r s i s higher s t i l l . P o llard (1977), in a study o f 123 r ural public community c o lleg e s in 31 s t a t e s , reported t h a t p a r t time music tea ch e rs a re found within 89% of a l l r u ral c o lle g e s o f f e r ­ ing music. In f a c t , 25% of rural community c o lle g e s were observed t o use p a rt- tim e music tea ch e rs e x clu siv ely ( P o l l a r d , 1977, a b s t r a c t ) . Most c o lle g e s (54%), according to Stover e t a l . (1970, p. 15) use a combination of f u l l - t i m e and p a r t - t im e music i n s t r u c t o r s . In 1970, 37.5% of 517 j u n i o r c o lleg e s r e p o r tin g a music s t a f f in d ic a te d t h a t employed no p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y , while 16.5% of the schools report ed they employed no f u l l - t i m e music f a c u l t y . Wozniak's t a b l e s (1973, p. 53) in dic ate d t h a t while most commu­ n i t y c o lleg e s supplemented t h e i r s t a f f with p a r t - t im e music t e a c h e r s , many c o lleg e s had, as of 1973, employed only one or two f u l l - t i m e music te a c h e r s . Half o f the 64 n o r th e a ste r n community c o lle g e s surveyed employed a s i n g l e f u l l - t i m e music i n s t r u c t o r whereas another 20% engaged a second f u l l - t i m e te a c h e r . While t h i s p r a c t i c e accounted f o r 70% of t h e sample, f u r t h e r data in d ic a te d t h a t the number o f f u l l - t i m e music f a c u l t y employed by a school could range 57 up t o t e n . Wozniak's f i n d in g matched t h a t of Aslanian (1976, p. 135) who found t h a t C a l i f o r n i a community c o lle g e s employ between one and eleven f u l l - t i m e music f a c u l t y per school, depending on the s i z e of the community and th e i n t e r e s t in music. Duties and R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of TwoYear College Music Faculty Merkel (1977, p. 121) a s c e r t a i n e d t h a t f u l l - t i m e music i n s t r u c ­ t o r s in Michigan two-year c o lleg e s u t i l i z e d most of t h e i r working hours (16 t o 18 hours per week) in teach ing . Faculty devoted a t l e a s t two hours of t h e i r on-campus time per week to (a) serving o f f i c e hou rs, (b) maintaining t h e i r performance s k i l l s , (c) under­ taking a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d u t i e s , and (d) keeping up with t h e i r p r o f e s ­ sional reading (Merkel, 1977, pp. 84-85). Among the a c t i v i t i e s con­ suming more than one hour each, per week, but l e s s than two hours a week of f a c u l t y time were (a) r e c r u i t i n g , (b) conducting public r e l a t i o n s , and, (c) a tt e n d i n g to committee work (Merkel, 1977, p. 85). Teaching assignm en ts. Stover e t a l . (1970, p. 6) i n d ic a t e d t h a t few f u l l - t i m e j u n i o r c o ll e g e music f a c u l t y throughout t h e country (14%) were assigned to a s i n g l e s u b j e c t a r e a . m u lt i p le assignments. Most (56%) were given An a d d it i o n a l 30% of s t a f f members, according to th e a u th o r s , f e l l "somewhere in between g e n e r a l i s t s and s p e c i a l i s t s . " Morgan (1966, p. 72) found t h a t a l a r g e m a jo r ity of j u n i o r colleg e music te a c h e r s in C a l i f o r n i a tau g ht both vocal and instrumental music. There were no o t h e r data t o suggest t h a t t h i s p a t t e r n applied 58 to f a c u l t y in o t h e r s t a t e s . J a n s e n 's fin d in g s (1971, p. 5) i n d i ­ cated t h a t a l a r g e proportion of two-year c o lle g e music i n s t r u c t o r s taught a p p lied music. According t o h i s d a t a , t h e r e were more i n s t r u ­ mental music t e a c h e r s , i n c l u d i n g piano i n s t r u c t o r s , than vocal te a c h ­ ers. Much information i s a v a i l a b l e regarding the most common types of courses found w ith in the two-year co lleg e music curriculum. The general consensus (Morgan, 1966, p. 40; Jansen, 1971, p. 4; Belford, 1970, p. 410; Gagermeier, 1968, p. 90; Viggiano, 1954, p. 122) was t h a t music theory was th e most f r e q u e n t ly of f e r e d music course a t the two-year l e v e l . Music a p p re c ia tio n or h i s t o r y , vo c al, and i n s t r u ­ mental ensembles, and a p p lied were a ls o widely found. Two surveys i n v e s ti g a t e d the con tent of the music curriculum in the Michigan community c o ll e g e s . Faxon (1974, p. 127) in d ic ate d t h a t the most widely of f e r e d community c o lle g e music courses were, in order (a) music a p p re c i a ti o n ( o ffere d a t 28 campuses); (b) music theory (22 campuses); (c) keyboard (18 campuses); (d) music educa­ t i o n (17 campuses); (e) individual voice (16 campuses);(f) band, (15 campuses);and (g) stage band (11 campuses). Merkel's f in d in g s (1977, p. 120), rep o rted in Table 2 . 4 , i n dic ate d t h a t c h o i r , music f o r classroom t e a c h e r s , and freshman theory were the most widely a v a i l a b l e music o f f e r i n g s . Music f a c u l t y workload. According to Stover e t a l . (1970, p. 7 ) , the average two-year co lleg e music f a c u l t y member spends more time giving i n s t r u c t i o n per week than does h i s o r her s e n i o r c o lle g e 59 TABLE 2 . 4 . —Course Offerin gs in Music on the Public and P r i v a te Twoy e a r College Campuses in Michigan (1977)a General Course T i t l e Percentage of Campuses Offering Course Choir 84% Music f o r Classroom Teachers 79% Freshman Theory 74% Music L i t e r a t u r e 66% Applied Music: 66% Piano Vocal 61% Instrumental 55% Music History 55% Class Piano Band 55% Sophomore Theory 55% 50% Jazz History 47% Glee Club/Madrigal Ensemble 45% Vocal Pedagogy 26% S t a t i s t i c s arranged according to the information provided by Merkel (1977, p. 120). 60 c o u n te r p a r t . The d i f f e r e n c e in terms o f c o n ta c t hours between two- y ear and f o u r - y e a r c o lle g e f a c u l t y i s to some degree a t t r i b u t a b l e to research demands imposed on s e n io r c o lle g e f a c u l t y . Because community c o lle g e f a c u l t y a re not expected to engage in r e s e a r c h , research time i s not a l l o t t e d to them as p a r t of t h e i r co n tra ctual load. Stover e t a l . (1970, p. 7) found f u l l - t i m e music f a c u l t y spending an average of 20 hours a week in c o n ta c t with st u d e n ts . They docu­ mented c on ta ct hours ranging from 6 to 37 hours, with 95% of t h e i r sample f a l l i n g within the 15-to-30-hour range. Bel ford (1970, p. 409) c i t e d a range of 15 to 20 c o nta ct hours f o r f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y , and Brawer (1976, p. 2 ) , who i n v e s ti g a t e d music h i s t o r y and music appre­ c i a t i o n i n s t r u c t o r s , found t h a t almost h a l f of the i n s t r u c t o r s sampled (including some p a rt - t im e personnel) indic ated they taught 16 or more i n s t r u c t i o n a l hours per week. Merkel (1977, p. 65) found in Michigan t h a t the number o f c o n ta c t hours f o r f u l l - t i m e music f a c u l t y ranged from 12 to 20 hours a week, with a mean of 16.4 hours. Class p r e p a r a t i o n s . Bel ford (1970, p. 409) reported t h a t the average f u l l - t i m e music i n s t r u c t o r prepared to teach fo ur to si x d i f f e r e n t c l a s s e s per week. Merkel (1977, p. 62) i n dic ate d a mean number of c l a s s p rep a ratio n s a t 3 . 4 , with the number of c l a s s e s taught per week ranging from one t o seven. His data (p. 104) revealed t h a t the number o f f a c u l t y prep a ratio n s per week r e l a t e d t o the s i z e of a c o l l e g e ' s stu d e n t enrollment: the g r e a t e r the number of teachers employed a t a c o l l e g e , the lower the average 61 number of p rep aratio ns an individual te a c h e r was r espo n sib le f o r per week. Functions of p a r t - t im e music i n s t r u c t o r s . H istorically, part- time music i n s t r u c t o r s have been used when a d m i n i s t r a t o r s found t h a t i n s t r u c t i o n a l se rv ice s were needed during the evening or a t remote locales. Goetz (1940, p. 393), f o r example, mentioned t h a t p a r t - time music f a c u l t y were employed most f r e q u e n t ly by j u n i o r co lleg e s connected with high sch o ols, because the high schools were ceded to the j u n i o r co lleg e s only f o r n igh t c l a s s e s . S i m i l a r l y , Sly (1947, p. 95) alluded to the " w e ll- e s ta b lis h e d p r a c t i c e " of employing p a r t time f a c u l t y to teach a d u l t s t u d e n t s , segregated by sc h ed u lin g . Today, i t i s not uncommon to f i n d p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y teaching n ig h t courses . They a l s o , however, a re fr e q u e n tly assigned to teach i n d i ­ vidual music courses a t off-campus l o c a t i o n s . In Michigan, t h ere are community colleges t h a t have more than one campus and sponsor music courses a t t h e i r annexes. In a d d i t i o n , p a rt - t im e s t a f f teach music courses a t such l o c a le s as retir e m e n t c e n t e r s , s a t e l l i t e cen­ t e r s , and p r iso ns. P a rt-tim e music f a c u l t y have been p a r t i c u l a r l y sought a f t e r to teach s p e c i a l t y courses. Where no f u l l - t i m e music s t a f f has been employed, pa rt-tim e s t a f f have been c a l le d in as "music s p e c i a l i s t s . " Martensen (1940, p. 402), f o r i n s t a n c e , rep o rted a number of j u n i o r c o lleg e s without organized music departments were o f f e r i n g choral groups d i r e c te d by p a rt - t im e i n s t r u c t o r s . Froh ( c i t e d by C u r t i s , 1938, p. 148) mentioned t h a t , "the public school man" was r e g u l a r l y engaged 62 on a p a r t - t i m e b a sis t o teach t h e music course f o r elementary t e a c h e r training c e r tif ic a tio n . C u r r e n t l y , the major use of p a r t - t im e personnel i s to teach ap p lied music. Merkel (1977, p. 62) assumed t h a t many p a r t - t im e music te a c h e r s in Michigan community c o lleg e s were employed to teach ap p lied music, and t h a t , to h i s knowledge, many of t h es e i n s t r u c t o r s had only one o r two s t u d e n ts . Saunders (1980) reported t h a t most community c o lle g e s in Michigan maintained c lo s e t i e s with l o c a l l y a c t i v e ap p lied music i n s t r u c t o r s . These i n s t r u c t o r s a r e approved by the c o l l e g e s , but not n e c e s s a r i l y c o n tr a c t e d d i r e c t l y by them. In many c a s e s , the stu d e n ts pay th e i n s t r u c t o r s d i r e c t l y , and rec eive co lleg e c r e d i t f o r t h e i r s t u d i e s . This p r a c t i c e coin cid es with t h a t reported by Aslanian (1976): Most community c o ll e g e s do not have adequate s t a f f f o r indiv idual instrumental or vocal i n s t r u c t i o n . Even i f they d i d , the c o s t of such a program would be p r o h i b i t i v e . One s o l u t io n to th e problem o f adequately prepared perform­ e r s on a major instrument o r in voice has been achieved through the a s s o c i a t i o n of local p r i v a t e music i n s t r u c t o r s with the community c o ll e g e s [ i n C a l i f o r n i a ] (p. 136). P a r t - ti m e music f a c u l t y a re sometimes assigned t o teach or d i r e c t classroom courses. Belford (1970, p. 409) found t h a t p a r t - t im e music f a c u l t y most f r e q u e n t ly taug h t music h i s t o r y and l i t e r a t u r e , music e d uca tio n , and composition; they r a r e l y taught t h e o r y , or music a p p r e c i a t i o n , and they did not conduct ensembles. In c o n t r a s t , Merkel (1977, p. 120) found t h a t in Michigan, p a r t - t im e music f a c u l t y most f r e q u e n t l y tau gh t applied music c ou rs es , including c l a s s paino; p a r t - t i m e f a c u l t y were assigned l e s s f r e q u e n t ly to conduct th e g lee 63 c l u b , or to teach sophomore th eo ry , music h i s t o r y , o r music f o r classroom t e a c h e r s . In l a r g e r c e n t e r s of musical a c t i v i t y , the community c o lle g e s have a wide range of music s p e c i a l i s t s to employ. Bader (1980), f o r example, reported t h a t Composers, conductor s, and a rra ng ers from the world of c l a s s i c a l , chamber music, j a z z , popular music, the Broad­ way show, "club d a t e s , " and o t h e r a re as have been engaged as adjunct f a c u l t y a t Kingsborough [Community College, in Brooklyn, New York] (p. 121). Desc rip tors of Two-Year College Music Faculty Demographic D e s c r l p t o r s . 1. Size of po pulation—The t o t a l number o f music teachers employed in public community colleg e s i s unknown. Sto v e r, Clausen, Hansen, and Hammer (1970, p. 12) however, in d ic a te d t h a t t h e i r MENCsponsored survey o f j u n i o r c o llege music f a c u l t y included data about 1024 f a c u l t y from 517 c o lle g e s r e p o r t i n g music s t a f f . 2. Age—According t o the few sources a v a i l a b l e , two-year c o lle g e music tea ch e rs tended to be in t h e i r e a r l y and mid-30s. Greene (1968, p. 294) found a p l u r a l i t y of f a c u l t y members f e l l within the 25 t o 34 age co h o rt. Wozniak (1973, p. 50) found t h a t 63% of her sample o f f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y l i s t e d ages within the 30 to 49 brac k et. A p l u r a l i t y (37.7%) ranged in age from 30 to 39. In Brawer's (1976, p. 1) sample of 90 music h i s t o r y and music a p p re c ia ­ t i o n i n s t r u c t o r s , f a c u l t y c l u s t e r e d in the age groups of 31 to 35 and 46 to 50, followed by 36 to 40. 64 3. Sex—Sources in d ic a te d t h a t males predominated among the ranks of music f a c u l t y . Greene (1968, p. 290) based h i s 85% male to 15% female r a t i o on a small sample population of 34, most of whom were f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y members. Wozniak's (1973, p. 50) 64% to 26% r a t i o was based on 138 f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y from f i v e n o r t h e a s t e r n states. Brawer (1976, p. 1) found t h a t of the 90 m u s i c - i n - th e - humanities i n s t r u c t o r s she sampled (80% of whom were employed f u l l time), 81% were male. E xperiential d e s c r i p t o r s . 1. Teaching experience—Researchers have reported d i s p a r a t e fin d in g s regarding the d i s t r i b u t i o n of community-junior co lleg e teaching experience among music f a c u l t y . Jansen (1971, p. 3) reported t h a t a p l u r a l i t y of h i s sample of 505 music f a c u l t y (22.4%) were employed 15 years or lo ng er, and only 6% had been employed f o r l e s s than a y e a r . Wozniak (1973, p. 50) s t a t e d t h a t ne arly h a l f of her sample o f f u l l - t i m e music f a c u l t y had taught f o r f i v e years o r l e s s ; more than h a l f of the remaining f a c u l t y had been employed between 6 and 15 y e a r s , and an a d d itio n a l 23.3% of those remaining had over 16 y e ars of j u n i o r c o lle g e teaching experienc e. A p l u r a l i t y of Brawer's (1976, p. 2) sample of music h i s t o r y and a p p r e c i a ti o n i n s t r u c t o r s claimed 5 to 10 years of teaching experience.; the p l u r a l ­ i t y was followed by r e p o r t s o f those c l u s t e r i n g in the 3 to 4, 1 to 2, 11 to 20, and over 20 years experience c o h o r t s , r e s p e c t i v e l y . 2. Public school teaching experienc e—I t i s commonly rep o rted t h a t many two-year c o ll e g e i n s t r u c t o r s had tau gh t previo usly within 65 the secondary schools. This was t r u e f o r a m ajority o f Greene's (1968, p. 306) music f a c u l t y sample. For Jensen (1971, p. 5) and Brawer (1976, p. 2 ) , 40% and 79% of t h e i r r e s p e c t iv e samples i n d i ­ cated having t h i s experience. In a s i m i l a r v e in , Morgan (1966, p. 41) i nd ic ate d t h a t a m inor ity (12.4%) of her sample of C a li f o r n ia j u n i o r c o lle g e music t e a ch e rs were teaching c on currently a t another grade l e v e l . On the o t h e r hand, Fleming (1971, a b s t r a c t ) reported in a study of f a c u l t y from 11 southern s t a t e s , t h a t many persons who went i n t o vocal teaching a t the j u n i o r c o lleg e level had no p r i o r teaching experience a t a l l . Jansen (1971, p. 5) found t h a t a majority of music i n s t r u c t o r s he sampled had been p r i v a t e i n s t r u c t o r s (59.6%) and/or piano p e r ­ formers (50.2%). Brawer (1976, p. 2) found t h a t the e n t i r e u n i v e r s i t y - level teaching experience o f 58% of m usic-in-the-humanities i n s t r u c ­ t o r s had been as teaching a s s i s t a n t s . 3. Academic c r e d e n t i a l s —During the e a r l i e r period of j u n i o r c ollege development, the ba cc alaureate was the most widely held academic degree among music i n s t r u c t o r s . More than 40% (41.2%) of the 223 music f a c u l t y sampled by Goetz (1940, p. 393) held a bache­ l o r ' s degree as t h e i r h ig h e s t degree. The most common s p e c i f i c degree a t the time was the bachelor of music. An a d d itio n al 29.5% of Goetz's sample held a m a s te r 's as t h e i r h i g h e s t c r e d e n t i a l , the most p rev a len t of which was the master of music. Approximately 4% of th e f a c u l t y were doctoral r e c i p i e n t s (includin g one D.D .S.). The remaining q u a r t e r of the sample ind ic ate d they held no degree a t a l l . A s i m i l a r f a c u l t y p r o f i l e was presented by Martensen (1940, p. 402). 66 Martensen's survey o f 62 music f a c u l t y from 19 Texas j u n i o r c o l l e g e s , however, contained no doc toral r e c i p i e n t s . More r e c e n t l y , Greene (1968, p. 295) reported t h a t 64.8% of h is sample of 34 music f a c u l t y employed in New York S t a t e administered community c o lleg e s held a m a s te r 's degree. Some 17.6% of a l l f a c u l t y surveyed held a d o c t o r a t e , and 14.7% held a b a c h e l o r ’s degree as t h e i r h ig h est degree. Only 2.9% were teaching without any degree. Belford (1970, p. 409) a ls o report ed t h a t the average f a c u l t y member among the 419 he sampled held a m a s t e r 's as t h e i r h i g h e s t academic credential. Of those serving as a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , v i r t u a l l y a l l (97%) held a graduate degree, including the 14% who held a d o c t o r a t e . Of a l l music s t a f f members sampled, 8% held a d o c to r a te . Stover e t a l . (1970, p. 6) found t h a t 83% of the 517 j u n i o r c olleg es r e p orting a music s t a f f req uired m a s t e r 's degress f o r f u l l ­ time f a c u l t y . Less s t r i n g e n t demands, however, were made f o r p a r t - time f a c u l t y . Only 47%, l e s s than h a l f the c o l l e g e s , req u ired a m a s te r 's degree from p a rt - t im e music t e a c h e r s , 39% required p a r t time s t a f f to hold a b a c h e l o r 's degree, and 24% p osited no degree requirements a t a l l f o r p a rt- tim e f a c u l t y . Jansen (1971, p. 6) reported t h a t approximately 70% of the 505 music f a c u l t y surveyed held a m a s te r 's degree, with the degree often accompanied by a d d it i o n a l c r e d i t s . He a ls o noted t h a t p r o p o r t io n a ll y more doctoral r e c i p i e n t s were employed by c o lleg e s o f f e r i n g music t r a n s f e r programs than by c o lleg e s c a t e r i n g s o l e ly to nonmusic majors. Wozniak (1973, p. 50) found t h a t only of 2 of 138 f u l l - t i m e music 67 f a c u l t y members surveyed were teaching without a degree. Most (70.3%) claimed a m a s t e r 's as t h e i r h i g h e s t degree, while a f a i r l y l a r g e proportion (17.4%) reported holding a d o c t o r a t e . Only 10.9% o f the sample held a b a c h e l o r 's degree as the h i g h e s t c r e d e n t i a l . Most r e c e n t l y , Merkel (1977, p. 90) reported t h a t only about 1% of Michigan's two-year c o llege music i n s t r u c t o r s held a d o c t o r a t e . In l i g h t of contemporary f i n d i n g s , however, t h i s e s tim a te i s su s p ec t. 4. P u r s u it of higher degrees—A1though most two-year c o lle g e music tea che rs do not hold the h ig h e s t p o s s ib le gr aduate degree, r e l a t i v e l y few a r e c u r r e n t l y upgrading t h e i r c r e d e n t i a l s . Morgan (1966, p. 72) found t h a t of her sample o f C a l i f o r n i a j u n i o r c o lle g e music i n s t r u c t o r s , more than 50% were not pursuing a graduate degree o f any kind. Respondents' reasons f o r not pursuing a graduate degree were (a) lack of time, and (b) the b e l i e f t h a t an a d d it i o n a l degree would not b e n e f i t them in t h e i r p r e s e n t p o s i t i o n . Brawer (1976, p. 3) reported t h a t of the 90 m u sic-in-th e-hum anities te a c h e r s she surveyed, 76% were not p r e s e n t l y working on any degree, but t h a t most (90%) would e i t h e r l i k e to take f u r t h e r coursework or t o m a t r i c u l a t e in a degree program within the next f i v e y e a r s . Professiona l d e s c r i p t o r s . 1. Tenure—No data regarding the gran ting of ten ure to two- y e ar c o lle g e music f a c u l t y could be l o c a te d . 2. Academic rank—According to Stover e t a l . (1970, p. 6 ) , most j u n i o r c o lleg e s surveyed by the MENC Committee in 1968 (66%) did not de si gnate academic rank. Since 1968, however, c o nd ition s may 68 have changed somewhat. Whereas in th e 1968-69 e d i t i o n of the Direc­ to ry of Music F a c u lt i e s in Colleges and U n i v e r s i t i e s only 4 o f the 12 Michigan two-year c o lle g e s l i s t i n g music f a c u l t y i d e n t i f i e d t h e i r s t a f f members by academic rank, 7 of th e 13 departments l i s t e d in the D i r e c t o r y ' s 1974-76 e d i t i o n did so. Even w ith in t h i s l a t t e r e d i t i o n , however, only 9 of the 49 music t e a ch e rs l i s t e d ( o r 17%) were i d e n t i f i e d as holding a pro fessio n al rank; a m ajo rity of the f a c u l t y members, 29 of the 49 names, were r e f e r r e d to simply as instructors. Nevertheless, Merkel (1977) concluded t h a t " [ f u l l ­ time] music f a c u l t y in [Michigan's] two-year c o lle g e s a re accorded the rank . . . of t h e i r c o lle g e p o s i t io n s " (p. 2). One anomalous f in d in g regarding academic rank was repo rte d by Greene (1968). Greene maintained (p. 309) t h a t approximately 60% of th e music f a c u l t y employed within the New York S t a te - a d m in is te r e d community c o lleg e s received academic rank. Greene's f i g u r e of 60% of the f a c u l t y holding the rank of a s s i s t a n t p r o f e s s o r or higher exceeds th e general e x p e c ta ti o n s of th e time. Job Appraisals Advantages and disadvantages of teaching music a t the two-year c o lle g e l e v e l . In t h e i r study of two-year c o lle g e f a c u l t y , Kelley and Wilbur (1970, pp. 77-78) queried seven f u l l - t i m e music t e a ch e rs about the advantages and disadvantages of teaching a t the two-year co lleg e level. The advantages noted by music f a c u l t y p e rta in e d p r i m a r il y to t h e i r r e l a t i o n s with s t u d e n t s . Teachers c i t e d the following as 69 advantages: (a) the c lo s e personal c o n ta c t with s t u d e n t s , (b) the o p p o r t u n it i e s t o see st u d e n t p ro g res s, (c) th e s a t i s f a c t i o n of h e lp ­ ing stu de n ts f in d purpose and beauty in t h e i r l i v e s , (d) th e chance to t r a n s f e r i d e a l s and enthusiasm to those who would someday be t e a c h e r s , (e) the op p ortun ity to apply in a concrete manner what one has learned about music, and ( f ) the opportunity to work with s t u ­ dents on a performance (allowing f o r social and pro fessio nal i n t e r ­ a c t io n ) . The disadvantages c i t e d by Kelley and Wilbur r e l a t e d to the con­ d i t i o n s under which music i s t a u g h t. following: Teachers complained about the (a) the time they had to spend in reh e arsin g and in presenting performances; (b) t h e i r teaching load was too heavy, and (c) not enough h i g h - q u a l i t y students were a v a i l a b l e f o r performing groups. A perennial complaint by tea ch e rs and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a l i k e has been t h a t music courses a re o ften taught in impoverished surroundings. In an e a r l y study, Martensen (1940, p. 404) reported t h a t 9 of 19 program d i r e c t o r s from Texas j u n i o r c o lle g e s believed they were op era tin g with inadequate f a c i l i t i e s . She noted t h a t j u n i o r c o lle g e music programs needed (a) b u ild in g s and equipment f o r applied music, (b) b e t t e r p r a c t i c e f a c i l i t i e s , (c) more phonograph records and l i b r a r y m a t e r i a l s , and (d) more band and o r c h e s t r a equipment. Martensen concluded t h a t " ad m i n i s t r a t o r s must r e a l i z e t h a t musical equipment meeting the needs of a success ful music program must c o n s i s t of more than a blackb oard, c h a i r s , and a 'banged-up' o u t - o f -t u n e piano" (p. 404). 70 T h ir t y - f o u r y e ars l a t e r , the Faxon r e p o r t (1974) reached s i m i l a r conclusions: A lack of physical f a c i l i t i e s , u n f o r tu n a te ly has stood squarely in the way of any rapid o r exte nsive growth of community co llege a r t s programs [ i n Michigan] and will apparently continue to do so without some s o r t of special a s s i s t a n c e . Forty-one pe rcent o f th e schools said t h a t a lack of space i s the g r e a t e s t problem facing t h e i r music programs (p. 126). Two-year c o lleg e music f a c u l t y job s a t i s f a c t i o n . Accounts of music f a c u l t y s a t i s f a c t i o n and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n are indeed l i m i t e d , and a pp arently no c o n sid er a tio n a t a l l has been given to assessin g the s a t i s f a c t i o n and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n of p a rt - t im e i n s t r u c t o r s . The evidence suggests t h a t f u l l - t i m e , two-year c o lle g e music i n s t r u c t o r s a re g e n erally s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r p o s i t i o n s . Brawer (1976) s t a t e d s p e c i f i c a l l y t h a t two-year c o lle g e music h i s t o r y and music a pp re c ia ­ t io n i n s t r u c t o r s "are more l i k e l y to c l u s t e r in the high s a t i s f a c ­ t i o n groups" (p. 8 ) . Merkel (1977) observed t h a t , "in s p i t e of some problems, the [Michigan] two-year c o lleg e s provide s a t i s f y i n g p o s i ­ t io n s f o r music tea ch e rs" (p. 123). I t seemed to Merkel, whose sample was composed s o l e l y of f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y , t h a t most [ f u l l - t i m e ] i n s t r u c t o r s enjoy t h e i r work and ob tain s u f f i c i e n t g r a t i f i c a t i o n to want to remain in t h e i r p o s i ­ t i o n s even though the two-year music programs a re not on a par. with the programs in the se n io r colleg es in terms of f a c i l i t i e s , number of f a c u l t y , performance o p p o r t u n i t i e s , and performance r e s u l t s (pp. 123-124). Wozniak (1973), t o o , found a high degree of s a t i s f a c t i o n among the f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y . Wozniak's study i s , to d a t e , the most so ph is­ t i c a t e d study about th e job s a t i s f a c t i o n / d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n of music f a c u l t y in two-year c o l l e g e s . Her sample co n sisted of 138 f u l l - t i m e 71 music i n s t r u c t o r s from 64 two-year colleg e s in f i v e e a s t e r n s t a t e s . For the study, she employed two a t t i t u d i n a l measures and a ques­ t i o n n a i r e to c o l l e c t demographic information. She u t i l i z e d the Brayfield-Rothe S a t i s f a c t i o n Index (1951) to est im ate genera lized s a t i s f a c t i o n or d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . Subjects were asked to use a 5-ste p r a t i n g s c a l e to r e g i s t e r t h e i r agreement or disagreement with 18 statements p e r ta in in g t o t h e i r j o b s . A summated score f o r the 18 statements was used to index overall a t t i t u d e s . With regard to t h i s measure, Wozniak found (p. 64) a high degree of s a t i s ­ f a c t i o n among t h e f a c u l t y . Only a small "somewhat d i s s a t i s f i e d " group manifested i t s e l f , accounting f o r only 3.6% of the sample. In addi­ t i o n , no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n was found between generalized s a t i s ­ f a c t i o n and the demographic v a r i a b le s of e i t h e r age or sex (p. 65). The second measure, developed in 1971 by Wickstrom, asked the su b je cts to r e l a t e two c r i t i c a l j o b - r e l a t e d i n c i d e n t s . F i r s t , sub­ j e c t s were asked t o recount a p a r t i c u l a r l y good experience in t h e i r job c a r e e r s , and then t o r e p o r t a p a r t i c u l a r l y unpleasant experience. Subjects were than asked to judge the r e l a t i v e importance of spe­ c i f i e d f a c t o r s in c o n tr i b u ti n g to t h e i r f e e l i n g a t the time of the negative and p o s i t i v e c r i t i c a l i n c i d e n t s . The f a c t o r s s p e c i f i e d in the Wickstrom measure were those hypothesized by Herzberg (1959) to c o r r e l a t e with e i t h e r s a t i s f a c t i o n or d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . Wozniak, t h e r e f o r e , analyzed th e data derived from the Wickstrom measure to t e s t Herzberg's s e t of hypotheses. She confirmed Herzberg's hypothe­ s i s of u n i d i r e c t i o n a l i t y of f a c t o r s (p. 72), f o r the rank-ordered 72 f a c t o r s in response to Wickstrom's happy and unpleasant i n c id e n ts tas k s proved to be u n r e l a te d . Wozniak conceded (p. 73), however, t h a t her f in d in g s did not r e p l i c a t e e x a c tl y Herzberg's normative f i n d ­ ings. Only fo u r o f Herzberg's e ig h t normatively s u b s t a n t i a t e d d i s - s a t i s f i e r s proved t o be, in t h i s i n s t a n c e , important sources of d i s ­ satisfaction. According to Wozniak's study (p. 90) the s t r o n g e s t s a t i s f i e r s f o r f u l l - t i m e two-year c o lleg e music f a c u l t y were (a) achievement, (b) job i n t e r e s t , (c) in te r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s with s t u d e n t s , and (d) r e c o g n itio n . The g r e a t e s t d i s s a t i s f i e r s were (a) polic y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , (b) working c o n d it i o n s , (c) e f f e c t of job on personal l i f e , (d) achievement, and (e) supervision. (Achievement was found to serve both as a s a t i s f i e r and as a d i s s a t i s f i e r , which c o n t r a d i c t s Herzberg's e xpecta tion of u n i d i r e c t i o n a l i t y of f a c t o r s . ) Role awareness. There i s l i t t l e information a v a i l a b l e regarding music f a c u l t y awareness of t h e i r r o l e within community c o lle g e educa­ tion. One o l d e r stu d y , by Hudgins (1959) i nd ic ate d t h a t j u n i o r c o llege music f a c u l t y were poorly informed about th e fun ction and philosophy o f the j u n i o r college music program. The only o th er e x t e n t evidence suggested t h a t some f u l l - t i m e music i n s t r u c t o r s do not f u l l y appre­ c i a t e the importance o f the community c o l l e g e ' s general educational function. Much l i t e r a t u r e (ably summarized by Greene, 1968) recom­ mended t h a t two-year c o lle g e music programs emphasize general educa­ tion. This p r i o r i t y was recognized by music a d m i n i s t r a t o r s who, according to Belford (1967), r a t e d general education as the music 73 program's most important o b j e c ti v e and professio nal t r a i n i n g as the l e a s t important. P o lla r d (1977), in c o n t r a d i c t i o n , rep o rted t h a t f u l l - t i m e r u r a l community c o lle g e music f a c u l t y from 31 s t a t e s tended t o perceive the music major fu n ctio n as th e most important goal of the music program. Related study: m in ants. s e n i o r c o lle g e music f a c u l t y job-cho ice d e t e r ­ One r e l a t e d study conducted by Aurand (1970) focuses on job-choice determinants o f s e n i o r c o lleg e music f a c u l t y . Aurand stu d ied 1085 music f a c u l t y members teaching a t f o u r - y e a r i n s t i t u ­ t i o n s a c c r e d i te d by t h e National Associatio n of Schools of Muisc (NASM). He sought to i d e n t i f y the f a c t o r s t h a t brought f a c u l t y to t h e i r c u r r e n t p o s i t i o n , kept them t h e r e , and t h a t would be important in s e l e c t i n g a f u t u r e p o s i t i o n . His f a c t o r s of jo b-choice determi­ nants were derived from the seventeen environmental items s p e c i f i e d by Brown (1967, p. 200) in h i s "Academic Market Study" r e l a t i n g to job m o b ility . Aurand and Blackburn (1973, p. 166) found t h a t music f a c u l t y were a t t r a c t e d t o t h e i r p r e s e n t p o s i t i o n by the following f a c t o r s : (a) s a l a r y , (b) courses they would t e a c h , (c) a chance t o p a r t i c i p a t e in u n i v e r s i t y governance, and (d) the research/performance f a c i l i t i e s . According to the a u t h o r s , music f a c u l t y "look f o r a f u t u r e p o s i t io n using most of the same c r i t e r i a [th ey] used in s e l e c t i n g [ t h e i r ] p r e s e n t [ p o s i t i o n s ] " (1973, p. 166). The music f a c u l t y ' s s a t i s f a c t i o n with t h e i r c u r r e n t p o s i t i o n was contingent on somewhat d i f f e r e n t factors. The f i v e most s a t i s f y i n g a s p e c t s r e l a t i n g to t h e i r c u r r e n t 74 p o s i t i o n were (a) teaching d e sir e d c o urs es , (b) competency of co lleag u es; (c) c o n g e n i a l i ty of c o ll e a g u e s , (d) f a c u l t y performance o p p o r t u n i t i e s , and (e) p a r t i c i p a t i o n in job d e c i s i o n s . Summary of L i t e r a t u r e P e rtainin g to Two-Year College Music Faculty For more than fo u r decades, the two-year c o lleg e s have o ffere d a d i v e r s i t y of music co u rses, c a t e r i n g to both community and se n io r co lleg e needs. Very o f t e n , however, according to a Music Educators National Conference (MENC) Committee r e p o r t (1970), the j u n i o r c o l l e g e ' s music f a c u l t y c o n siste d of e i t h e r one or two t e a c h e r s . commonly, the college s employed a choir-voice-keyboard instrumental-music hi s t o r y - t h e o r y t e a c h e r . Most t e a c h e r and an Since the mid 1970s, the two-year c o lleg e s have augmented t h e i r music f a c u l t y p r i m a r il y by in cre asin g t h e i r employment of p a rt - t im e s t a f f . The MENC committee was su r p r i s e d to f i n d t h a t in 1968, 44% of a l l two-year c o lle g e music i n s t r u c t o r s nationwide were h ired on a p a rt - t im e basis. Merkel (1977) found t h a t more than 70% of Michigan two-year colleg e music i n s t r u c t o r s were p a rt - t im e employees. There i s very l i t t l e information a v a i l a b l e about p a r t - t im e community c o lle g e i n s t r u c t o r s . I t was reported t h a t most p a rt- tim e music i n s t r u c t o r s in Michigan were l i k e l y to be tea c h e r s of applied music, and t h a t many were not d i r e c t l y con tr acted by t h e i r c o ll e g e . As a sample p o pu latio n , they had i n t e n t i o n a l l y been omitted from research s t u d i e s . Wozniak (1973) found t h a t f u l l - t i m e two-year c o lle g e music i n s t r u c t o r s were g e n e r a l l y s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r jo b s . F ull-tim e 75 f a c u l t y were found t o re c e iv e the g r e a t e s t s a t i s f a c t i o n from the f a c t o r s of achievement, job i n t e r e s t , in te rp ers on al r e l a t i o n s with st u d e n ts , and r e c o g n i ti o n . They de rived d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n from the f a c t o r s o f p o lic y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , working c o n d it i o n s , e f f e c t s of job on personal l i f e , achievement, and su p erv ision . No re a l attem pts were made t o a ssess awareness of t h e i r r o l e by music f a c u l t y . Findings su ggest , however, t h a t un lik e music a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , f u l l - t i m e music i n s t r u c t o r s in rural community co lleges tended to unde restimate the importance educational l e a d ­ e r s place on general education. SAMPLE, INSTRUMENT, AND PROCEDURES Introductio n The study focused on t h ree goals: to compile information about the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and a t t i t u d e s of music teachers employed within Michigan's community c o l l e g e s ; t o c o n s t r u c t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e p r o f i l e s f o r f u l l - t i m e , p a rt - t im e g e n e r a l , and p a rt - t im e applied music i n s t r u c ­ t o r s ; and to asse ss th e f a c u l t y ' s profes sional self-im age. To a t t a i n thes e g o a l s , the following procedures were followed: A q u estio n n a ire was designed to c o l l e c t data r e f l e c t i n g f a c u l t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and a t t i t u d e s . Names and addresses of a l l c u r r e n t l y employed music f a c u l t y were s o l i c i t e d from a d m in istr a to r s r e p r e ­ se ntin g music programs in Michigan's 29 community c o l l e g e s . The q u e stio n n a ir e s were d i s t r i b u t e d by m ail, r e tu r n e d , and t h e i r data prepared f o r computer a n a l y s i s . F i n a l l y , the s t a t i s t i c a l procedures were se l e c te d to analyze the d a ta . Methodol og.y The p res ent study used the most common d e s c r i p t i v e research method, the survey. The mail q u e s t io n n a ir e , a survey technique employed in t h i s study, has been widely used to c o l l e c t both f ac tu al and a t t i t u d i n a l d a ta . In s i m i l a r s t u d i e s , th e mail q u e stio n n a ir e has proven useful in gath erin g information from a l a r g e po pulation. I t allows f o r data c o l l e c t i o n from i n d iv id u a ls disp erse d over a wide 76 77 geographic a r e a , and allows each to complete the survey a t the subject's leisu re. Yet, the mail q u e stio n n a ir e has some se r io u s drawbacks. Cohen and Brawer (1977) s t a t e d : As "Gathering r e l i a b l e data on two-year c olleg e f a c u l t y [by t h i s technique] i s a useful but precarious exercise" (p. 8 ). The primary concern voiced by Kerlinger (1967, p. 397) i s t h a t responses to mail q u e stio n n a ir e s a re g e n e r a lly poor. He i n d i c a t e s (p. 397) t h a t a r e s e a r c h e r conducting a mail survey might expect r e t u r n s as low as 40% to 50%. however, enhance the r e t u r n r a t e . Certain procedures may, Techniques used in the p res ent study to promote a higher r e t u r n r a t e were the following: (a) ques­ t i o n n a i r e s were mailed d i r e c t l y to a f a c u l t y member by name, and i f p o s s ib l e , they were mailed to a home a ddre ss; (b) a l e t t e r was included with each q u e stio n n a ir e explaining the s t u d y 's o b j e c ti v e s and the importance of f a c u l t y p a r t i c i p a t i o n ; and (c) a vigorous follow-up procedure was implemented. K e r li n g e r 's secondary concern with the mail q u e stio n n a ir e i s the i n a b i l i t y to v e r i f y the data c o l l e c t e d . The v e r a c i t y of a s u b j e c t ' s response i s , indeed, a se rio us concern. The pres en t stu d y , however, endeavored to e l i c i t honest response from f a c u l t y by impressing on them the importance of the re s e a r c h , appealing to t h e i r pr ofes sional sta n d a r d s, and a ssu rin g the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of t h e i r res po nses. Hav­ ing taken t h es e s t e p s , i t was hoped t h a t the drawbacks of the mail questio n n a ire would be minimized. 78 Construction of the Community College Music Faculty Questionnaire The primary means to ob tain information from music t e a ch e rs was through a q u e s t io n n a ir e developed e s p e c i a l l y f o r the p r e s e n t study. . A f u l l copy of th e q u e s t io n n a ir e i s contained in Appendix 2. A summary o f i t s conte nt follows. Summary o f the Q u e s t i o n n a i r e 's Content The q u e s t i o n n a i r e , f o u r pages in l e n g t h , was comprised of f i v e parts. A summary of i t s conte nts i s presented in Table 3 . 1 . Current s t a t u s . P a r t I of th e q u e s t io n n a ir e contained ten q u e stio n s , some of which c a l l e d f o r f a c t u a l answers. Respondents, f o r example, were asked to i n d i c a t e whether or not they were employed f u l l time or p a r t tim e, whether or not they held a p o s i t i o n in a d d i­ t io n t o t h e i r community c olleg e appointment, and to l i s t the number of hours a week they t a u g h t. Other questions requested t h a t respond­ e n ts s t a t e t h e i r p r i o r i t i e s regarding the type of p o s i t io n they would f ind most a t t r a c t i v e , t h e a u t h o r i t y to which they owed t h e i r g r e a t e s t p ro fessional a l l e g i a n c e , and th e stu d e n t group they f e l t deserved the most a t t e n t i o n . A t h i r d type of que stion had the respondents d e t e r ­ mine the. psychological weight of t h e i r teaching l o a d , t h e i r reasons f o r e n te rin g in to community c o ll e g e t e a c h in g , and whether or not they would stay in community c o lle g e teaching. Positio n s a t i s f a c t i o n s c a l e . P a r t I I was s p e c i f i c a l l y designed to measure asp ects o f job s a t i s f a c t i o n . The 40 items repre sente d TABLE 3 . 1 . —Summary of the Q u estio nn aire's Content Number of Items Part I 10 questions 9 items: 1 item: Pa rt II 40 items 40 items: i n t e r (5-step r a t i n g s c a l e plus "not applica b le") Position satisfactions: (attitudes) Evaluative 56 items: i n te g e r (3-step r a t i n g sc ale ) Instructional d ifficulties: (attitudes) Evaluative Part I I I 56 items Levels of Measurement nominal ratio Content Areas Covered C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Responses Section Current s t a tu s : A tti t u d e s : Factual Evaluative, priority Part IV-a 7 questions 7 items: nominal Current s t a t u s : Function: Factual Factual Pa rt IV-b 10 questions 8 items: 2 items: nominal ratio Educational and professional background: a t t i tudes: Factual Priority Demographic: Factual Professional background: Advice: Factual e v alu ativ e Pa rt V-a Pa rt V-b 2 questions 3 questions 1 item: 1 item: nominal ratio Open-ended questions 80 sources o f s a t i s f a c t i o n t h a t the respondent might encounter on the job . This l i s t included such d i v e r s e t o p i c s as s a l a r y , c o n g e n i a l i ty o f c o llea g u es , adequacy of group rehearsal f a c i l i t i e s , and school reputation. The te a c h e r s were asked to ev aluate the degree of s a t i s ­ f a c t i o n they derived from each item and then were given a r a t i n g s c ale of d e s c r i p t i o n s covering the range of s a t i s f a c t i o n with which to i n d i c a t e the level a p p r o p r i a te to them. Instructional d i f f ic u lt i e s sc a le . Part III e lic ite d faculty a t t i t u d e s toward p o s s ib le sources o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s . This se ctio n contained 56 items covering a broad spectrum of p o s s ib le problem situations. Several items concerned the i n s t r u c t o r ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p to students ( e . g . , r e l a t i n g t o stu d e n ts of a d i f f e r e n t socioeconomic c l a s s ) , and performance of i n s t r u c t i o n a l - r e l a t e d o rg an iz atio nal tas ks ( e . g . , preparing t e s t s ) . Other t o p i c s e l i c i t e d a re spo n dent's opinion toward achieving i n s t r u c t i o n a l goals ( e . g . , promoting psychomotor flexibility). Subjects were i n s t r u c t e d to use the t h r e e - s t e p r a t i n g scale to ev aluate each t o p i c . Background and f u n c t i o n . P a r t IV was designed to c o l l e c t a d di­ t io n a l f a c t u a l data from th e respondent. Respondents were asked to i n d ic a t e t h e i r academic rank, whether o r not they were c u r r e n t l y the music a d m i n i s t r a t o r f o r t h e i r programs, and whether or not they had been granted te n u r e . They were a l s o asked when, where, and what courses they t a u g h t , t h e types of stu d e n ts they t a u g h t , as well as questions p e rt a in i n g to t h e i r education and pro fessio nal background, such as had they ever been a community c o lle g e s t u d e n t, and i f they 81 had ever stu d ied the background and p r i n c i p l e s of the community co lleg e as a modern i n s t i t u t i o n . Other questions in t h i s section sought i n f o r ­ mation regarding the number of ye ars the respondents had served on the job and within the tea ching f i e l d . One question sought to i d e n t i f y those a re as in which respondents had p r i o r profes sional experience. The only a t t i t u d i n a l question in t h i s se c tio n pe rta in e d to the respond­ e n t ' s musical t a s t e . Demography and open-ended q u e s t i o n s . concluded the q u e s t io n n a ir e . A s e t of optional questions Respondents were provided the option of specifying t h e i r age and gender. For those w i l li n g to c o n tr i b u te a d d itio n al information, the following t h r e e questions were included: (a) "What types of experiences (formal o r otherwise) did you fin d most useful in preparing you to teach a t the community co llege leve l? " (b) "What advice would you give t o prospe ctive community c olleg e music t each ers? " and (c) " Is t h e r e a question you were not asked t h a t you would l i k e t o answer?" These questions could be answered in e i t h e r p oint form or paragraph form. A space was provided a t the end of the q uestio n n a ire f o r sub­ j e c t s to i n d ic a t e i f they cared to receiv e the r e s u l t s of the study. Procedural Review Determination o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e 's c o n t e n t . mined the content of the q u e s t io n n a ir e . Four goals d e t e r ­ The f i r s t c o n sid er a tio n was to conduct a survey t h a t would e l i c i t a wide v a r i e t y of responses. I t was important not only t o determine a p e rs o n 's demographic background and 82 h i s / h e r fun ction al r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , but a l s o to sample a t t i t u d e s . I t was believed t h a t by including a t t i t u d i n a l q u e s t io n s , a more personal p r o f i l e than i s p r e s e n t l y a v a i l a b l e could be drawn of those in d iv i d u a ls c u r r e n t l y teaching music in Michigan's community c o l l e g e s . Another goal was to include con te nt t h a t would serve t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e one employment subgroup from ano th er. Therefore, questions were included to which f a c u l t y reacted d i f f e r e n t i a l l y . A t h i r d goal was t o u t i l i z e as many questions as would prove acceptable to respondents. C e r t a i n l y , the c o n s t r a i n t s of space and respondent a t t e n t i o n span were foremost in mind as t h i s r e s e a r c h e r formulated the q u e s t io n n a ir e . I t was considered d e s i r a b l e , however, to include as much m aterial as p o s s i b l e , within such c o n s t r a i n t s , so as to maximize the op portunity to survey the f a c u l t y . The f i n a l c o n sid e ra tio n r e g u la tin g the q u e s t i o n n a i r e 's content pe rta in e d to the types of questions to be stu d ie d . I t was f e l t t h a t including questions employed by o th e r r e s ea rch e rs in s i m i l a r surveys of higher education f a c u l t y would lend face v a l i d i t y t o the present instrument. S e l e c ti o n o f co nte n t and form at. A review was conducted to iden­ t i f y and inventory the c on te n t of q u e stio n n a ir e s employed to survey higher education f a c u l t y . These q u e stio n n a ire s (whose con te nts are summarized in Appendix 3) were ed ited f o r purposes of the p resen t study and the inventory of quest io ns were supplemented with questions derived from informal d isc u ssio n s with community c o lleg e f a c u l t y over 83 the period of a y e ar and a h a l f . Other questions were adapted from the open-ended responses c o l l e c t e d by Kelley and Wilbur (1970). The q u e s t i o n n a i r e ' s format was p a tterned a f t e r models presented within t e x t s on q u e stio n n a ire c o n s tr u c tio n ( e . g . , Oppenheimer, 1966; Berdie and Anderson, 1974). Fu rther advice on q u e stio n n a ir e c o n s t r u c t io n was provided by a research c o n s u l ta n t a f f i l i a t e d with the Michigan S t a te University College of Education's Office of Research C o nsultation. A fter being e d it e d and r e v i s e d , the instrument was then sub­ mitted f o r c r i t i c i s m to a ten-pe rson panel of community c olleg e i n s t r u c t o r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s froma local community c o l l e g e . The panel members, who were e i t h e r involved with the s c h o o l 's pro fessional development program or were f a m i l i a r with research tec h n iq u e s, were asked to comment on the s u i t a b i l i t y of the instrument. They provided useful commentary regarding the l e n g t h , wording, and response format of the q u e stio n n a ir e . In a d d i t i o n , follow-up interviews were con­ ducted with several panel members to c l a r i f y c e r t a i n po in ts they had criticized. The c r i t i c s ' comments and suggestions were included in l a t e r r e v i s io n s of the instrument. The instrument was resubmitted to the r e s e a r c h e r ' s d i s s e r a t i o n committee f o r f u r t h e r c r i t i c i s m . the q u estio n n a ire was t y p e s e t . Final re v i s io n s were then made, and The t y p e s e t t e r s were a b le to p r i n t the conte nts of the q u e stio n n a ir e on both sid e s of an 11" x 17" sheet of paper. When the she et was folded in h a l f , four p r i n te d s i d e s of the document appeared. 84 Construction of the Po s itio n S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale Content o f the s c a l e . The P o s itio n S a t i s f a c t i o n s Sc a le , P a r t II of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , contained 40 items. Each item rep re se nte d a s p e c i f i c a s p e c t of th e school environment from which f a c u l t y may d e riv e s a t i s f a c t i o n . The s c a l e items were c l a s s i f i e d i n t u i t i v e l y i n to e i g h t to p ic a l c a t e g o r i e s . (See Appendix 4 ) . In essence, f a c u l t y were asked to e v a l u a t e t h e b e n e f i t s (economic, s o c i a l , p e r s o n a l , and e x t e r n a l ) they enjoy, th e environmental c o nd itio n s ( p h y s i c a l , i n t e r ­ p e rs o n al, and p r o f e s s i o n a l ) in which they work, and t h e i r job r e s p o n s i ­ b ilities. An empirical c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of items was accomplished through f a c t o r a n a l y s i s . Source m a t e r i a l s . The P o s itio n S a t i s f a c t i o n s Scale i s an amal­ gam o f the most p e r t i n e n t items employed by four previous r e s e a r c h ­ ers: Brown (1967), Shank (1968), Aurand (1970), and Kelley and Wilbur (1970). All 16 items in Brown's (1967) Academic Market Study ( s a t i s f a c t i o n su b sectio n ) have been adapted f o r use in the presen t study (see Appendix 3 ). Brown asked u n i v e r s i t y and c o lle g e f a c u l t y who had vacated an academic p o s i t i o n to assign a degree of importance t o th e f a c t o r s t h a t influenced t h e i r d e c isio n . Faculty responses were based on the t h r e e - s t e p s c a l e provided f o r t h e i r use. Shank (1968) employed 10 o f th ese same items and 8 o th ers in his study of new s e n i o r c o lle g e education f a c u l t y . His measure, the "Position S a t i s ­ f a c t i o n Q u e stion n aire," employed a 6 - ste p r a t i n g s c a l e . Unlike Brown's measure, which focused on " d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n , " Shank's measure 85 analyzed " s a t i s f a c t i o n , " and included a column to r e g i s t e r a "no s a t i s f a c t i o n " response. Shank reported an i n te r n a l consistency r e l i a b i l i t y f o r h is s c a l e of .82 (1968, p. 22). Aurand (1970) a l s o employed 14 of Brown's o r i g in a l s c a l e items w ithin a study of f o u r - y e a r c o ll e g e music f a c u l t y . Aurand's study, l i k e Brown's (1967), i n v e s t i g a t e d f a c u l t y perc eption of the importance of environmental f a c t o r s r e l a t e d to academic m o b ility . h i s respondents with a se ven-ste p r a t i n g s c a l e . Aurand provided Many o f th ese same items are i d e n t i c a l with the comments c o l l e c t e d in open-ended format by Kelley and Wilbur (1970). Kelley and Wilbur questioned a sample of f u l l - t i m e community/junior c ollege tea ch e rs about the s a t i s f a c t i o n s and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n s of t h e i r p o s i t i o n s . Format of the s c a l e . In the present study, a f i v e - s t e p r a t i n g s c a l e and a "not a p p li c a b l e " column were employed. The r a t i n g s c ale i s displayed below: P r e se n tly Employed Position S a t i s f a c t i o n Rating Scale £ £ O o ■r— +-> +» U •r— U as £ o •i— 4-> O IQ 4(/) •r— +J as in 4- £ o •r- +J -M U 3 IQ 4- m •r— +» 10 CO O (O 4» 0) (O XI (O £ s- 4- 3 « (U f—- a> > et O r— 0) 03 2 4-> 4J •f— 1 u •r— r— CL Q. +> o z na 86 The r a t i n g s c a l e employed here most c lo s e l y approximates one used by Shank (1968): Shank's (1968) Rating Scale Degree of S a t i s f a c t i o n None L ittle Averse Considerable Great SOURCE: "Po s itio n S a t i s f a c t i o n s Questionnaire ," Shank (1968, Appen­ dix) Both r a t i n g s c a l e s , (a) p e r t a i n s o l e l y to s a t i s f a c t i o n , (b) make p ossib le the expression of a "no s a t i s f a c t i o n " response, and (c) l o c a t e average s a t i s f a c t i o n a t about the middle of the r a t i n g s c a l e . Use of the "not a p p li c a b l e " column. The "not a p p lica b le" column i s included in the P o s itio n S a t i s f a c t i o n r a t i n g s c ale f o r d e s c r i p t i v e purposes only. I t was assumed t h a t not a l l f a c u l t y members come i n to c o n ta c t with every environmental a spect represented by items in the measure. For example, not a l l music f a c u l t y members are expected to conduct ensembles as p a r t of t h e i r community c o lle g e teaching r e s p o n s i ­ bilities. T here fo re , some means had to be devised t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e between a s u b j e c t ' s "low a p p r a i s a l" s a t i s f a c t i o n response and a "lack of exposure" response. The "not a p p licab le" option was provided f o r j u s t t h i s purpose. Construction of the I n s t r u c t i o n a l D i f f i c u l t i e s Scale Content of the s c a l e . The I n s t r u c t i o n a l D i f f i c u l t i e s Sc a le , P a r t I I I of t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , contained 56 items. Each item 87 re p r e s e n ts a source of p o t e n t i a l d i f f i c u l t y to a tea che r performing his/her instructional r e s p o n sib ilitie s. When categ o rize d i n t u i t i v e l y , each item appears to r e l a t e to a t l e a s t one of f o ur c l u s t e r s ( l i s t e d in Appendix 5): (a) i n s t r u c t i o n a l s k i l l s , (b) classroom management chores, (c) educational o b j e c t i v e s , and (d) i n t e r a c t i o n with st u d e n ts . An empirical c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of items was accomplished through f a c t o r analysis. Source m a t e r i a l s . Items used in the I n s t r u c t i o n a l D i f f i c u l t i e s Scale were w r i t t e n s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r the pres en t stud y. Among the sources consulted f o r formulating the s c a l e , however, were m a t e r i a ls published by McCall, Jamrich, Hereford,Thomas, and Friedman (1961), Siehr (1964), Kelley and Wilbur (1970), F e r r e t t (1975), and Friend!ander (1979). These sources were supplemented by information obtained through discussions with community c o llege f a c u l t y and pr of es sional develop­ ment s t a f f . Format of the s c a l e . A t h r e e - s t e p r a t i n g s c a l e was f i t t e d to the I n s t r u c t i o n a l D i f f i c u l t i e s measure. The r a t i n g s c a l e i s displayed below: Pre se n tly Employed I n s t r u c t i o n a l D i f f i c u l t i e s Rating Scale Of MAJOR1 D ifficulty Of AVERAGE2 D ifficulty ISiT Diff1culty 88 The r e s e a r c h e r received assurances from s t a t i s t i c a l c o n s u l ta n ts t h a t even a t h r e e - s t e p r a t i n g s c a l e , with i n te r v a l level measurement, can be submitted to f a c t o r a n a l y s i s . The Sample The primary procedural o b j e c tiv e s of the study were to i d e n t i f y and t o e n l i s t the p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f as many i n d iv id u a ls teaching music within th e Michigan public community c ollege s as p o s s i b l e . While no comprehensive l i s t of music f a c u l t y was a v a i l a b l e , f i g u r e s derived from Merkel's (1977) s t a t i s t i c s i n d i c a t e t h a t 158 music tea ch e rs were employed by Michigan public community c ollege s in 1976. Fewer than 50 music i n s t r u c t o r s were l i s t e d by name within the College Music S o c i e t y 's p u b l i c a t i o n , Directory of Music F a c u lt i e s in Higher Education (Short, 1976). Even fewer names could be obtained from c u r r e n t community co lleg e c a t a l o g s . Administrators from a l l Michigan community c o lleg e s were t h e r e f o r e contacted and asked to provide the names and addresses o f each music te a c h e r employed by their institutions. Administrators were a ls o asked to sp e cify the number of f u l l - and p a rt - t im e music f a c u l t y they employed. Results of the I n i t i a l Inquiry Representatives from 23 of the 29 public community c olleges provided information about t h e i r music f a c i l i t i e s by submitting 235 names and addre ss es. The names of t h r e e music i n s t r u c t o r s who taug ht f o r schools which had not r e p l i e d were obtained from t h e i r college's catalogs. Notes were received from t h r e e c o lleg e s t h a t no 89 music program e x is te d a t t h e i r schools. Despite personal telephone c a l l s , t h r e e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s declined to provide the information reque ste d. Although a t o t a l of 238 names of music tea che rs compiled, admin­ i s t r a t o r s claimed to employ only 177 music f a c u l t y of which 44 were f u l l - t i m e i n s t r u c t o r s (25%) and 133 p a rt - t im e i n s t r u c t o r s (75%). The remaining 61 names, unaccounted f o r within the 238 names provided, c o n s t i t u t e a body of i n s t r u c t o r s undesignated as to e i t h e r f u l l - or p a r t - t im e employment. Several f a c t o r s may account f o r t h i s discrepancy. The l i s t s of f a c u l t y submitted may have been out of date and, t h e r e ­ f o r e , may have contained names of in d iv i d u a ls no longer employed. It is p o ss ib le t h a t c e r t a i n f a c u l t y members whose names were provided, but were not included in the t a l l y of employed f a c u l t y belonged to a pool of i n s t r u c t o r s to draw from when the need a ro s e. These in d iv i d u a ls may be p a r t of the a d j u n c t , o r off-campus f a c u l t y , most of whom teach applied music. In any e ven t, some of th e names provided by a d m i n i s t r a t o r s would not apply to the p r e s e n t study. Evidence a ls o su g g e sts, however, t h a t some names were omitted from the l i s t s submitted. Several adminis­ t r a t o r s noted t h a t they employed a number of a d ju nct music i n s t r u c t o r s , but f a i l e d t o name them. Under th ese c o n d i t i o n s , i t i s assumed t h a t the sample stu d ied i s l a r g e l y , but not e n t i r e l y , congruous with the population of community c o llege music i n s t r u c t o r s within the s t a t e . 90 Dissemination and Retriev al of the Questionnaire On April 25, 1981, 231 music f a c u l t y members were mailed a copy of the Community College Music Faculty Q u e stionnaire, t o g e t h e r with a cover l e t t e r (see Appendix 1) and a stamped, s e l f - a d d r e s s e d envelope. Seven names from the 238 names c o l l e c t e d were immediately d i s q u a l i f i e d . Of the seven f a c u l t y e li m in a te d , s i x had l e f t the employ of t h i s a u t h o r ' s home i n s t i t u t i o n ; the seventh name removed was t h a t of the a u th o r. Home addresses were a v a i l a b l e f o r 134 of the 231 music f a c u l t y . The remaining 97 q u e s tio n n a ir e s were mailed to f a c u l t y members a t t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n a l addre ss es. A post card urging t h a t the q u e stio n n a ir e s be retu rn ed was mailed to each f a c u l t y member not heard from within ten days a f t e r the i n i t i a l mailing. Eleven days l a t e r , a follow-up l e t t e r was mailed to a l l nonrespondent f a c u l t y . Included with the second l e t t e r was a d u p l i c a t e copy of the q u e s t io n n a ir e and a second r e t u r n envelope. F i n a l l y , on June 1, si x t e e n days a f t e r the second reminder, a mimeo­ graphed l e t t e r was forwarded to e l i c i t q u e stio n n a ire s from those who had not a lr eady responded. Response to the Questionnaire Response r a t e information was as follows: q u e s tio n n a ir e s contained usable d a ta . were i d e n t i f i a b l e by employment s t a t u s . 123 of the returned Of the 123, 121 q u e s t io n n a ir e s This group (N = 121) con­ s t i t u t e d the sample from which most analyses were based. Among th e su b j e c t s d i s q u a l i f i e d were those who, f i r s t , d i s ­ q u a l i f i e d themselves; second, could not be lo ca te d a t any a d d re ss ; or 91 t h i r d , were d i s q u a l i f i e d by the p res ent au th o r. The l a r g e s t number of i n d iv i d u a ls d i s q u a l i f i e d (N = 22) chose to d i s q u a l i f y themselves, including 17 who in d ic a te d t h a t they were no longer a s s o c i a t e d with t h e i r community c o l l e g e s . Many s t a t e d t h a t they had l e f t t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n several ye ars befo re, and while employed, they had i n s t r u c t e d students p r i v a t e l y f o r community c o llege c r e d i t . An a dd i­ t io n a l two in d iv d i u a ls in d ic a te d they had r e t i r e d , and t h r e e in divid ua ls noted they were a s s o c i a t e d with t h e i r c o lle g e only i n d i r e c t l y a s , f o r example, conductor o f a c i v i c o r c h e s t r a or band. A second group of i n s t r u c t o r s , 17 in a l l , could not be reached by mail. Questionnaires se n t to thes e i n d iv i d u a ls proved u n d e liv er a b le. (Fourteen o f thes e s u b j e c t s were p r i v a t e teach ers employed by a s in g le institution.) researcher. The f i n a l group of s u b je c ts were d i s q u a l i f i e d by the Of t h e s e , seven i n s t r u c t o r s from the a u t h o r ' s home i n s t i ­ t u t i o n were d i s q u a l i f i e d f o r reasons alr ead y enumerated. In a d d i t i o n , t h r e e returned q u e stio n n a ir e s judged so incomplete as to be unusable; they were t h e r e f o r e , disc arde d. In a l l , 49 (20%) o f the o r i g in a l names were declared in v alid f o r purposes of t h i s study. accounted f o r . for. In t o t a l , 172 (72%) of th e 238 names were S i x t y - s i x f a c u l t y names (17.7%) remained unaccounted Thus out of a p o s s ib le t o t a l of 189 s u b je c ts (123 usable ques­ t i o n n a i r e s and 66 unaccounted f o r ) , a 65% response r a t e was obtained. In summation, the s i z e of th e sample was lim i te d by the follow­ ing fo u r f a c t o r s : (a) f a i l u r e of a d m i n i s t r a t o r s from t h r e e community c o lle g e s t o respond to th e p res en t r e s e a r c h e r ' s req u e st f o r information; 92 (b) f a i l u r e of a d m i n i s t r a t o r s to provide th e names o f a l l t h e i r music f a c u l t y ; (c) f a i l u r e of i n s t r u c t o r s to complete and r e t u r n t h e i r ques­ t i o n n a i r e s ; and (d) f a i l u r e to reach su b j e c t s through the mail. Treatment o f the Data E d i t o r i a l Decisions During data p r e p a r a t i o n , one must often a l t e r the coding of the q uestions (Youngman, 1979). These e d i t o r i a l changes should not a l t e r the e s s e n t i a l meaning of the responses provided, but should make p o s s ib le a c l e a r e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the phenomenon s t u d i e d . Coding a l t e r n a t i o n s were performed within the pres en t study f o r the following reasons: (a) where a m u lt i p le response was warranted, and both response options were s p e c i f i e d , a t h i r d a l t e r n a t i v e in d ic a t i n g the combination of response options 1 and 2 was c re ate d ( c f . , q u e s t io n n a ir e , page 3, p a r t IV, items 4 and 5 ); (b) where a s u f f i c i e n t number of respondents s p e c i f i e d a response t h a t was not provided f o r , an accommodating response was c r e a t e d , ( c f . , page 4, item 17); (c) where a d i s t r i b u ­ tio n a l breakdown within a continuous v a r i a b l e would a id d e s c r i p t i o n , continuous v a r i a b l e s (such as age and length of se r v ic e ) were di choto­ mized or trichotom ized; (d) where c o n t r a s t could be enhanced by c ollap s in g s i m i l a r l y - t i t l e d columns, a dichotomized or trichotomized v a r i a b l e was c reated ( c f . , page 1, item ) ; (e) where a s u b j e c t ' s response was obviously m i s c l a s s i f i e d , a sp e c i f i e d response was recoded under an e x i s t i n g r u b r i c ; and ( f ) where a m u ltip le response was t o t a l l y i n a p p r o p r i a t e , the s u b j e c t ' s response was di sc arded. 93 A d i f f e r e n t i a l polic y was adopted with regard to use and i n t e r ­ p r e t a t i o n of the P o s itio n S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale "not a p p lica b le" column. "N/A" responses were counted along with missing data when "lack of exposure" responses were t a l l i e d . The procedure was used when i n d i ­ vidual P o s itio n S a t i s f a c t i o n item means were rank-ordered by f a c u l t y subgroup. "N/A" responses were counted along with " l i t t l e , i f any s a t i s f a c t i o n " responses, however, when "low a pp ra isa l of s a t i s f a c t i o n " responses were counted. This was done when the P o sitio n S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale items were submitted to f a c t o r a n a l y s i s . The reason f o r t h i s d i f f e r e n t i a l policy i s two-fold. F irst, i t may be argued t h a t while "low a p p ria sa l of s a t i s f a c t i o n " and "lack of exposure" responses a r e d e n o ta tiv e ly d i f f e r e n t , t h e i r r e s u l t s , in terms of personal s a t i s f a c t i o n derived, i s about the same—low s a t i s ­ faction. Within t h i s c o n te x t, lack of exposure t o a p o s i t i v e l y valued source of s a t i s f a c t i o n c r e a t e s within a respondent "no1! s a t i s f a c t i o n r a t h e r than "average" s a t i s f a c t i o n . Thus i t i s l o g ic al to t r e a t the "not a p p lica b le" response as d i f f e r e n t from " l i t t l e i f any s a t i s f a c ­ t io n" when the response reason i s of primary i n t e r e s t , and not to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between "not a p p lica b le" responses when the response q u a n ti t y i s of primary i n t e r e s t . Secondly, were a l l "not a p p lic a b le " resp on ses-to be t r e a t e d as missing d a t a , i t i s doubtful i f f a c t o r a n a l y s i s could be performed. Factor Analysis of the A t t i t u d i n a l Measures In the p r e s e n t stu dy , f a c t o r a n a l y t i c techniq ue, an a p p ro p ria te tool f o r use in d e s c r i p t i v e r e s e a r c h , was used to c l a r i f y the 94 information contained within the two a t t i t u d i n a l measures. Factor a n a l y s i s i d e n t i f i e s sub s ets of v a r i a b l e s from among a l a r g e r s e t . Each s u b s e t , o r f a c t o r , t h a t i s i d e n t i f i e d can u s u a l ly be given a name t h a t summarizes th e general a t t r i b u t e held in common between the most c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of i t s component v a r i a b l e s . Factor a n a l y s i s was employed to avoid c a l c u l a t i n g a summated score f o r an a t t i t u d i n a l measure as a whole. Summated scores sometimes conceal r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t become apparent when su bscales a r e examined. In a d d i t i o n , f a c t o r a n a l y s i s a ls o i d e n t i f i e s s c a l e items t h a t do not r e l a t e (or load) s i g n i f i c a n t l y to any of the defined f a c t o r s . These l e s s r e l e v a n t v a r i a b l e s can then be ignored, thus simplifying th e con­ t e n t s of a measure. When f a c t o r a n a l y s i s i s employed, i n t e r n a l con­ s i s t e n c y i s estim ated f o r each su b scale, r a t h e r than f o r the measure as a whole. Two f a c t o r analyses were performed—one f o r each o f the a t t i ­ t udin al measures included in the q u e s t io n n a ir e . ard f a c t o r i n g procedure was followed. In both c a s e s , sta n d ­ The i n i t i a l f a c t o r s were iden­ t i f i e d by the principal-components method (PA2). PA2 was s e l e c t e d because " [ i t ] can handle most o f the i n i t i a l f a c t o r i n g needs of the u se r . At p res en t [ i t ] i s the most widely accepted f a c t o r i n g method" (Nie e t a l . , 1975, p. 480). of r o t a t i o n was employed. To si m plify the f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e , a method The Varimax method, the most widely used method of r o t a t i o n (Nie e t a l . , 1975, p. 485) was deemed the most s u i t a b l e because i t s i m p l i f i e d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the f a c t o r columns. 95 Fa cto r Analysis of the P o s i ti o n S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale A f a c t o r a n a l y s i s was performed on the P o s itio n S a t i s f a c t i o n S c a le , a f t e r i t s "not a p p lic a b le " and " l i t t l e , i f any, s a t i s f a c t i o n " columns were combined in accordance with the e d i t o r i a l po lic y explained earlier. The a n a l y s i s i d e n t i f i e d fo ur f a c t o r s , each of which was con­ v erted i n to a subscale t o be used within subsequent s t a t i s t i c a l an aly ­ ses. In a l l , 22 of the 40 o r i g in a l s c ale items were included within the fou r f a c t o r s . Items included within each f a c t o r a re l i s t e d in Table 3.2 . Ten items loaded on the f i r s t f a c t o r with c o e f f i c i e n t s g r e a t e r than .50. These ten items were lab ele d t h e "S u rv iv a l" f a c t o r because of t h e i r common element. Each item pe rta in e d to one so c ia l or p r o f e s ­ sional b e n e f i t t h a t had been hypothesized. The f i r s t and most impor­ t a n t f a c t o r accounted f o r 58% of the s c a l e ' s v a ri a n ce . The f a c t o r ' s r e l i a b i l i t y was est im ated to be .86. Five items loaded on the second f a c t o r . This f a c t o r was named the " F a c i l i t i e s " f a c t o r , having incorporated a l l f i v e of the v a r i a b l e s hypothesized r e l a t i n g t o the physical environment. The " F a c i l i t i e s " f a c t o r accounted f o r 19.2% of the s c a l e ' s v a ria n c e . Its re liab ility was est im ated a t .84. The t h i r d f a c t o r was comprised of t h r e e ite m s, two of which p e r­ ta i n e d to in te r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . f o r 14.1% o f t h e s c a l e ' s v a ria n c e . .76. This "Social" f a c t o r accounted I t s r e l i a b i l i t y was estim ated a t 96 TABLE 3 . 2 . —Subscales o f the S a t i s f a c t i o n Measure6 Factor 1: Survival 10 items: 8 , 9, 11, 18, 20, 21, 30, 32, 38, 39 Salary Fringe b e n e f i t s Future s a l a r y prospects D i v e rs i ty of teaching assignments Job s e c u r i t y Rotation of teaching assignments Lecturing P a r t i c i p a t i o n in job de cisio n s Opportunities f o r professional advancement Opportunities f o r professional growth N = 113 Alpha = .86864 Factor 2: Eigenvalue: 58.3 7.55158 Facilities 5 items: Adequacy Adequacy Adequacy Adequacy Adequacy 13, 16, 25, 26, 36 of music l i b r a r y of classroom f a c i l i t i e s of group rehearsal f a c i l i t i e s of practice f a c i l i t i e s of o f f i c e space N = 117 Alpha = .84937 Factor 3: % of variance: % of Variance: Eigenvalue: 19.2 2.48342 Social 3 items: 1, 2, 27 Conge niality of colleagues Competency o f colleagu es Personal c o n ta c t with head of department N = 115 Alpha = .76555 Factor 4: % of Variance: 14.1 Eigenvalue: 1.82879 Prestige 4 items: 3, 5, 6 , 7 Reputation o f th e school Teaching load Quality of the students Academic rank N = 109 Alpha ■= .71796 % of Variance: Eigenvalue: 8.5 1.09533 a]i f o r each f a c t o r determined by l i s t w i d e d e l e t i o n . se l e c te d with a minimum f a c t o r loading of .50. Items 97 The f o u r t h and f i n a l f a c t o r , accounting f o r 8.5% of the v a r i ­ ance, was comprised of f o u r items. Labeled the "P re stige" f a c t o r , i t corresponded to items found within the hypothesized social bene­ f i t s and p rofessio nal environment f a c t o r s . R e l i a b i l i t y of t h i s fo u rth f a c t o r was estim ated a t .71. Factor Analysis o f the I n s t r u c ­ t i o n a l D i f f i c u l t i e s Scale A f a c t o r a n a l y s i s was performed on the 56-item I n s t r u c t i o n a l D i f f i c u l t i e s Sc ale. Of the 56 items included in the a n a l y s i s , 16 items were e s s e n t i a l in c o n s t r u c t in g fou r f a c t o r s . Items included within each f a c t o r a re l i s t e d in Table 3 .3 . D e f in i t io n of the fo u r i n s t r u c t i o n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s f a c t o r s . Five items with f a c t o r loadings of g r e a t e r than .50 comprised the f i r s t f a c t o r names "Student musical-involvement." I t s items were drawn from t h r e e of the f o u r hypothesized f a c t o r s l i s t e d in Appendix 5. It may be described most a p t l y as a f a c t o r in which pro fessional expec­ t a t i o n s and stu d e n t involvement play a r o l e . The f a c t o r accounted f o r 52.5% of the s c a l e ' s v a ria n c e , and i t s r e l i a b i l i t y was estimated a t .76. Three items c l u s t e r e d t o g e t h e r t o y i e l d a "Student R e s p o n s i b i li ­ ties" factor. Two of t h e items p e r t a i n to classroom mananagement d u t i e s , and the t h i r d t o i n t e r a c t i o n with s t u d e n ts . This f a c t o r r e f l e c t s i n s t r u c t o r s ' problems in se r v i c i n g stu d e n ts who f a l l behind in t h e i r assignments. This f a c t o r accounted f o r 17% of the v a ri a n ce , and i t s r e l i a b i l i t y was estimated a t .65. 98 TABLE 3 . 3 . —Subscales of the D i f f i c u l t y Measure3 Factor 1: Student Musical Involvement 5 items: 6, 17, 35, 44, 46 Encouraging mastery of musical m a t e r i a ls Expanding s t u d e n t s ' p ers p ectiv es Teaching st ud ents who do not p r a c t i c e Enhancing m u s ic a lity o f student performances Maintaining s t u d e n t s ' i n t e r e s t N = 111 Alpha = .76329 Factor 2: % of Variance: Eigenvalue: 52.5 8.29221 Student R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s 3 items: 11, 24, 55 Providing make-up examinations Teaching students who do not do t h e i r assigned readings Getting students to tur n in t h e i r assignments on time N = 110 Alpha = .65213 Factor 3: % of Variance: 17.0 Eigenvalue: 2.68578 Organization of Course 3 items: 16, 33, 34 Pacing m a t e r i a l s over the term Sequencing m a t e r i a ls over the semester Preparing t e s t s N = 111 Alpha = .71130 % of Variance: Eigenvalue: 15.4 2.43139 Factor 4: . U t i l i z a t o n of M aterials 5 items: 4, 13, 14, 25, 42 Finding supplementary c l a s s m a t e r i a ls Making do with i n s u f f i c i e n t i n s t r u c t i o n a l resour ces Using a d i v e r s i t y of media to advantage S e t t i n g up the classroom . Making do with lim i te d physical f a c i l i t i e s N = 110 Alpha = .70703 % of Variance: Eigenvalue: 15.1 2.38306 aji f o r each f a c t o r determined by l i s t w i s e d e l e t i o n . s e l e c te d with a minimum f a c t o r loading of .50. Items 99 Three items c o n s t i t u t e d the "Organization of Course" f a c t o r . These items were drawn from an o r i g i n a l l y hypothesized " I n s t r u c t i o n a l Skills" factor. The "Organization of Course" f a c t o r accounted f o r 15.4% o f the s c a l e ' s v a ri a n c e , with an estim ated r e l i a b i l i t y of .71. The fou rth and f i n a l f a c t o r co n sisted of f i v e items. This f a c t o r was named f o r i t s emphasis on i n s t r u c t o r s ' a b i l i t i e s to use e x i s t i n g resources e f f e c t i v e l y . of M aterials" f a c t o r . Thus i t was termed the " U t i l i z a t i o n I t r e l a t e d to both the hypothesized " I n s t r u c ­ tio n a l S k i l l s " and "Classroom Management" f a c t o r s . The f a c t o r accounted f o r 15.5% of the variance and e x h ib ite d an estimate d r e l i a b i l i t y of .70. Analytical Procedures Several methods were determined necessary to analyze the d a ta . These methods included (a) c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n and a p p l i c a t i o n of the c hi-s q uare t e s t , (b) u n i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of v a ria n c e , (c) rank-ordering and d i s t r i b u t i o n a l comparison, and (d) con te nt summary o f w r i t te n comments. The c o n s tr u c tio n of f a c u l t y p r o f i l e s , the s t u d y ' s primary o b j e c t i v e s , could be accomplished only when the l a r g e amount of q u a l i t a t i v e data c o l l e c t e d was submitted f o r c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n . simple c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n , a b i v a r i a t e t a b l e i s c o n stru cted . In Levels within the t a b u l a r columns were assigned to f u l l - t i m e , p a rt - t im e g e n e r a l, and p a r t - t im e app lied music f a c u l t y . Tabular rows, on the oth er hand, were accorded to l e v e l s within whatever o t h e r v a r i a b l e s was examined. 100 For the purpose of i d e n t i f y i n g s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between f a c u l t y subgroups, each b i v a r i a t e d i s t r i b u t i o n was evaluated. The s i g n i f i c a n c e of a c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n ' s frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n may be appraised through the c h i- s q u a r e t e s t , "the best-known s t a t i s t i c a l pro­ cedu re," according t o Weisberg and Bowen (1977, p. 164). A c h i- s q u a r e s t a t i s t i c t h a t i s assigne d a c o e f f i c i e n t of s i g n i f i c a n c e beyond the .05 level i n d i c a t e s , in the c on te x t of t h i s stu d y , a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between employment subgroups. Because most o f the t a b l e s were l a r g e r than two columns by two rows, the s u i t a b l e s t a t i s t i c to be rep o rted as a measure of a s s o ­ c i a t i o n was Cramer's V. The V s t a t i s t i c i s a c o rr e c t e d phi c o e f f i ­ c i e n t , and i s , t h e r e f o r e , s i m i l a r to the Pearson C o rrela tio n C o e f fi­ c i e n t of A s so c ia tio n . When a 2 x 2 t a b l e was c o n s t r u c t e d , however, the phi c o e f f i c i e n t was rep o rte d . A d i f f e r e n t procedure, the u n i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of variance (ANOVA), was used to a s s e s s th e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between f a c u l t y sub­ groups and the P o s itio n S a t i s f a c t i o n and I n s t r u c t i o n a l D i f f i c u l t i e s su b s ca les. As a s t a t i s t i c a l t o o l , ANOVA allows comparison of i n t e r - and i n tr a - g r o u p means and v a r i a n c e s . When th e r a t i o of i n te r - g r o u p v ariance exceeds ex tra -gro up variance by a s p e c i f i e d margin, the sub­ group means a r e judged t o d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from each o th e r . The ANOVA program, as w r i t t e n f o r the S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r the Social Sciences (SPSS) was s u i t a b l e f o r use in t h i s study. According 101 to Nie e t a l . (1975, p. 400), the ANOVA program i s equipped to accommo­ date nonmanipulative v a r i a b l e s , designs t h a t a re not e xp erim ental, and designs with unequal c e l l freq u e n cie s. Data from the a t t i t u d i n a l measures were a ls o subjected t o formal means of a n a l y s i s . Subgroup means f o r each of the Po s itio n S a t i s ­ f a c t i o n and I n s t r u c t i o n a l D i f f i c u l t i e s s c a l e items ( t h e r e were 40 of one and 56 of the o t h e r ) were rank-ordered independently. The P o s itio n S a t i s f a c t i o n s c a l e range was p a r t i t i o n e d to permit i d e n t i f i ­ c a t io n of a s e t of items from which f a c u l t y may deri ve " g r e a t e r " s a t i s ­ f a c t i o n , and a second s e t of items from which f a c u l t y may deri ve "lesser" sa tis fa c tio n . In a d d i t i o n , a marginal zone was e s t a b l i s h e d on e i t h e r s id e of the l i n e o f demarcation to f u r t h e r i d e n t i f y items only marginally c l a s s i f i e d . The I n s t r u c t i o n a l D i f f i c u l t i e s s c a l e range, on the o t h e r hand, was p a r t i t i o n e d to form t h ree c a t e g o r i e s . I t was thus p o s s ib l e to i d e n t i f y items which f a c u l t y considered "most troublesome," "of moderate t r o u b le ," and "of l i t t l e t r o u b le " in performing t h e i r i n s t r u c t i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . Subgroup l i s t s were then compared, and commonalities as well as d i s s i m i l a r i t i e s noted. Written comments, c o n tr i b u te d by f a c u l t y in response to the t h r e e open-ended questions appended to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , were summarized. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA In t h i s se c t i o n the r e s u l t s of fo ur s e t s of d e s c r i p t i v e analyses are re po rte d . The analyse s were designed with d i f f e r e n t o b j e c ti v e s in mind, and each i s presented in a s e p a r a te p a r t . The a n a l y s i s of the nominal and continuous v a r i a b l e s of the q u e s t io n n a ir e i s reported in p a r t I of t h i s s e c t i o n . These items a re organized t o p i c a l l y and the d i s t r i b u t i o n s c r o s s - t a b u l a t e d by employment subgroup. Faculty are described demographically, e x p e r i e n t i a l l y , p r o f e s s i o n a l l y , func ­ t i o n a l l y , and a t t i t u d i n a l l y . D e t a i ls accompanying each c r o s s ­ ta b u l a t i o n can be read to determine the standing of the f a c u l t y as a whole and each of t h e t h r e e employment subgroups. In p a r t II the individual items comprising the two a d d itio n a l measures in the q u e s t io n n a ir e a re provided with employment subgroup means, and then assigned to a categorically-named l i s t according to those means. The l i s t s a r e compared and s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s between th e employment subgroup l i s t s a r e enumerated. The objec ­ t i v e was to i d e n t i f y , by subgroup, th e environmental items from which f a c u l t y d e ri v e the most and the l e a s t p o s i t i o n s a t i s f a c t i o n , and to i d e n t i f y the items posing t h e g r e a t e s t problems t o f a c u l t y in per­ forming t h e i r i n s t r u c t i o n a l d u t i e s . Also appended to t h i s r e p o r t a re d i s t r i b u t i o n a l an aly ses f o r each a t t i t u d i n a l measure, and an a n a l y s i s of P o s i ti o n S a t i s f a c t i o n items which more than 20% of cases r a t e d as "not a p p l i c a b l e . " 102 103 Dimensional analyse s f o r the a t t i t u d i n a l measures a r e reported in p a r t I I I . The e i g h t a t t i t u d i n a l s u b s c a le s, derived by f a c t o r a n a l y s i s , served as dependent v a r i a b le s f o r analyses of v ariance. The o b j e c ti v e s in t h i s p a r t were to i n t e r p r e t the d i r e c t i o n and ordering of subgroup subscale means and determine which, i f any, of th e subgroup means d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y . F i n a l l y , p a r t IV con ta in s a summary of comments received in response to the t h r e e open-ended questions appended t o the ques­ tionnaire. The primary o b j e c ti v e in t h i s p a r t was to p res en t the advice f a c u l t y members wished to convey to prosp ective community co lleg e music i n s t r u c t o r s . Desc riptors of Respondents Breakdown by Employment Statu s Employment s t a t u s . Three-q uarters o f a l l music f a c u l t y who responded to the survey were employed on a p a r t - t im e b a sis (see Table 4 . 1 ) . TABLE 4 . 1 . — I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of F u ll-tim e and P a rt-tim e Employment Statu s S tatu s n % of Sample Full time 31 25 P a r t time 91 75 J1L 122 — (U n id e n tif ia b le ) TOTAL 100$ 104 D i s t r i b u t i o n of f a c u l t y within the p a r t - t im e r a n k s . Less than 30% of a l l p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y responding t o the survey were employed s o l e ly to teach p r i v a t e music les so n s. More than 70% o f p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y were assigned general teaching r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s (see Table 4 . 2 ) . TABLE 4 . 2 . —I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of Part-tim e Subgroup Statu s S tatu s n %.of.Sample P r i v a te les sons only 25 27.5 General r e s p o n s i b i l i t e s 66 72.5 91 100.0 TOTAL D i s t r i b u t i o n of f a c u l t y within the f u l l - t i m e r a n k s . Virtually a l l f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y were assigned general or m u lt i p le teaching responsibilities. No f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y were employed to teach p r i v a t e music l e s s o n s , as many are a t the se n io r co lleg e s (see Table 4 . 3 ) . TABLE 4 . 3 . —I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of F ull-tim e Subgroup S tatu s Sta tu s n P r iv a te les sons only 0 0.0 Administrative d u t ie s only3 1 3.3 30 96.7 31 100.0 General r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s TOTAL % of Subgroup a0mitted from c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n s re q u i r i n g i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of subgroup s t a t u s . 105 C o n stitu tio n of the f a c u l t y as a whole. P a r t- tim e general f a c u l t y c o n s t i t u t e d the m ajo rity o f a l l music f a c u l t y responding to the q u e s t io n n a ir e (see Table 4 . 4 ) . TABLE 4 . 4 . —Breakdown o f Sample by Faculty Subgroup S tatu s n Full time general 24.8 Part time general 30 66 P a rt time applied 25 20.7 121 100.0 TOTAL % of Sample 54.5 Demographic Desc rip tors Sex. More males than females taug h t music within the Michigan community c o ll e g e s . The v a s t m ajority of female i n s t r u c t o r s were employed on a p a rt - t im e b a s i s (see Table 4 . 5 ) . TABLE 4 . 5 . —D i s t r i b u t i o n of Gender by S t a tu s Females (n = 43) Males (n = 72) Full time 6.3% 38.9% P a r t time 93.7% 61.1% TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% Statu s Although th e sexes were d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y repre se n te d between f u l l - t i m e and p a r t - t im e s t a t u s , the proportion of male to female 106 i n s t r u c t o r s was more evenly balanced. In f a c t , a m ajo rity of p a r t - time ap p lied tea che rs a r e female (see Table 4 . 6 ) . TABLE 4 . 6 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n of Gender Across Subgroups Descriptor General D istribution % (N = 119) Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n Full time o. P a rt-tim e General % P a rt-tim e Applied % Female 40.3 10.0 46.9 60.0 Male 59.7 90.0 53.1 40.0 V = .373 Raw c h i- s q u a r e = 1 6 .6 2 5 Sig n ific an c e = .0002 Age. Faculty members ranged between 21 and 64 y e ars of age. The average i n s t r u c t o r was almost 38 y e ars o l d . A m ajo rity of the f a c u l t y (52%) f e l l between the ages of 26 and 37 (see Table 4 . 7 ) . TABLE 4 . 7 . --Age: Central Tendencies f o r the Sample Parameter Value Mean 37.838 Mode 28.000 Minimum 21.000 SD 10.265 Maximum 64.000 Median 35.200 F u ll-tim e f a c u l t y tended t o be o l d e r than p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y . More than 79% of f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y were over the age of 36. average f u l l - t i m e i n s t r u c t o r was 45 y e a r s o l d . The In c o n t r a s t , only 107 38% of p a rt - t i m e f a c u l t y were over th e age of 36, with th e average age 36. P a r t- tim e general f a c u l t y d i f f e r e d minimally from p a r t - time a p p lied f a c u l t y in terms o f mean age (see Table 4 . 8 ) . TABLE 4 . 8 . —Age: Breakdown by Subgroup9 X Full time 45.000 P a r t time general P a r t time a pp lied Sample S.D. n 29 34.967 9.7505 9.1149 62 36.625 10.0987 24 37.843 10.3064 115 F = 11.3029 df = (2,114) Sig. = .0000 Locale of c o l l e g e . The l o c a t i o n o f a community c o lle g e t o some degree influenced the o v e ra ll composition of i t s music f a c u l t y . For example, both r u r a l and suburban c o lle g e s r e l i e d heavily on p a r t - t im e general s t a f f . P a r t- tim e general i n s t r u c t o r s , however, c o n s t i t u t e d a l e s s e r propor tion of music i n s t r u c t o r s a t urban community c o l l e g e s . Urban c o lle g e s employed a g r e a t e r proportion of both f u l l - t i m e and p a r t - t im e a pp lied f a c u l t y . In f a c t , in the urban community c o l l e g e , f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y were found in g r e a t e s t supply, although a t no loca le did they c o n s t i t u t e a m a jo r ity of the music f a c u l t y employed (see Table 4 . 9 ) . Regarding the within-subgroup d i s t r i b u t i o n , one f i n d s t h a t an a p p re cia b le number o f both p a r t - t im e general and p a r t - t im e a pp lied 108 TABLE 4 . 9 . —S t a f f in g P a t te r n s : Urban Breakdown by Locale Full Time (N = 30) Part-Time General (N = 66) Part-Time Applied (N = 25) 45.5% 27.3% 27.3% Suburban 19.4% 61.3% 19.4% Rural 11.5% 73.1% 15.4% s t a f f were employed a t suburban community c o l l e g e s , which employ a m ajority o f music f a c u l t y (51.2%). The urban c o l l e g e s , however, provided employment f o r h a l f of a l l f u l l - t i m e music i n s t r u c t o r s considered in t h i s study. Urban c olleges a l s o employed a s i z a b l e proportion of a l l c u r r e n t l y working p a rt-tim e applied f a c u l t y . A sm aller proportion of members from a l l subgroups found employment a t rural c o lleg e s (see Table 4 .1 0 ) . TABLE 4 . 1 0 . —S t a f f i n g P a t te r n s : D e scrip tor General Distribution % (N = 121) Breakdown by Subgroups Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n Full time% Part-tim e General % Part -tim e Applied % Urban 27.3 50.0 13.6 36.0 Suburban 51.2 40.0 57.6 48.0 Rural 21.5 10.0 28.8 16.0 V = .257 raw ch i- sq u are = 16.017 Sig n ific an c e = .0030 109 Experiential Desc riptors Number o f ye ars on the j o b . Fu ll-tim e f a c u l t y members tended to have been employed longer than had p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y . On the average, f u l l - t i m e s t a f f members had been a t work f o r 12 y e a r s , between two and t h r e e times longer than had p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y . A larg e portion of the group (45%), composed mainly of p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y , had been employed between one and t h r e e ye ars (see Tables 4.11 and 4 .1 2). TABLE 4 . 1 1 . —Years in Current P o s i ti o n : the Sample Central Tendencies of Parameter Value Mean 6.336 S.D. Mode 2.000 Maximum 33.000 Minimum 1.000 Median TABLE 4 . 1 2 . —Years in Current Positio n : .484 4.643 Breakdown by Subgroups S.D. n 12.066 6.0226 Part time General 4.015 3.1499 30 65 P a rt time Applied 5.160 3.6592 25 6.266 5.3275 120 X Full time SAMPLE F = 39.8870 df = (2,119) Sig. = .0000 110 Total teaching e x p e r ie n c e . Fu ll-tim e f a c u l t y in t h i s survey had tau g h t longer than had p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y . The average f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y member had tau g h t f o r about 20 y e a r s . In comparison, p a r t - time f a c u l t y had ta u g h t , on the average, f o r about 11 y e a r s . Of the f a c u l t y 50% had taught f o r l e s s than 11 years (see Tables 4.13 and 4 .1 4). TABLE 4 . 1 3 . —Total Teaching Experience: the Sample Parameter Central Tendencies of Value Mean 13.521 Mode 5.000 Maximum 50.000 Minimum 1.000 Median S.D. 9.798 10.438 TABLE 4 . 1 4 . —Total Teaching Experience: Breakdown by Subgroups X S.D. N Full time 20.200 8.5879 30 P a r t time General 11.453 9.8689 64 P a rt time Applied 10.760 7.2243 25 13.512 9.7987 119 SAMPLE F = 10.9734 df - (2, 118) Sig. = .0000 Academic c r e d e n t i a l i n g . A m ajority of community c o lle g e music i n s t r u c t o r s (52.1%) held a m a s t e r 's degree as t h e i r h i g h e s t c r e d e n t i a l . I ll Moreover, i t was found t h a t 6.6% of th e f a c u l t y had earned a d o c t o r a t e , t h a t n e arly o n e - t h i r d o f a l l f a c u l t y members held a b a c h e l o r 's degree as t h e i r h ig h e s t c r e d e n t i a l , and t h a t 8.3% of the f a c u l t y were te a c h ­ ing without a degree. Notable d i f f e r e n c e s appeared between f a c u l t y subgroups re ga rd­ ing the degrees they he ld . Fu ll-tim e f a c u l t y held a higher percentage of doctoral and m a s t e r 's degrees than did p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y . None of the f u l l - t i m e i n s t r u c t o r s report ed holding a degree lower than the m a s t e r ' s . Unlike o t h e r f a c u l t y , members of th e p a r t - t im e general s t a f f a r e r ep re se nte d across the spectrum of degrees. in f a c t , f o r a l l those teaching without a degree. They accounted, Like p a r t - t im e general f a c u l t y , a s i z a b l e p o rtio n of the applied s t a f f held a b a c h e l o r 's degree as t h e i r h ig h e s t c r e d e n t i a l (see Table 4 . 1 5 ) . TABLE 4 . 1 5 . - -Academic Degrees Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n General Distribution % (N = 121 Full time % No Degree 8.3% 0.0 15.2 0.0 Associate .8% 0.0 1.5 0.0 31.4% 52.1% 0.0 40.9 44.0 83.3 37.9 52.0 6.6% 16.7 3.0 4 .0 .8% 0.0 1.5 0.0 Desc rip tor Bachelor's M aster's Doctorate Other V = .390 raw ch i-s q u are = 36.893 s i g . = .0001 P a rt-tim e General % Pa rt-tim e Applied % 112 Current enrollment toward a d e g re e . Only a m inor ity of music f a c u l t y (13.3%) were c u r r e n t l y e n r o l l e d in a deg re e-gran tin g program. Fewer f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y than p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y were upgrading t h e i r credentials. Within the ranks of th e p a r t - t i m e f a c u l t y , the general f a c u l t y member was more l i k e l y than the a p p lied music t e a c h e r to be continuing h i s / h e r education (see Table 4 . 1 6 ) . TABLE 4 . 1 6 . —Current Enrollment Toward a Degree Desc riptors General D istribution % (N = 121) Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n Cull Full time oi/ P a rt-tim e Applied % Pa rt-tim et Genera1 Yes 13.3 3.3 18.5 12.0 No 86.7 96.7 81.5 88.0 V = .185 Raw c h i-s q u are = 4.113 Sig. = .1278 Community c o lle g e a tt e n d a n c e . One-quarter of a l l s t a f f members surveyed reported t h a t they had attended a community c o l l e g e . Those most l i k e l y t o have had t h i s experience were members of the p a rt - t im e general s t a f f . Least l i k e l y were members o f th e p a r t - t i m e app lied s t a f f (see Table 4 . 1 7 ) . Formal study of the community c o lle g e environment. Only 17% of the e n t i r e community c o lle g e f a c u l t y rep o rted having stud ied the fun ctio n and purpose o f the community c o ll e g e as an i n s t i t u t i o n . 113 TABLE 4 . 1 7 . —Community College Attendance De sc riptors General D istribution % (N = 120) Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n c .. n o/ time h P a r t- tim e General % Part-tim e Applied % Yes 25.0 16.7 35.4 83.3 No 75.0 8 .0 64.6 92.0 V = .269 raw c hi-square = 8.702 s i g . = .0129 P r o p o r tio n a lly more f u l l - t i m e than p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y i n d ic ate d they had undertaken such study sometime during t h e i r c a r e e r s (see Table 4 .1 8 ) . TABLE 4 . 1 8 . —Formal Study of the I n s t i t u t i o n Desc riptors General Distribution % (N = 117) Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n Full time % P a rt- tim e General % Pa rt -tim e Applied % Yes 17.1 26.7 14.5 12.0 No 82.9 73.3 85.5 88.0 V ='.151 Raw Chi-square = 2.688 Sig. = .2608 114 Performing a b i l i t i e s . Most community c o lleg e music f a c u l t y , as many as 85%, reported they had maintained t h e i r performance skills. The percentage of f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y who had not main­ tain ed t h e i r s k i l l s is s l i g h t l y g r e a t e r than t h a t report ed by p a rt - t im e general f a c u l t y . In t u r n , p a rt- tim e general f a c u l t y were more l i k e l y than a p p lied f a c u l t y to have allowed t h e i r s k i l l s to lap s e. Only 2.5% of the f a c u l t y i n d ic ate d they never had developed performing c a p a b i l i t i e s as can be seen in the following Table 4.19. TABLE 4 . 1 9 . —Performing A b i l i t i e s Subgropu D i s t r i b u t i o n Descriptors D i s t r i b u ti o n % (N = 120) Full time % P a r t time General % P art-tim e Applied % Yes 85.0 80.0 86.2 88.0 Not Pre se ntly 12.5 15.7 12.3 8.0 2.5 3.3 1.5 4.0 No V = .078 Raw c hi-square = 1.497 Sig'. = .8271 N = 120 Professional background. An overwhelming m ajo rity o f a l l f a c u l t y (90.1% reported they taught p r i v a t e l y . Of a l l the experiences 115 t h a t c o n trib u te d to p rep a ratio n of th ese community c o lle g e music i n s t r u c t o r s , none was so widely and uniformly shared as t h a t of p r i v a t e i n s t r u c t i o n (see Table 4 .20). TABLE 4 . 2 0 . —P r i v a te Teaching Experience Desc riptors General D istribution % (N = 121) Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n Part-tim e Applied % Full time % Yes 90.1 90.0 89.4 92.0 No 9.9 10.0 10.6 8 .0 V = .033 Raw ch i- sq u are = .138 Sig. = .9333 A f a r g r e a t e r proportion of f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y than e i t h e r p a r t time general or p a rt - t im e applied f a c u l t y in dic ate d they had taught a t the public school l e v e l s (see Table 4 .2 1 ) . TABLE 4 . 2 1 . —Public School Teaching Experience De sc riptors General D istribution % (N = 121) Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n Full time % P art-tim e General % Part-tim e Applied % Yes 45.5 80.0 36.4 28.0 No 54.5 20.0 63.6 72.0 V = .403 Raw ch i- square = 19.712 Sig. = . 0001 116 R e la tiv e ly few music f a c u l t y members report ed they had been employed in the music in d u s t r y . Members from the p a rt - t im e general subgroup were the most l i k e l y (22.7%) to have had t h i s experience (see Table 4 .22 ). TABLE 4 . 2 2 . --Music Ind ustry Experience De sc riptors General D istribution % (N = 121) Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n Full time % P art-tim e General % P a rt-tim e Applied % Yes 16.5 10.0 22.7 8.0 No 83.5 90.0 77.3 92.0 V = .183 Raw ch i- sq uare = 4.082 Sig. = .1298 More p a r t - t im e general f a c u l t y than o t h e r f a c u l t y had worked as commercial or s t u d io musicians. P art-tim e applied f a c u l t y e x h ib ited the l e a s t experience in t h i s area (see Table 4 . 2 3 ) . TABLE 4 . 2 3 . —Experience as a Commercial/Studio Musician General D esc riptors D istribution % ( N = 121) Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n Fu11 t,me 1 P a r t - ti m e General % Pa rt-tim e Applied * Yes 37.2 36.7 43.9 20.0 No 62.8 63.3 56.1 80.0 V = .191 Raw chi-square = 4.453 Sig. = .1079 117 Three o f every ten i n s t r u c t o r s had served as a teaching a s s i s t a n t during t h e i r c o ll e g e educa tion. Fewer p a r t - t im e general f a c u l t y than o th er f a c u l t y in d ic a t e d they had served in t h i s c ap a city (see Table 4 . 2 4 ) . TABLE 4 . 2 4 . —Experience as a Graduate Teaching A s s i s t a n t Desc riptors Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n General Distribution % (N = 121) Full time % Pa rt-tim e General % P a r t- tim e Applied % Yes 30.6 40.0 22.7 40.0 No 69.4 60.0 77.3 60.0 V = .186 Raw c hi- s q u a r e = 4.216 Sig. = .1215 Nearly h a l f o f a l l music f a c u l t y report ed they had served in some o t h e r p ro fes sio n al c a p a c i t y . Some were church musicians: others were e i t h e r composers o r o r c h e s t r a l i n s t r u m e n t a l i s t s (see Table 4 .2 5 ) . TABLE 4 . 2 5 . —Other Musical Experience General Desc rip tors Distribution % ( N - 121) Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n Full t l m t Part-timp Z IT t Part-timp Yes 46.3 46.7 45.5 48.0 No 53.7 53.3 54.5 52.0 V = .020 Raw chi-square = .049 Sig. = .9755 118 Information p e r t a in i n g to the professional experiences of community c o lle g e music f a c u l t y i s summarized in Tables 4.26 and 4.27. TABLE 4 . 2 6 . —Summary of Profess iona l Experience P a t te r n s f o r the Sample % of Sample Desc rip tor 90.1 P r i v a t e teaching 46.3 Other musical experience 45.5 Public school teaching 37.2 Commercial/Studio musician 30.6 Graduate a s s i s t a n t 16.5 Music ind u stry Concurrent employment. Of the f a c u l t y surveyed, 70% ind ic ate d they held another job co ncu rrent with t h e i r community c o ll e g e p o si­ tion. I t could not be determined, however, i f respondents depended on t h e i r noncollege p o s i t i o n to supply the m ajo rity of t h e i r income. Nevertheless, p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y were more l i k e l y than f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y to r e p o r t they held another p o s i t i o n of any s o r t (see Table 4 .28 ). Regional r e c r u i t m e n t . Three of every ten music i n s t r u c t o r s i n d i ­ cated they had been new to the community when they f i r s t accepted th e i r positions. Fewer p a rt - t im e general f a c u l t y than o th e r s had been r e c u r i t e d from o u t s i d e t h e i r s c h o o l 's community (see Table 4 . 2 9 ) . 119 TABLE 4 . 2 7 . —Summary o f Professional Experience P a t te r n s by Subgroup Percent Desc riptor Fu ll-tim e Faculty 90.0 80.0 46.7 40.0 36.7 10.0 P r i v a te teaching Public school teaching Other experience Graduate a s s i s t a n t Commercial musician Music industry Pa rt-tim e General 89.4 45.5 43.9 36.4 22.7 22.7 P r i v a te teaching Other experience Commercial musician Public school teaching Graduate a s s i s t a n t Music industry Pa rt-tim e Applied 92.0 48.0 40.0 28.0 20.0 8.0 P r i v a te teaching Other experience Graduate a s s i s t a n t Public school teaching Commercial musician Music indust ry 120 TABLE 4.2 8.—Concurrent Employment Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n Desc riptors D istribution % (N = 120) Full time % P a rt-tim e General % Pa rt-tim e Applied % Yes, in Music 65.6 26.7 78.5 79.2 Yes, Nonmusic 5.0 0 6.2 8.3 29.4 73.3 15.4 12.5 No V = .398 Raw c h i-square = 37.798 Sig. = .0000 TABLE 4 . 2 9 . —Source of Regional Recruitment General D esc riptors Distribution * (N - 120) Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n Full time i P a r t - ti m e General % Pa rt-tim e Appl1ed % Yes 30.0 48.3 18.2 40.0 No 70.0 51.7 81.8 60.0 V = .291 Raw c hi- squ are = 10.192 Sig. = .0061 121 Professiona l De sc riptors Academic rank. Only 9% of the t o t a l f a c u l t y were accorded pro­ f e s s o r i a l rank, and v i r t u a l l y a l l were f u l l - t i m e s t a f f members. Even among f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y , however, academic rank has not been conferred th a t frequently. Only 30% of a l l f u l l - t i m e s t a f f has. been accorded rank; many (46.7%) were r e f e r r e d to simply as " i n s t r u c t o r s , " while some (23.3%) acknowledged t h a t t h e i r c o lleg e bestowed no academic rank a t a l l . Of a l l p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y surveyed (but no f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y ) 28% r e f e r r e d t o themselves as "adjunct" or off-campus instructors. No one claimed to hold the rank of " a s s o c ia t e professo r" (see Table 4 .30). TABLE 4 . 3 0 . - -Academic Rank Descriptors Generali D istribution % (N = 121) Subgroup D is t r i b u ti o n Pa rt-tim e Applied % Full Time % Prof ess or 6.6 23.3 1.5 0.0 Associate Profess or 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Assistant Pro fess or 2.5 6.7 1.5 0.0 Instructor 60.3 46.7 68.2 56.0 Adjunct • Instructor 21.5 0.0 22.7 44.0 9.1 23.3 6.1 0.0 Other or No Rank V = .424 Raw chi-square = 43.626 Sig. = .0000 122 Tenure. were tenur ed. V i r t u a l l y a l l of the f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y surveyed (90%) The f a c t t h a t a few p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y rep o rted they held tenure i n d i c a t e s t h a t a t l e a s t one community c o lle g e had implemented some s o r t o f ten u re system f o r p a r t - t im e employees (see Table 4 .3 1 ) . TABLE 4 . 3 1 . —Tenure Desc riptors General D istribution % (N = 119) Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n Full time % P a rt-tim e General % P a rt-tim e Applied % Yes 26.9 90.0 6.3 : 4. o No 73.1 10.0 93.8 95.0 V = .826 Raw ch i- sq u are = 81.308 Sig. = .0000 Functional Desc riptor s Number of hours t a u g h t . A m ajo rity of f u l l - t i m e i n s t r u c t o r s (80%) tau g h t between 15 and 20 hours per week, f o r an average of nearly 18 hours per week. The mean number of hours tau g h t by p a r t - time general f a c u l t y was 8 . 4 , and f o r p a r t - t im e applied f a c u l t y , 6.4 hours per week. Both o f th e p a r t - t i m e subgroups e x h ib ite d a standard d e v ia tio n o f 6 .3 h o urs, which i n d ic ate d t h a t some p a r t time f a c u l t y did very l i t t l e teaching f o r t h e i r c o ll e g e while oth ers were car rying the e q u iv a le n t o f a f u l l - t i m e load. Approximately 20% of a l l p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y tau g h t 15 hours or more each week (see Table 4 . 3 2 ) . 123 TABLE 4 . 3 2 . —Number of Hours Taught x S.D. N 17.866 3.6173 30 Pa rt-tim e General 8.393 6.3411 61 Pa rt-tim e Applied 6.434 6.2728 23 10.491 7.2481 114 Full time Sample F = 34.5778 df = (2, 113) Sig. = .0000 Music a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . Of a l l f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y surveyed, 40% in d ic ate d they had served as the music a d m i n i s t r a t o r f o r t h e i r program. The 10% of p a r t - t im e general f a c u l t y who claimed to serve in t h i s c a p a c i t y , however, accounted f o r more than o n e -t h i r d of a l l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s (see Table 4 . 3 3 ) . TABLE 4 . 3 3 . —Music Administrators General De sc riptors Distribution % ________________( N - 1 2 D Subgroup Full time % Distribution Part-tim e * * * "■ Part-time P art.t^ e Yes 15.7 40.0 10.6 0 No 84.3 60.0 89.4 100.0 F = .399 Raw c h i- s q u a r e = 19.332 Sig. = .0001 124 Where they t a u g h t . undertaken both on Community c o lle g e music i n s t r u c t i o n i s and o f f campus. In t h i s survey, most f a c u l t y (74%) reported teaching s o l e l y on campus, although about 9% of the f a c u l t y in d ic ate d they tau g ht both on and o f f campus. A major­ i t y of pa rt- tim e applied f a c u l t y (52%) taught s o l e ly o f f campus (see Table 4 .34 ). TABLE 4 . 3 4 . - - P l a c e of I n s t r u c t i o n Desc riptors General D istribution % (N = 120) Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n Full i-un timp time o/ h pa r t - t i m e% General Pa prt-tim Ap i ied e% On Campus 74.2 93.3 78.5 40.0 Off Campus 16.7 0 10.8 52.0 6.7 10.8 8. 0 On & Off Campus 9.2 V = .359 Raw c hi-square = 31.089 Sig = .0000 When they t a u g h t . Community colleg e music i n s t r u c t i o n was offered a t va rious times: during the weekend. during the day, the evening, and even Full-tim e f a c u l t y were most often (73%) required to teach both day and evening courses. In c o n t r a s t , about h a l f of a l l p a rt-tim e f a c u l t y taught s o l e l y during the day. A m inor ity of p a rt-tim e f a c u l t y (but no f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y ) reported working even­ ings only, weekends, and a t a l l times (see Table 4 .3 5 ) . 125 TABLE 4.3 5.—Times o f In s tru c tio n Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n Desc riptors D istribution % (N = 121) Full time % Pa rt-tim e General % P a rt-tim e Applied % Only Days 43.8 26.7 50.0 48.0 Only Evenings 13.2 0.0 18.2 16.0 2.5 0.0 1.5 8.0 37.2 73.3 28.8 16.0 3.3 0.0 1.5 12.0 Weekends Days & Week­ ends All times V = .376 Raw c hi-square = 34.252 Sig. = .000 Who they t a u g h t . A m ajo rity of i n s t r u c t o r s came i n to c o n ta c t with music majors, general nonmusic s t u d e n ts , and avocational or occasional music s t u d e n ts . Fewer i n s t r u c t o r s reported teaching commercial-music s t u d e n t s , those who were t r a i n i n g to e n te r the popu­ l a r music f i e l d immediately upon graduatio n. In g e n e r a l , f u l l - t i m e i n s t r u c t o r s were more f a m i l i a r with the range of st ud en ts e n r o l l e d in t h e i r c o lleg e s than were members of the o t h e r employment subgroups. P a r t - ti m e applied f a c u l t y , espe­ c i a l l y had l im i te d c o n ta c t with nonmusic majors (see Table 4 . 3 6 ) . What they t a u g h t . Applied music was fr e q u e n tly taught by f u l l ­ time and p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y a l i k e . P r i v a te instrumental lesso ns (including piano les so n s) were tau gh t by about h a l f of a l l respond­ en ts (see Table 4 .3 7). 126 TABLE 4 . 3 6 . —Kinds of Students Taught Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n De sc riptors D istribution % (N = 121) Full time % Pa rt-tim e General % P art-tim e Applied % Music Majors 71.9 86.7 65.2 72.0 General Students 76.9* 96.7 75.8 56.0 Avocational Students 71.9 76.7 75.8 56.0 Commercial Music Students 33.9* 50.0 37.9 4.0 9.1 10.0 9.1 8.0 Other Students ♦S ignificance of X2 < .01. TABLE 4 . 3 7 . - -Applied Instrumental Lessons Descriptors General Distribution % (N = 121) Subgroup Full time % Distribution P a rt-tim e General % P a rt-tim e Applied % Yes 51.2 43.3 53.0 56.0 No 48.8 56.7 47.0 44.0 V = .093 Raw c h i- sq u are = 1.062 Sig. = .5880 P r i v a te voice lesso ns were taught by l e s s than o n e - t h i r d of respondents (see Table 4 .3 8 ). TABLE 4 . 3 8 . —Applied Vocal Lessons Descri ptors General D istribution % (N = 121) Yes 27.3 No 72.7 Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n Full time % 16.7 83.3 P a r t- tim e General % P a r t- tim e Applied % 25.8 44.0 74.2 56.0 V = .209 Raw ch i- sq u are = 5.304 Sig. - .0705 Approximately 57% of both f u l l - and p a r t - t im e general f a c u l t y taught group les sons in a classroom s e t t i n g (see Table 4 . 3 9 ) . TABLE 4 . 3 9 . —Class Applied I n s t r u c t i o n General D e scriptors Distribution X ( N ’ 96) Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n Ful1 time 1 P a rt-tim e General % P a r t- tim e Applied % Yes 57.3 56.7 57.6 0.0 No 42.7 43.3 42.4 0.0 Phi = .008 Corrected chi square = 0 . 0 Sig. = 1.0000 128 Music theory and e a r t r a i n i n g were the most fr e q u e n t academic music courses within the Michigan community c o l l e g e s . More than h a l f of a l l f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y and n e arly o n e -q u a rter of a l l p a r t - t im e general f a c u l t y taught thes e courses (see Table 4 . 4 0 ) . TABLE 4 . 4 0 . —Music Theory and Ear Training Desc rip tors General D istribution % (N = 96) Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n Full time % Part-timp * * * “ P a rt-tim e Applied % Yes 35.4 60.0 24.2 0.0 No 64.6 40.0 75.8 0.0 Phi = .346 Corrected ch i-s q u are = 10.018 Sig. = .0016 Music a p p r e c i a ti o n was another f r eq u e n t academic music course. As with music th e o r y , music a p p r e c i a ti o n was tau g h t more by f u l l ­ time f a c u l t y than by p a r t - t i m e general f a c u l t y . I t was one of the few courses tau gh t by more than h a l f of a l l f u l l - t i m e s t a f f members surveyed (see Table 4 .4 1 ) . Music h i s t o r y courses were taught by a r e l a t i v e l y small portio n o f the respondents. That p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y were employed t o teach music h i s t o r y a t a l l suggests t h a t they were used to supplant r a t h e r than supplement f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y in t h i s a re a (see Table 4 . 4 2 ) . A s c h o o l 's music fundamentals course f o r elementary education majors was u su a lly tau g h t by a f u l l - t i m e i n s t r u c t o r . One in t h r e e f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y were assigned to t h i s area (see Table 4 . 4 3 ) . 129 TABLE 4.41.--Music Appreciation General D esc riptors Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n Distribution % tm“ 96^ +-!m«c/ Ful1 time % Da . . . P a rt-tim e General % Daw. . . Pa rt-tim e Applied % Yes 30.2 63.3 15.2 0.0 No 69.8 35.7 84.8 0.0 Phi = .486 Corrected c hi-s q uare ■ 20.482 Sig. - .0000 TABLE 4 . 4 2 . —Music History Desc riptors General D istribution % (N = 96) Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n c ..n o. h P a r t-tim e general % Pa rt-tim e Applied % Yes 15.6 20.0 13.6 0.0 No 84.4 80.0 86.4 0.0 Phi = .081 Corrected ch i- sq uare = .242 Sig. = .6222 TABLE 4 . 4 3 . —Music f o r Education Majors Descriptors General Distribution % (N = 96) Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n o/ Full time /o Pa rt-tim e General o/o Part-tim e Applied % Yes 13.5 33.3 4.5 0.0 No 85.5 66.7 95.5 0.0 Phi - .389 Corrected ch i- sq uare = 12.244 Sig. = .0005 130 A unique a t t r i b u t e o f the community colleg e music program has been the in clu sio n of music i n d u s t r y - o r ie n te d courses into i t s curriculum. Only 3.1% of the e n t i r e f a c u l t y , however, reported teaching th ese courses; of th ese few, a l l were p a rt - t im e general f a c u l t y members (see Table 4 .4 4 ) . TABLE 4 . 4 4 . —Music B u sine ss/In du stry Courses Desc riptors General D istribution % /ki _ q £ \ ' 96' Subgroup D i s t r i b u ti o n Dav,+ + . _ D_„+ Q C i i i i + •?m n oj Psrt"timG P9rt“tiniG Ful1 t7me Jo General % Applied % Yes 3.1 0.0 4.5 0.0 No 96.9 100.0 95.5 0.0 Phi = .121 Corrected ch i-s q u are ■ .306 Sig. = .5798 Approximately t h r e e - q u a r t e r s of a l l f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y i nd ic ate d they were assigned to d i r e c t an ensemble. By comparison, l e s s than o n e -t h i r d of a l l p a r t - t im e general f a c u l t y claimed to hold res p o n s i ­ b i l i t i e s in t h i s a r e a . The s l i g h t in cre ase in the number of p a r t - time f a c u l t y assigned t o d i r e c t instrumental ensembles may be due to the in cre asin g number of n o n t r a d i ti o n a l instrumental ensembles, such as g u i t a r ensembles or ja z z bands (see Tables 4.45 and 4 .46 ). F u ll-tim e f a c u l t y were more l i k e l y than p a rt - t im e general f a c u l t y to have taught a course o t h e r than those l i s t e d on the q u e stio n n a ir e (see Table 4 .4 7 ) . 131 TABLE 4.45.—Conduct Vocal Ensemble General Desc riptors Subgroup D i s t r i b u ti o n D istribution % t " - 96) Part-timp £ * * ’« Part-timp Full time % Yes 20.8 40.0 12.1 0.0 No 79.2 60.0 87.9 0.0 Phi = .318 Corrected c h i- s q u a r e = 8.102 Sig. = .0044 TABLE 4 . 4 6 . —Conduct Instrumental Ensemble Desc riptors General D istribution % (N = 96) Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n r.m o. Full time A Part-tim e Generai % P a rt-tim e Applied % Yes 25.0 36.7 19.7 0.0 No 75.0 63.3 80.3 0.0 Phi = .181 Corrected c h i- s q u a r e = 2.327 Sig. = .1271 TABLE 4 . 4 7 . —Other Course Assignment Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n General D istribution % (N - 96) F u n time % Yes 12.5 30.0 4.5 0.0 No 87.5 70.0 95.5 0.0 Desc riptors Dav,+ + . Phi = .356 Corrected chi-square = 10.001 Sig. = .0016 Part -tim e Applied % 132 Summary of f a c u l t y course assginment info rm a ti o n. Information regarding f a c u l t y course assignments i s summarized in the following two t a b l e s . Table 4.48 conta in s a rank-ordering of the frequencies with which courses are assigned to f a c u l t y members and the p e rc e n t ­ ages o f s t a f f assigned to each s u b j e c t a re a. The f i g u r e s show t h a t the g r e a t e s t number of f a c u l t y were involved in teaching p r i v a t e or c l a s s applied music, and t h a t fewer were assigned to teach academic music courses. Table 4.49 co nta in s information about the apportionment of courses to f u l l - t i m e and p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y . The f i r s t course l i s t e d in the t a b l e u t i l i z e s th e g r e a t e s t number of f u l l - t i m e s t a f f in r e l a t i o n to p a r t - t im e s t a f f . Past the t a b l e ' s midpoint, p a r t - t im e s t a f f increases over f u l l - t i m e s t a f f . I t i s apparent t h a t p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y comprise the m ajo rity of those who tau g ht applied music and the minority of those who tau gh t s e l e c te d academic music co u rs es. C or r e la te s of course assignments. Music ad m in istato rs tend to teach music education (r^ = .58) and to d i r e c t a vocal ensemble (jr= .58). Tenured f a c u l t y a re a s s o c i a t e d with teaching music appre­ c i a t i o n (_r = .59). Music a p p re c i a ti o n teachers a re o ften assigned to teach t h e o r y / e a r t r a i n i n g ( r = .4 1 ) , a vocal ensemble ( r - .36) and music h i s t o r y ( r = .25 ). Instrumental ensemble t e a ch e rs are l i k e l y to teach p r i v a t e instrumental music lessons (jr = .36) and t h e o r y / e a r t r a i n i n g ( r = .20). Table 4 . 4 8 . —Rank Ordering of the Frequency with which Courses Are Assigned Number of Faculty Assigned t o the Course Descriptor Percentage of E n tire S t a f f 3 Rank Percentage of S t a f f Excluding Applied 0nlyb Rank 62 Applied instrumental 50.8 1 50.0 2 55 Class applied 45.1 2 57.3 1 34 Theory/ear t r a i n i n g 27.9 3 35.4 3 33 Applied voice 27.0 4 22.9 6 29 Music a ppre ciation 23.8 5 30.2 4 24 Instrumental ensemble 19.7 6 25.0 5 20 Vocal ensemble 16.4 7 20.8 7 15 Music h i s t o r y 12.3 8 15.6 8 13 Music f o r education Majors 10.7 9 13.5 9 "Other" music courses 9.8 10 12.5 10 Music b u s i n e ss/in d u str y 2.5 11 3.1 11 12 3 aN = 122 bN = 96 134 TABLE 4.4 9 .—Apportionment of Course Assignments Item # Full Time P a r t Time 1 76.9% 23.1% Music f o r education majors 11 75.0% 25.0% "Other" music courses 4 65.5% 34.5% Music a p p re c i a ti o n 9 60.0% 40.0 4 Vocal ensemble 2 52.9% 47.1% Theory/ear t r a i n i n g 10 3 45.8% 54.2% Instrumental ensemble 40.0% 60.0% Music h i s t o r y 8 30.9% 69.1% Class applied 7 6 21.0% 79.0% Applied instrumental 15.2% 84.8% Applied voice 5 0.0% 100.0% C o r r e la te s of course assignments. Descrip to r Music b u s i n e s s / i n d u s t r y Music a d m i n i s t r a t o r s tend to teach music education (jr = .58) and to d i r e c t a vocal ensemble (jr = .5 8). Tenured f a c u l t y are a sso c ia te d with teaching music app re­ c i a t i o n ( r = .59). Music a p p re c ia tio n teachers a re o ften assigned to teach t h e o r y / e a r t r a i n i n g (jr = .4 1 ) , a vocal ensemble (_r = .36) and music h i s t o r y ( r = .2 5 ). Instrumental ensemble t e a ch e rs a re l i k e l y t o teach, p r i v a t e instrumental music les sons (jr = .36) and t h e o r y / e a r t r a i n i n g (_r = .20)A t t i t u d i n a l D escrip tors Reasons why f a c u l t y members entered community c o ll e g e t e a c h i n g . Faculty were provided a s e t of p o s s ib le responses and asked to 135 i d e n t i f y a l l those t h a t would help explain why they chose to e n te r the p r o f es sio n . Fewer than t h r e e of every ten f a c u l t y members in d ic ate d they entered community c o lle g e te a c h in g , in p a r t , because they were prepared in c o lle g e to teach a t the j u n i o r c o ll e g e level (see Table 4 .5 0 ) . TABLE 4 . 5 0 . —Reason f o r Entry: Desc rip tor Yes General D istribution % (N = 121) 28.1 71.9 No Profess iona l Preparatio n Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n Full time % Pa rt-tim e General % Pa rt -tim e Applied % 26.7 27.3 32.0 73.3 72.7 68.0 V = .044 Raw ch i- sq u are = 0.241 Sig. = .8864 P r o p o r tio n a lly fewer f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y than p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y repor ted e n te r in g community c ollege t e a c h in g , in p a r t , because a f r i e n d or r e l a t i v e worked in the v i c i n i t y (see Table 4 .5 1 ) . Only p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y rep o rted they had entered community c o lle g e tea ch ing , in p a r t , to secure a second job (see Table 4 .5 2 ). Of a l l f a c u l t y surveyed, 14% in d ic ate d the d e s i r e to avoid public school teaching had influenced t h e i r decisio n t o e n t e r the p ro fes sio n . Full-tim e f a c u l t y were more l i k e l y to s e l e c t t h i s response than were p a r t - t i m e f a c u l t y (see Tabel 4 . 5 3 ) . 136 TABLE 4 . 5 1 . —Reason f o r Entry: V i c in ity Desc riptor General D istribution % (N = 121) Yes 19.8 No 80.2 R e la tiv e was Employed in the Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n cm v Full t i n e % 6.7 93.3 Pa rt-tim e% Genera1 25.8 74.2 Pa rt-tim e Applied % 20.0 80.0 V = .197 Raw c h i-square = 4.728 Sig. = .0940 TABLE 4 . 5 2 . - -Reason f o r Entry: De scriptor General D i s t r i b u ti o n % (N - 121) Needed a Second Job Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n +Ama o, Full time k Pa rt-tim e General % Pa rt-tim e Applied % Yes 33.9 0.0 48.5 36.0 No 66.1 100.0 51.5 64.0 V = .423 Raw chi-s quare = 21.705 Sig. = .0000 137 TABLE 4.5 3.—Reason fo r Entry: De scriptor To Avoid Public School Teaching Subgroup D i s t r i b u ti o n General D istribution % (N = 121) c „ n +imo <>/ Pa rt-tim e Pa rt-tim e General % Applied % Yes 14.0 23.3 12.1 8.0 No 86.0 76.7 87.9 92.0 V = .160 Raw c h i-square = 3.102 Sig. = .2120 Only p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y in d ic ate d they had entered community co llege teaching to use l e i s u r e time (see Table 4 .5 4 ) . TABLE 4 . 5 4 . —Reason f o r Entry: Descriptor General D istribution % (N = 121) To F i l l Leisure Time Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n c„n hjii o/ Pa rt-tim e time % P art-tim e General % Applied % Yes 10.7 0. 0 18.2 4.0 No 89.3 100.0 81.8 96.0 V = .266 Raw ch i- sq u are = 8.604 Sig. = .0135 More than 13% (13.2%) of a l l f a c u l t y repor ted they had entered community co lleg e teaching p a r t i a l l y f o r the p r e s t i g e a ttac h ed to the position. A somewhat g r e a t e r proportion of pa rt- tim e applied f a c u l t y members than o t h e r s found t h i s response a c c u ra t e l y described t h e i r f e e l i n g s (see Table 4 .5 5 ) . 138 TABLE 4.5 5 .--Reason fo r Entry: Desc rip tor General Distribution % (N = 121) For the Prestige Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n c..n Full time »t/ Pa rt-tim eo/g General Pa rt-tim e Applied % Yes 13.2 13.3 10.6 20.0 No 86.8 86.7 89.4 80.0 V = .107 Raw c h i-s qu are = 1.394 Sig. * .4979 Among a l l the res pondents, only a small minority o f p a r t - t im e general f a c u l t y in d ic a t e d they had ente red community c o ll e g e t e a c h ­ ing due to the u n a v a i l a b i l i t y of a public school teaching p o s i t io n (see Table 4 .56 ). TABLE 4 . 5 6 . —Reason f o r Entry: Po s itio n Desc rip tor Yes No General D istribution % (N = 121) 5.0 95.0 V = .208 Raw ch i-s q u are - 5.260 Sig. = .0720 U n a v a i l a b i l it y o f Public School Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n Full time % P a rt- tim e General % P a rt-tim e Applied % 0.0 9.1 0.0 100.0 90.9 100.0 139 A minority of a l l f a c u l t y (14%) reported they had ente red commu­ n i t y c ollege teaching due to th e u n a v a i l a b i l i t y of a s e n i o r c o lleg e p o s i t io n (see Table 4 . 5 7 ) . TABLE 4 . 5 7 . --Reason f o r Entry: Po s itio n Desc rip tor General Distribution % (N = 121) Yes 14.0 No 86.0 U n a v a i l a b i l it y of Senior College Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n Full time % Pa rt-tim e General % P a rt-tim e Applied % 16.7 83.3 13.6 12.0 86.4 88.0 V = .046 Raw c h i- s q u a r e = .266 Sig. = .8753 More p a r t - t i m e f a c u l t y than f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y in d ic a t e d they had entered the p rofes sion to gain teaching experience. This response was s e l e c t e d by a m ajority of p a rt - t im e general f a c u l t y (see Table 4 .5 8 ) . A m inor ity of a l l f a c u l t y (8.3%) reported they had obtained t h e i r p o s i t i o n s while completing a graduate degree (see Table 4 . 5 9 ) . Many res po ndents, a m ajo rity of f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y (63.3%) and a m in ori ty of p a r t - t i m e f a c u l t y (40%), i n d ic a te d they had entered community c o lle g e teaching f o r reasons o t h e r than those o f f e r e d to them f o r a p p r a i s a l . Faculty members noted t h a t they were a t t r a c t e d to community c o ll e g e teaching because i t was c o n s i s t e n t with t h e i r 140 TABLE 4.5 8.—Reason fo r Entry: Desc riptor General D istribution % (N = 121) To Gain Teaching Experience Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n c ,, n o/ Full Time k P a r t- tim e Generai % Pa rt-tim e Applied % Yes 45.5 26.7 56.1 40.0 No 54.5 73.3 43.9 60.0 V = .250 Raw ch i- sq u are = 7.565 Sig. = .0228 TABLE 4 . 5 9 . - -Reason f o r Entry: Degree D e scriptor General Distribution % (N = 121) Employment while Completing Graduate Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n c..n »/ r u n time a Pa rt-tim e General % Part-tim e Applied % Yes 8.3 6.7 9.1 8.0 No 91.7 93.3 90.9 92.0 V = .036 Raw c h i-s q u are = .162 Sig. - .9218 141 philosophy of education. Others in d ic a te d t h a t the p o s i t i o n was o ffered to them; they had not sought i t (see Table 4 .6 0 ) . TABLE 4 . 6 0 . —Reason f o r Entry: Other Factors Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n General D istribution % (N = 121) rFull „ n T. Time„ o/ I Pa rt-tim e% General Yes 45.5 63.3 39.4 40.0 No 54.5 36.7 60.6 60.0 Desc riptor Part-tim e Applied % V = .206 Raw c h i-square = 5.145 Sig. = . 0 7 6 3 Summary of reasons why f a c u l t y members entered community c ollege teaching. No s i n g l e reason f o r e n te r in g community c o ll e g e teaching was s e l e c te d by a m a jo r ity of the sample (see Table 4 . 6 1 ) . A m ajority of f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y (63.3%) reported t h a t they accepted t h e i r p o s i t i o n f o r reasons o t h e r than those o f f e r e d . About h a l f of a l l p a r t - t im e general f a c u l t y members in d ic ate d they entered community c o lle g e teaching to gain experience and to secure a second job. Many p a rt - t im e a p plied f a c u l t y (40%) ind ic ate d they entered the profe ssi on to gain teaching experience and f o r o t h e r reasons than those l i s t e d (see Table 4 . 6 2 ) . Job p r e f e r e n c e . Only a m in ority of f a c u l t y (16.3%) s p e c i f i e d "community c o lle g e teaching" as the p o s i t io n they would f i n d most attractive. Community c o ll e g e teaching was, however, the choice of 142 TABLE 4.61.—Rank-Ordering of Reasons fo r Entry in to Position Ranking f o r Entire Sample Descriptor Frequency with which Item was Selected 1.5 1.5 To gain teaching experience 45.5% "Other" reason ( " . . . t o be employed") 45.5% 3.0 Needed a second job 33.9% 4.0 Prepared to teach a t the j u n i o r co lleg e level 28.1% Spouse or r e l a t i v e was employed in the v i c i n i t y 19.8% To avoid having to teach a t the public school l e v e l s 14.0% No job openings a t the 4-year c olleg e o r u n i v e r s i t y l e v e l s 14.0 8.0 For the p r e s t i g e 13.2% 9.0 To f i l l in l e i s u r e time To be employed while f i n i s h i n g a graduate degree 10.7% 5.0 6.5 6.5 10.0 11.0 No job openings a t the public school l e v e l s 8.3% 5.0% 143 TABLE 4.62.—Ordering by Subgroup of Reasons fo r Entry in to Position Percent Desc rip tor F ull-tim e Faculty 63.3 26.7 26.7 23.3 16.7 13.3 6.7 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other reason Gain experience Preparation Avoid public school No se nio r co lleg e jobs P r e stig e In graduate school R ela tiv e in v i c i n i t y Second job Leisure time No public school jobs Pa rt-tim e General Faculty 56.1 48.5 39.4 27.3 25.8 18.2 13.6 12.1 10.6 9.1 9.1 • Gain experience Second job Other reason Preparation Re lative in v i c i n i t y Leisure time No se n io r c o lleg e jobs Avoid public school P r e stig e No public school jobs In graduate school P a rt-tim e Applied Faculty 40.0 40.0 36.0 32.0 20.0 20.0 12.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 0.0 Other reason Gain experience Second job Preparation Prestige Re la tive in v i c i n i t y No se n io r c o lleg e jobs Avoid public schools In graduate school Leisure time No public school jobs 144 a m ajority (55.2%) of f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y . An a d d it i o n a l 24% of f u l l ­ time f a c u l t y p r e f e r r e d to teach a t the f o u r - y e a r c o ll e g e l e v e l . Among p a r t - t i m e f a c u l t y , many in d ic a t e d a d e s i r e to teach p r i v a t e l y or perform. A p l u r a l i t y of p a rt - t im e applied f a c u l t y (45.8%), how­ e v e r , envisioned themselves as u n i v e r s i t y tea ch e rs (see Table 4 .6 3 ) . TABLE 4 . 6 3 . —Job Preference Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n Desc rip tor Distribution % (N = 118) Full Time % Pa rt-tim e General % P a rt-tim e Applied % Teaching Community College 26.3 55.2 21.5 4.2 University level 28.7 24.1 26.2 45.8 6.8 0.0 10.8 4.2 Public School Level Administration Community College University Level .8 3.4 0.0 0.0 1.7 3.4 1.5 0.0 P r i v a t e Teaching or Performance Other Music 32.2 13.8 36.9 41.7 3.1 4.2 Nonmusic Occupation Nonmusic 2.5 V = .355 R Chi Square = 29.895 Sig. = .0029 0.0 145 Professio nal a l l e g i a n c e . The v a s t m ajo rity of music i n s t r u c t o r s (93.2%) rep orted they owed t h e i r g r e a t e s t p ro fession al a l l e g i a n c e e i t h e r to t h e i r stu d e n ts (46.2%) or t o the d i s c i p l i n e of music (47%); not many respondents i d e n t i f i e d with e i t h e r the teaching p rofessio n or t h e i r c o l l e g e . R e la ti v e ly few f u l l - t i m e i n s t r u c t o r s (26.7%) were musicd i s c i p l i n e o r i e n t e d in comparison with p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y . Of a l l respondents, p a r t - t im e general f a c u l t y members were the l e a s t l i k e l y to r e p o r t they owed t h e i r g r e a t e s t professional a l l e g i a n c e t o t h e i r s tudents (see Table 4 . 6 4 ) . Student o r i e n t a t i o n was most highly c o r r e l a t e d with a t e a c h e r ' s having taught within the pu b lic schools ( r = .26). TABLE 4 . 6 4 . — Profess iona l Allegiance D esc riptor General Distribution % (N = 117) Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n 0/ Full Time h P a rt-tim e General % P a r t- tim e Applied % Teaching 4.3 10.0 3.2 0.0 College 2.6 3.3 3.2 0.0 Students 46.2 60.0 37.1 52.0 Music 47.0 26.7 56.5 48.0 When the "Teaching" and "Student" a l l e g i a n c e columns were combined, th e d i s t r i b u t i o n a t t a i n s s i g n i f i c a n c e (V = .247, £ < .0280). V = .213 Raw chi-square = 10.701 Sig. = .0981 146 P referred program o r i e n t a t i o n . Nearly h a l f of a l l i n s t r u c t o r s i nd ic ate d t h a t t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n s should serve the music major f i r s t and foremost. This a t t i t u d e was most r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of p a rt - t im e a p p lied tea ch e rs (69.6%) and l e a s t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of f u l l - t i m e t e a ch e rs (40.7%). Of the 17.1% of those who f e l t t h a t general s t u ­ dents deserve t h e i r program's primary c o n s i d e r a t i o n , f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y were most f u l l y represe nte d (29.6%) (see Table 4 .6 5 ) . TABLE 4 . 6 5 . —Pre ferre d Program O r ien ta tio n Desc rip tors General D istribution % (N = 105) Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n Full Time 0/ /0 P a r t - ti m e General % Pa rt-tim e Applied % 49.5 40.7 45.5 69.6 17.1 29.6 14.5 8.7 11.4 3.7 12.7 17.4 Commercial Music Students 10.5 11.1 12.7 4.3 Others 11.4 14.8 14.5 0.0 Music Majors General Students Avocational Students V = .246 Raw ch i- sq uare = 12.773 Sig. = .1199 Personal m o ti v a ti o n . When asked to d e scr ib e t h e i r p res en t motivational s t a t e , a m ajority of a l l music f a c u l t y (72.9%) in dic ated they were " excite d about te a c h in g ." Fewer i n s t r u c t o r s (16.1%), 147 mainly p a rt - t im e general f a c u l t y members, reported they were pre­ occupied with something o t h e r than teach in g . V i r t u a l l y none of the respondents reported being bored with hi s or her r o u t in e (see Table 4 .6 6 ) . TABLE 4 . 6 6 . —Motivational S t a te De sc riptors General D istribution % (N = 118) Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n Full time % P art-tim e General % Pa rt -tim e Applied % Excited 72.9 70.0 72.3 78.3 Preoccupied 16.1 10.0 21.5 8.7 Bored .8 3.3 0.0 0.0 Other 10.2 16.7 6.2 13.0 V = .186 Raw chi-square = 8.194 Sig. = .2242 Perception of teaching l o a d . A majority of f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y (50%) f e l t t h e i r teaching load was "heavy." By c o n t r a s t , a majority of both p a rt - t im e applied and pa rt- tim e general f a c u l t y (70.8% and 58.1%, r e s p e c t iv e ly ) considered t h e i r teaching load to be " l i g h t " (see Table 4 .6 7). Musical p r e f e r e n c e . Most community c o lleg e music f a c u l t y (78.5%) indic ated t h a t they value a r t music above a l l o t h e r types of music. Of a l l music f a c u l t y , p a rt - t im e applied i n s t r u c t o r s appeared t o have the most c a t h o li c o f musical p r efe ren c es , as 92% reported t h e i r 148 TABLE 4 . 6 7 . —Perception o f Teaching Load Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n Descriptors D istribution % (N = 116) Full time % Pa rt-tim e General % P a r t- tim e Applied I Heavy 25.9 50.0 22.6 4.2 Light 50.0 58.1 70.8 Other 24.1 16.7 33.3 19.4 25.0 V = .312> Raw chi- •square = 22.587 Sig. = . 0002 preference f o r a r t music. P art -tim e general f a c u l t y , on the oth er hand, displayed the most d iv ergent of musical t a s t e s . A si z e a b le proportion (13.6%) of the p a rt - t im e general s t a f f , f o r example, were unwilling to specify a p a r t i c u l a r musical preferenc e (see Table 4.68) TABLE 4 . 6 8 . - Musical Preference Descriptors General D istribution % (N = 121) Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n Full time % P a rt-tim e General % P a r t time Applied % 78.5 80.0 72.7 92.0 Pop .8 0.0 1.5 0.0 Folk .8 0.0 1.5 0.0 Jazz 8.3 10.0 7.6 8.0 Other 2.5 3.3 3.0 0.0 No Preference 9.1 6.7 13.6 0.0 Art Music V = .175 Raw c h i- sq uare = 7.440 Sig. = .6833 149 Future plan s. Whether or not i n s t r u c t o r s planned to s t a y in community co lleg e teaching was r e l a t e d to t h e i r employment s t a t u s . Most f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y (80%) in dic ate d they intended to s t a y in t h e i r present p o s i t i o n s . By c o n t r a s t , only one in t h r e e p a r t - t i m e f a c u l t y reported they intended to r e t a i n t h e i r s t a t u s . The m a jo r ity of p a r t - time f a c u l t y (approximately 50%) were u n c ertain of t h e i r f u t u r e pl ans. R e la tiv e ly few f a c u l t y members had d e f i n i t e l y decided to leave the profession (see Table 4 .6 9 ) . TABLE 4 . 6 9 . —Professiona l Plans De sc riptors General D istribution % (N = 120) Subgroup D i s t r i b u t i o n r , , n time io/ Full Pa rt-tim e Se|)sral Part-tim e Applied % Will Stay 47.5 80.0 36.9 36.0 Uncertain 40.8 16.7 47.7 52.0 Will Leave 11.7 3.3 15.4 12.0 V = .268 Raw chi square = 17.259 Sig. = .0017 Categoriz ation of Environmental Va riables Two a t t i t u d i n a l measures were incorporated within the body o f the q u e s t io n n a ir e . The f i r s t was a 40-item measure of p o s i t io n s a t i s f a c t i o n , and the second, a 56-item measure of i n s t r u c t i o n a l difficulties. This p a r t of the se c t i o n p res en ts d e s c r i p t i v e analyses of the manner in which f a c u l t y c l a s s i f i e d th ese environmental variables. 150 C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of P o sitio n S a t i s f a c t i o n Variables For each of the t h r e e employment subgroupings, the s e t of 40 P o s itio n S a t i s f a c t i o n item means were rank-ord ered . For t h i s procedure item means were c a l c u l a t e d excluding "not a p p li c a b l e " reponses and missing responses. Items with means eq u alli ng or exceeding "average s a t i s f a c t i o n , " "3.00" and above, were de signated as sources of " g r e a t e r s a t i s f a c t i o n " (see Appendix 6 ) . Items with means f a l l i n g below "average s a t i s f a c t i o n " were named as sources of " l e s s e r s a t i s ­ f a c t io n " (see Appendix 7). A comparison of th e t h r e e subgroup l i s t s in d ic a t e d t h a t (a) eleven items were i d e n t i f i e d by f a c u l t y in common as c o n s t i t u t i n g sources of g r e a t e r s a t i s f a c t i o n ; (b) f i f t e e n items were considered to be sources of g r e a t e r s a t i s f a c t i o n by only f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y ; (c) one item was considered a source of g r e a t e r s a t i s f a c t i o n by f u l l - t i m e and p a r t - t im e applied f a c u l t y , bu t not by p a r t - t im e general f a c u l t y ; (d) one item was considered a source of g r e a t e r s a t i s f a c t i o n by only p a r t - t im e ap p lied f a c u l t y ; and (e) s i x items we^e i d e n t i f i e d by f a c u l t y in common as sources of l e s s e r s a t i s f a c t i o n . These r e s u l t s a re d e t a i l e d in Table 4.70. Appendix 8 conta in s the d i s t r i b u t i o n of responses across each of the 40 P o s itio n S a t i s f a c t i o n items. This t a b l e includes "not a p p lica b le" responses. Further information regarding th e "not a p p li c a b l e " column appears in Appendix 9. This appendix provides a breakdown by subgroup of P o s itio n S a t i s f a c t i o n items which e l i c i t e d "not a p p lic a b le " responses 151 TABLE 4 . 7 0 . —Summary Table: Faculty Perception of P o s itio n Variables Items from which f a c u l t y in common derive g r e a t e r s a t i s f a c t i o n (rank ordered) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Academic freedom Congeniality of colleagues Scheduling freedom Personal c o n ta cts with department chairperson Competency of colleagues Courses taught Opportunities f o r o utside income Nearness to f r i e n d s and r e l a t i v e s Reputation o f schoolc Beauty of geographical region Performance f a c i l i t i e s a »c Items more s a t i s f y i n g to p a rt- tim e applied f a c u l t y only 1. Adequacy of group rehearsal f a c i l i t i e s ^ ) Items more s a t i s f y i n g to p a rt - t im e general f a c u l t y only None i d e n t i f i e d Items more s a t i s f y i n g to f u l l ­ time f a c u l t y and p a r t - t im e general f a c u l t y Teaching load h(cl Cultural o p p o r t u n it i e s ' ' Lecturinga Conducting* h/ % Administration of the department ' ' Quality of s t u d e n ts a »t> Items more s a t i s f y i n g t o f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y and p a r t - t im e a p p lied faculty 1. Adequacy of classroom f a c i l i t i e s 152 TABLE 4.70.—Continued Items more s a t i s f y i n g to p a r t time f a c u l t y only None i d e n t i f i e d Items more s a t i s f y i n g to f u l l ­ time f a c u l t y only (rank ordered) 1. Fringe b e n e f i t s 2. Job s e c u r i t y ... 3. P a r t i c i p a t i o n in job d e c i s i o n s ^ 4* 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Salary (bH c) D iv e rs ity o f teaching assignmentsv yv ' Adequacy of o f f i c e space Academic rank(b) Opportunities f o r pr ofes sional growth Future s a l a r y prospects Oppor tunities f o r pr ofes sional advancement Quality o f support se rv ice s Recital o p p o r tu n itie s # Nearness to graduate school3 (b H w Rotation of assignments# Climatea(b)(c) Items from which f a c u l t y members in common derive l e s s s a t i s f a c t i o n Adequacy of music l i b r a r y Low p r i o r i t y accorded to research Research o p p o r t u n it i e s Research f a c i l i t i e s . . Adequacy of p r a c t i c e f a c i l i t i e s ' 9 ' Faculty r e c i t a l demand a = Full-tim e f a c u l t y b = Pa rt-tim e general f a c u l t y c = Part-tim e a pp lied f a c u l t y Symbols by themselves i n d i c a t e "marginally more s a t i s f y i n g " Symbols enclosed within parentheses i n d i c a t e "marginally l e s s satisfying." 153 from more than 20% of the s u b j e c t s . Inspection of t h i s t a b l e r e v e a ls t h a t most "not ap plica b le" responses de rive from p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y , and t h a t the general d i r e c t i o n of the response i s c l e a r . Faculty members who employed o th e r than the "not ap plica b le" response found the m ajo rity o f items in t h i s appendix c o n trib u te d minimally t o t h e i r s a t i s f a c t i o n . Pa rt-tim e applied i n s t r u c t o r s found 13 of the 15 items to be sources of l e s s e r s a t i s f a c t i o n , while p a rt - t im e general i n s t r u c t o r s i d e n t i f i e d 11 items as sources of l e s s e r satisfaction. Full-tim e f a c u l t y l i s t e d f i v e of thes e items among the seven items they considered to be sources of l e s s e r s t a i s f a c t i o n . C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of I n s t r u c t i o n a l D i f f i c u l t i e s Variables Subgroup means were c la c u l a t e d f o r each of the 56 I n s t r u c t i o n a l D i f f i c u l t i e s s c a l e items. Items with means ranging from "1.000" through "2.399" were ordered by subgroup within Appendix 10, and are l ab ele d the "most troublesome" i n s t r u c t i o n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s faced by community co lleg e music f a c u l t y . Items whose means ranged from "2,400" through "2.699" were ordered by subgroup in Appendix 11, r ep re se n tin g i n s t r u c t i o n a l r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s of "moderate d i f f i ­ culty." F i n a ll y , items whose means ranged from "2.700" through "3.000" were ordered by subgroup in Appendix 12, and a re labeled th e " l e a s t troublesome" i n s t r u c t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s faced by the respondents. Table 4.71 i s a summary which contains the information from Appendices 10, 11, and 12. The l i s t s in the summary t a b l e enumerate seven v a r i a b le s considered in common to be most problematic, e ig h t 154 TABLE 4 .7 1 .—In s tru c tio n a l D iff ic u lt ie s Scale Summary Commonly i d e n t i f i e d d i f f i c u l t i e s (Rank-Ordered) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Teaching stu d e n ts who do not p r a c t i c e Contending with student absences Working with immature st ud en ts Expanding s t u d e n t s ' p ers pectiv es Encouraging mastery of musical m a t e r i a ls Teaching stu d e n ts with minimal musical t a l e n t Providing stud e n ts with a r e a l i s t i c evaluation of t h e i r a b i l i t i e s D i f f i c u l t i e s perceived by p a rt - t im e applied f a c u l t y only None in dic ate d D i f f i c u l t i e s perceived by p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y only None in d ic ate d D i f f i c u l t i e s perceived by p a r t - t im e general f a c u l t y only Making do with i n s u f f i c i e n t i n s t r u c t i o n a l resources Making do with lim i te d physical f a c i l i t i e s D i f f i c u l t i e s perceived by both p a rt - t im e general f a c u l t y and f u l l time f a c u l t y Encouraging a f f e c t i v e response to music l i s t e n i n g Teaching stu d e n ts who do not do t h e i r assigned readings Encouraging musical inventiveness or c r e a t i v i t y Combating s t u d e n t s ' tone deafness Enhancing m u s i c a li t y of stu de nt performances Contending with a s t u d e n t ' s d e f e a t i s t a t t i t u d e Getting stu d e n ts to tu rn in t h e i r assignments on time Teaching a c l a s s in which a wide range of student a b i l i t i e s a r e displayed D i f f i c u l t i e s perceived by f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y only Providing make-up examinations Inducing stu de n ts to seek t u t o r i a l help Relating musical concepts t o st ud en ts with div ergent musical t a s t e s Having to demonstrate techniques several times f o r a student's benefit Teaching stu dents who d isp la y learnin g d i s a b i l i t i e s Having t o make do with incomplete instrum entation 155 TABLE 4.7 1 .—Continued Commonly i d e n t i f i e d items of moderate d i f f i c u l t y Using a d i v e r s i t y of media to advantage Promoting psychomotor f l e x i b i l i t y Encouraging stu d e n ts t o continue on in music Inducing s t u d e n ts to maintain t h e i r own opinions Explaining ideas as c o n c r e te ly as po ss ib le Maintaining s t u d e n t s ' i n t e r e s t Making work demands on stu de nts e x p l i c i t Concluding c l a s s on time Commonly i d e n t i f i e d items of l e a s t d i f f i c u l t y Speaking loudly enough in the classroom Relating to stu d e n ts of a d i f f e r e n t e t h i n i c or r a c i a l background Maintaining d i s c i p l i n e in the classroom Working with a d u l t students Singing in f r o n t o f a c l a s s Lecturing without undue recourse to notes S e t t i n g up th e classroom Preparing enough c l a s s m a t e r i a l s to go around Sequencing m a t e r i a l s over the semester Relating to stu d e n ts of a d i f f e r e n t socio-economic background Performing in f r o n t of a c l a s s Items of l e a s t d i f f i c u l t y as perceived by p a r t - t im e a p plied f a c u l t y only Providing make-up exams Making do with i n s u f f i c i e n t i n s t r u c t i o n a l resources S t a r t i n g c l a s s on time Inducing stu d e n ts to seek t u t o r i a l help Answering naive questions Making do with l i m i t e d physical f a c i l i t i e s Having to make do with incomplete instrum entatio n Items of l e a s t d i f f i c u l t y as perceived by both p a r t time a p plied and general f a c u l t y Taking time away from i n s t r u c t i o n t o give t e s t s Using real musical i l l u s t r a t i o n s , n o t j u s t t h e o r e t i c a l ones Preparing t e s t s Correcting papers 156 TABLE 4.7 1.—Continued Items o f l e a s t d i f f i c u l t y perceived b.v both p a rt - t im e ap plied f a c u l t y and f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y Finding supplementary c l a s s m a te r ia ls Contending with too l a r g e a c l a s s Getting enough rock or ja z z in to the curriculum Getting enough a r t music i n to the curriculum Ordering textbooks through the proper channels Se lec tin g a p p r o p r i a te c l a s s m a t e r i a ls Using a broad range of music in teaching Items o f l e a s t d i f f i c u l t y as perceived by p a r t - t im e general f a c u l t y only None uncovered Items of l e a s t d i f f i c u l t y as perceived by f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y Pacing m a t e r i a ls over the term 157 v a r i a b le s considered moderately problematic, and eleven v a r i a b le s considered t o pose l i t t l e o r no d i f f i c u l t y in performing i n s t r u c ­ tio n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . In a d d i t i o n , Table 4.71 conta in s v a r i a b le s i d e n t i f i e d by only one or two of the subgroups as proving of g r e a t e r or l e s s e r d i f f i c u l t y . Appendix 13 d is p la y s the d i s t r i b u t i o n of responses across each of the 56 i n s t r u c t i o n a l D i f f i c u l t i e s items. A t t i t u d i n a l Measure Subscale Analysis In the previous p a r t of t h i s s e c t i o n , the manner in which f a c u l t y c ateg o rize d individua l a t t i t u d i n a l items was examined. In t h i s p a r t , c o n s i d e r a ti o n i s given t o f a c u l t y ' s assessment of v a r i a b le clusters. Each c l u s t e r was defined through f a c t o r a n a l y s i s and is represe nted in terms o f a su bscale. Analysis o f variance will be applied to i d e n t i f y d i f f e r e n c e s between subgroup subscale means. Analysis of the P o sitio n S a t i s f a c ­ t io n Subscale Means Personal Welfare ( " S u r v i v a l 11) Subscale. The f i r s t P osition S a t i s f a c t i o n subscale i s r e f e r r e d to as the Survival subscale. I t s items r e l a t e to f a c u l t y members' personal and pr of es sion al well-bein g. Subgroup means f o r t h i s subscale a r e presented in Table 4.72. Results i n d i c a t e t h a t Survival subscale means f o r f u l l - t i m e and p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y (see Tables 4.73 and 4 .7 4 ) . Subgroup means f o r p a rt - t im e general and p a rt - t im e applied f a c u l t y a re not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (see Table 4 . 7 5 ) . 158 TABLE 4.7 2.—Survival Subscale: Subgroup Means Mean S.D. N Full Time 3.479 .581 29 P art-tim e General 2.096 .610 64 P a r t- tim e Applied 1.943 .605 23 2.412 .862 116 Sampl e TABLE 4 . 7 3 . --Survival Subscale: SS ANOVA Showing FT and PT-A Differences df MS F Sig. of F 61.2548 .0000* Between groups 44.4774 2 22.2387 Within groups 41.0249 113 .3631 TOTAL 85.5023 115 *p < .001 "Surv" by "subgroups" (The t h r e e - l e v e l v a r i a b l e re p r e s e n ts the t h r e e subgroups) TABLE 4 . 7 4 . --Survival Subscale: SS ANOVA Showing FT and PT-G Differences df MS F 105.5939* Between groups 38.2323 1 38.2323 Within groups 32.9484 91 .3620 TOTAL 71.1807 92 *p < .001 159 TABLE 4 . 7 5 . —Survival Subscale: Sim ilarities ANOVA Showing PT-G and PT-A df SS Between groups MS F 1.0672* .3963 1 .39632 Within groups 31.5649 85 .37135 TOTAL 31.9612 86 *NS = n o n s i g n i f ic a n t F a c i l i t i e s subscale. The second su bsca le, labeled the F a c i l i t i e su bscale, r e f e r s to the adequacy of on-campus f a c i l i t i e s as perceived by the f a c u l t y member. Subgroup means f o r the F a c i l i t i e s subscale a re presented in Table 4.76. TABLE 4.76. — F a c i l i t i e s Subscale: Subgroup Means M S.D. N Full time 3.062 .993 29 P a rt-tim e General 2.292 .942 64 Pa rt-tim e Applied 2.347 1.104 23 2.495 1.033 116 Samp!e Full-tim e and p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y with r e s p e c t to the F a c i l i t i e s subscale (see Tables 4.77 and 4 . 7 8 ) . No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were evidenced between p a rt- tim e general and p a r t - t im e applied f a c u l t y (see Table 4 .7 9 ) . 160 TABLE 4 . 7 7 . - - F a c i l i t i e s Subscale: Differences SS Between groups Within groups TOTAL ANOVA Showing FT and PT-G df MS F 6.3763 12.4561 2 6.2280 110.3718 113 .9767 122.8278 115 Sig. of F .0024* *p < .01 "Fac" by "Subgroups" ( th e t h r e e - l e v e l v a r i a b l e r e p r e s e n ti n g the t h r e e subgroups) TABLE 4 . 7 8 . —F a c i l i t i e s Subscale: Differences SS ANOVA Showing FT and PT-A df MS F 6.0114* Between groups 6.5435 1 6.5435 Within groups 54.4257 50 1.0885 TOTAL 60.9692 51 *p < .05 TABLE 4 . 7 9 . —Facil i t i e s Subscale: Sim ilarities SS Between groups Within groups TOTAL ♦N onsignificant ANOVA Showing PT-G and PT-A df MS .05237 1 .05237 82.76350 85 .97368 82.8158 86 F .05378* 161 Social r e l a t i o n s s u b s c a l e . The t h i r d su b s c a l e , termed the Social s u b s ca le, contains items r e l a t i n g to f a c u l t y members' r e l a t i o n s with t h e i r c o llea g u es . Subgroup means f o r t h i s subscale a r e presented in Table 4.80. TABLE 4 . 8 0 . —Social Re lations Subscale: ■ '* » ■ I■ '* ' ■ ■ ■' 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ » ' ' ‘- 1 ■ ■ ■ " — I I— .. 1..^— , Subscale Means | M I ilflfll.1. ■-j-am S.D. N Full time 3.703 .997 27 P a r t -ti m e General 3.650 .943 63 P a r t -ti m e Applied 3.304 1.029 23 Sample 3.592 .9766 113 In Table 4 .8 1 , an a n a l y s i s of variance with the Social subscale used as a dependent v a r i a b l e i n d i c a t e s t h a t th e employment subgroup means were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from one ano th er. Therefo re, i t appears t h a t f a c u l t y members from th e t h r e e subbroups reported t h a t they derived approximately the same degree of s a t i s f a c t i o n with regard to the Social subscale items. TABLE 4 . 8 1 . —Social Subscale: Differences . . . . . L— ... ■ 1 1 1I I I SS Between groups ANOVA I n d ic a tin g Lack of S i g n i f i c a n t ■ ■ -L J g l— ------------ df . ! ! _■■ 1 ■ I'm ■ Ml I I M.S. F Sig. of F 1.2951 .2780* 2.4577 2 1.2288 Within groups 104.3722 110 .9488 TOTAL 106.8299 112 ♦Non significant "Soc" by "Subgroups" m m . ■■■■IllM — — 162 P r e s t i g e su b s c a l e . The fo u rth and f i n a l P o s itio n S a t i s f a c t i o n s u b sca le, r e f e r r e d to as the P r e s t i g e su b s c a le , includes items from which f a c u l t y members may derive p r e s t i g e . Subgroup means f o r t h i s subscale a re presented in Table 4.82. TABLE 4 . 8 2 . —P r e s t i g e Subscale: Subgroup Means M S.D. N Full time 3.308 .694 30 Part-tim e General 3.036 .848 64 Pa rt-tim e Applied 2.500 .875 24 2.996 .856 118 Sample Results i n d i c a t e t h a t pa rt-tim e applied f a c u l t y d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i ­ c a n tly from both f u l l - t i m e and p a rt - t im e general f a c u l t y with r e s p e c t to t h e i r a b i l i t y to d e ri v e profes sional p r e s t i g e (see Tables 4.83 and 4 .8 4 ) . Subgroup means f o r p a rt - t im e general and f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (see Table 4 .8 5 ) . TABLE 4 . 8 3 . —P r e s t i g e Subscale: SS ANOVA Showing PT-A and FT Differences df MS F Sig. of F 6.6751 .0018* Between groups 8.9357 2 4.4678 Within groups 76.9726 115 .6693 TOTAL 85.9083 117 *p < .01 163 TABLE 4 . 8 4 . —P r e s t i g e Subscale: Differences SS ANOVA Showing PT-A and PT-G df MS F 6.8588* Between groups 5.0231 1 5.0231 Within groups 62.9844 86 .7323 68.0075 87 TOTAL *p < .05. TABLE 4 . 8 5 . —P r e s t i g e Subscale: Sim ilarities SS ANOVA Showing FT and PT-G df F MS Between groups 1.5097 1 1.5097 Within groups 59.3476 92 .6450 TOTAL 60.8573 93 2.3404* ♦Nonsignificant Summary: Means. I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Po sition S a t i s f a c t i o n Subscale All four of th e f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y ' s subscale means, since they a re above a mean score o f "3.000," f a l l within the range of " g rea ter" satisfaction. Two o f the p a rt - t im e general f a c u l t y ' s subscale means (Social and P r e s t i g e ) , and only one of the p a r t - t i m e applied f a c u l t y ' s subscale means (Social) f a l l within the " g r e a t e r " s a t i s ­ f a c t i o n range. S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between subgroup means were found among t h r e e of th e f ou r P o s itio n S a t i s f a c t i o n su bsca les. F u ll-tim e 164 f a c u l t y appeared to ob tain s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r s a t i s f a c t i o n from the v a r i a b le s in the Survival and F a c i l i t i e s subsca les than did p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y subgroups. Pa rt-tim e applied f a c u l t y appeared to derive s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s s a t i s f a c t i o n than o t h e r subgroups from the v a r i a b le s lending " P r e stig e" to t h e i r p o s i t i o n s . There were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between members o f the t h r e e subgroups in t h e i r a b i l i t y to rec eiv e g r e a t e r than average s a t i s f a c t i o n from the v a r i a b le s in the Social subscale. The Social subscale v a r i a b l e s were found t o c o n s t i t u t e the primary source o f p o s i t io n s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r members of a l l t h r e e subgroups. All subgroups appeared to gain somewhat g r e a t e r s a t i s f a c ­ t i o n from the P r e s t i g e v a r i a b le s than from the F a c i l i t i e s v a r i a b l e s . Were i t not f o r the d i f f e r e n t way f u l l - t i m e and p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y view t h e i r personal and professional b e n e f i t s (Survival v a r i a b l e s ) , the rank-orderings f o r the subgroups would prove i d e n t i c a l . The r e s u l t s o u t li n e d above a re summarized in Table 4.86. Analysis of the I n s t r u c t i o n a l D i f f i c u l t i e s Subscale Means Student musical-involvement s u b s c a l e . The f i r s t of the fo u r I n s t r u c t i o n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s subscales i s r e f e r r e d t o as the Student Musical Involvement ("SMI") sub scale. I t co nta in s items t h a t r e f l e c t a f a c u l t y member's concern with the e n listm e n t of stud e nt musical involvement. Subgroup means f o r t h i s subscale a re presented in Table 4.87. In Table 4.88 an a n a l y s i s of variance with th e Student MusicalInvolvement subscale used as a dependent v a r i a b l e i n d i c a t e s t h a t the TABLE 4 . 8 6 . - -Summary Table: Pos ition S a t i s f a c t i o n Subscale Means by Subgroup x for Full-tim e Subgroup Rank® Sur viva lb 3.479 2 F a c i l i t i e s 15 3.062 So cialc Prestige** Position Satisfaction Subscales x for Pa rt-tim e General Subgroup Rank x for Part-tim e Applied Subgroup Rank 2.096 4 1.943 4 4 2.292 3 2.347 3 3.703 1 3.650 1 3.304 1 3.308 3 3.306 2 2.500 2 aThe primary rank f o r the P osition S a t i s f a c t i o n s subscales i s awarded t o the subscale whose v a r i a b l e s r e p r e s e n t the source from which f a c u l t y d eriv e t h e i r g r e a t e s t s a t i s f a c t i o n . bThe f u l l - t i m e subgroup mean i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t than both the p a rt - t im e sub­ group means. cDifferences between subgroup means a re n o n s i g n i f ic a n t . dThe p a rt -tim e applied subgroup mean i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t than both the f u l l time and p a rt - t im e general subgroup means. 166 TABLE 4.8 7.—Student Musical-Involvement Subscale: Subgroup Means M S.D. N Full time 2.177 .539 29 Pa r t- tim e General 2.219 .431 64 P a r t- tim e Applied 2.210 .520 23 2.207 .474 116 Sample TABLE 4 . 8 8 . —SMI Subscale: Di fferences SS ANOVA I n d ic a tin g Lack of S i g n i f i c a n t df MS .0355 2 .0177 Within groups 25.8358 113 .2286 TOTAL 25.8713 115 Between groups F .0776 Sig. of F .9254* *Nonsignificant employment subgroup means were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from one anoth er. Thus, i t appears t h a t f a c u l t y members from the t h r e e sub­ groups assigned approximately the same degree of d i f f i c u l t y to items in t h e SMI subs cale. Student requirements s u b s c a l e . The second su b s c a l e , c a l l e d the Student Requirements ("SR") s u b s c a le , r e p r e s e n ts items r e l a t i n g to the t a s k s te a c h e r s fac e in helping stu de nts meet t h e i r course r e q u i r e ­ ments. 4.89. Subgroup means f o r t h e SR subscale are pres ented in Table 167 TABLE 4 .8 9 .—Student Requirements Subscale: M Subgroup Means S.D. N Full time 2.222 .505 30 Pa rt-tim e General 2.415 .493 61 Pa rt-tim e Applied 2.666 .311 17 2.401 .490 108 Sample Results suggest t h a t SR subgroup means d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y only between f u l l - t i m e and p a r t - t im e a p p lied f a c u l t y (see Table 4 . 9 0 ) . The mean of p a rt - t im e general f a c u l t y n e i t h e r d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from t h a t o f f u l l - t i m e nor t h a t of p a r t - t im e applied f a c u l t y (see Tables 4.91 and 4.92). TABLE 4 . 9 0 . —SR Subscale: SS ANOVA Showing FT and PT-A Differences df MS Between groups 2.1712 2 1.0856 Within groups 23.5531 105 .2243 TOTAL 25.7243 107 *P < .01. F 4.8395 Sig. of F .0098* 168 TABLE 4 . 9 1 . —SR Subscale: ANOVA Showing FT and PT-G S i m i l a r i t i e s df SS Between groups F MS .7496 1 .74967 Within groups 21.9976 89 .24716 TOTAL 22.7472 90 3.0331* *Nonsignificant TABLE 4 . 9 2 . —SR Subscale: ANOVA Showing PT-G and PT-A S i m i l a r i t i e s SS df MS .8398 1 .8398 Within groups 16.1458 76 .2124 TOTAL 16.9856 77 Between groups F 3.9534* *Nonsignificant Organization s u b s c a l e . The t h i r d I n s t r u c t i o n a l D i f f i c u l t i e s su b sca le, i d e n t i f i e d as the Organization sub sca le, includes item r e l e v e n t to the o rg an iz atio n al tas k s a t e a c h e r must perform. Sub­ group means f o r t h i s subs cale are presented in Table 4.93. In Table 4.94 an a n a l y s i s of variance with the Organization subscale used as a dependent v a r i a b l e shows t h a t the employment subgroup means proved n o n s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from one another. I t appears , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t f a c u l t y members from a l l t h r e e subgroups assigned approximately the same degree of d i f f i c u l t y to items within the Organization subscale. 169 TABLE 4 .9 3 .—Organization Subscale: Subgroup Means M S.D. N Full time 2.733 .375 30 P a r t- tim e General 2.737 .370 61 Pa rt-tim e Applied 2.777 .379 18 2.743 .370 109 Sample TABLE 4 . 9 4 . —Organization Subscale: ANOVA I n d ica tin g Lack of S i g n i f i c a n t Differences SS Between groups df MS F Sig. of F .0942 .9101* .0263 2 .0131 Within Groups 14.7811 106 .1394 TOTAL 14.8073 108 ♦Nonsignificant M ateri als s u b s c a l e . The fo u rth and f i n a l I n s t r u c t i o n a l D i f f i ­ c u l t i e s su bsca le, termed the Materials s u b s ca le, contains items which p e r t a i n to f a c u l t y member's use of t h e i r s c h o o l 's resou rce s. Sub­ group means f o r the Materials subscale a re presented in Table 4.95. Results i n d i c a t e t h a t M aterials subscale means d i f f e r e d s i g ­ n i f i c a n t l y between p a r t - t im e general f a c u l t y and both f u l l - t i m e and p a rt - t im e app lied f a c u l t y (see Tables 4.96 and 4 . 9 7 ) . No s i g ­ n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were evidenced between f u l l - t i m e and p a rt- tim e applied f a c u l t y (see Table 4 .9 8 ) . 170 TABLE 4.9 5.—M aterials Subscale: Subgroup Means M S.D. N Full time 2.713 .343 30 P a rt-tim e General 2.462 .458 62 Pa rt-tim e Applied 2.757 .294 20 2.582 .423 112 Sample TABLE 4 . 9 6 . —M aterials Subscale: ANOVA Showing PT-G and FT Differences df SS F MS Between groups 2.0128 2 1.0064 Within groups 17.9007 109 .1642 TOTAL 19.9135 111 Sig. of F 6.1282 .0030* *p < .01. TABLE 4 . 9 7 . —Ma terials Subscale: Differences SS ANOVA Showing PT-G and PT-A df MS F 7.0207* Between group 1.2679 1 1.2679 Within group 16.2544 90 .1806 17.5223 91 TOTAL *p < .01. 171 TABLE 4 . 9 8 . —M aterials Subscale: Sim ilarities SS Between group Within group ANOVA Showing FT and PT-A df MS F .22194* .0234 1 .0234 5.0611 48 .1054 5.0845 TOTAL ♦Nonsignificant Summary: s c a l e means. I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of I n s t r u c t i o n a l D i f f i c u l t i e s Sub­ Two of th e f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y subscale means (Student Musical-Involvement and Student R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ) , t h a t range between a score of "1.000" and "2.399," can be considered r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the "most troublesome" i n s t r u c t i o n a l r e l a t e d problems. By c o n t r a s t , two o t h e r subscale means (Organization and M a t e r i a l s ) , with mean scores higher than "2.700," a re i n d i c a t i v e o f " l e a s t troublesome" problems f o r f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y . P a r t - ti m e general f a c u l t y r a t e d only one subscale (Student Musical Involvement) as "most t r o u b l e ­ some." They c l a s s i f i e d two of t h e i r subscales (Student Responsi­ b i l i t i e s and M a t e r i a l s ) , with means ranging from "2.400" through "2.699," as v a r i a b l e s posing "moderate" d i f f i c u l t i e s , and t h e i r remaining subscale (Organization) as being " l e a s t troublesome." P a r t- tim e applied i n s t r u c t o r s found one subscale (Student MusicalInvolvement) to be "most troublesome," one subscale (Student Responsi­ b i l i t i e s ) t o be "moderately troublesome," and two subscales 172 (Materials and Organization) to be " l e a s t troublesome" in the p e r­ formance of t h e i r i n s t r u c t i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between subgroup means were found among two o f the fou r I n s t r u c t i o n a l D i f f i c u l t i e s su b s ca les. Pa rt-tim e general f a c u l t y appear to assign s i g n i f i c a n t l y more d i f f i c u l t y to the v a r i a b l e s in th e M a terials subscale than do members from the o th e r subgroups. P a rt-tim e a p p lied f a c u l t y appear t o assig n s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s d i f f i c u l t y to the v a r i a b l e s in t h e Student R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s subscale than do f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y , but t h e p a r t - t i m e general SR subscale mean did not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from e i t h e r t h a t of f u l l ­ time o r p a r t - t im e a pp lied f a c u l t y . Employment subgroup means did not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y regarding th e v a r i a b l e s in the Student MusicalInvovlement and Organization su b s ca les. All t h r e e subgroups e x h ib ite d the same rank -o rd ering of I n s t r u c ­ t i o n a l D i f f i c u l t i e s subscale means. Faculty r a t e d the encouragement of Student Musical-Involvement as t h e i r g r e a t e s t i n s t r u c t i o n a l related d if f ic u lty . They considered the helping o f stu de n ts to meet t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s (Student R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ) to be o f major or moderate d i f f i c u l t y . They experienced l i t t l e o r no d i f f i c u l t i e s in managing t h e i r i n s t r u c t i o n a l resouces (M aterials) and in performing o rg an iz atio n al t a s k s (Org aniz ation). The r e s u l t s o u t l i n e d above are summarized in Table 4.99. Content Analysis of Faculty Response to Open-Ended Questions Three open-ended questio ns a t t h e end of the q u e s t io n n a ir e p e r­ m itted f a c u l t y responses in e i t h e r po in t or paragraph form. The TABLE 4.99.—Summary Table: Instructional D ifficulties Subscale In stru ctio n a l D iffic u ltie s Subscale Means by Subgroup x for Full-time Subgroup Rank3 x for Pa rt -tim e General Subgroup Rank x for Part -tim e Applied Subgroup Rank Student Musical Involvement^ 2.177 1 2.219 1 2.210 1 Student Responsibilitiesc 2.222 2 2.415 2 2.666 2 M aterialsd 2.713 3 2.462 3 2.757 3 Organization13 2.733 4 2.737 4 2.777 4 aThe primary rank f o r the I n s t r u c t i o n a l D i f f i c u l t i e s subscales i s awarded to the subscale whose v a r i a b le s rep re se n t the source of g r e a t e s t d i f f i c u l t y . ^Differences between subgroup means a re n o n s i g n i f ic a n t . cThe f u l l - t i m e subgroup mean i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t than the pa rt-tim e applied mean; p a rt- tim e general f a c u l t y did not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from o ther subgroups. dThe p a rt- tim e general subgroup mean i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t than both th e f u l l - t i m e and p a rt- tim e applied subgroup means. 174 quest io ns p e rt a in e d to t h e i r pro fession al p r e p a r a t i o n , the advice they give to p rospective community co llege t e a c h e r s , and to any o t h e r t o p ic they f e l t should be included. The responses to these quest io ns a r e summarized below. Content Analysis of Question 1 "What types of experiences (formal or otherwise) did you find most useful in preparing you to teach a t the community c olleg e lev e l? " Most f a c u l t y members f e l t b e st prepared f o r community c o lle g e teaching by p a r t i c i p a t i n g in a v a r i e t y of m usic-re la ted a c t i v i t i e s . One of every t h r e e i n d i v i d u a l s , among the 81 respondents to t h i s q u e stio n , c r e d i t e d t h e i r performing experiences as an aid to t h e i r p r e p a r a t i o n . Faculty alluded to p a r t i c i p a t i o n as r e c i t a l i s t s , accompanists, con­ d u c to r s , and vocal and instrumental ensemble members in t h e i r answer. Also, mentioned were performing c l a s s i c a l and popular music in a v a r i e t y of p r o f e s s i o n a l , semi p r o f e s s i o n a l , and amateur s i t u a t i o n s . One in our f a c u l t y c r e d i t e d t h e i r p r i o r teaching experiences with helping to prepare them to teach a t the community c o lle g e l e v e l . They mentioned both t h e i r p r i v a t e teaching and public school te a c h ­ ing experiences. Some f a c u l t y members expressed s a t i s f a c t i o n with t h e i r experience of teaching in the public schools. Many f a c u l t y members a l s o believed t h e i r own educational back­ ground had helped them to become b e t t e r t e a c h e r s . Faculty members appear to be q u i t e proud of t h e i r c olleg e p r e p a r a t i o n . Several persons s p e c i f i c a l l y c r e d i t e d t h e i r pedagogy c l a s s e s , the master 175 c la s s e s they a tten d e d , and t h e i r own p r i v a t e lessons as p reparation fo r t h e i r current positions. Other experiences t h a t influenced t h e i r c a r e e r s included the following: (a) se rving as a church musician, (b) being a composer, (c) a tte n d in g c o n c e rt s , (d) atten d in g workshops, (e) r a i s i n g c h i l d ­ ren , and ( f ) having worked in a general s a l e s p o s i t i o n . Content Analysis o f Question 2 "What advice would you give to prosp ective community c o lle g e music teachers? " Some 78 i n s t r u c t o r s c o n tribu te d advice to prospec­ t i v e community c o lle g e music t e a c h e r s . Their advice may be grouped within the following e i g h t c a t e g o r i e s : 1. Know who your students a re Be aware t h a t you a r e l i k e l y to encounter st ud en ts of a l l d i f f e r e n t backgrounds and i n t e r e s t s (10 comments). Be cognizant t h a t your stu de nts are l i k e l y t o have had poor musical and academic p r e p a r a t i o n , e x h i b i t poor study h a b i t s , and might not prove very t a l e n t e d (7 comments). Judge your s t u d e n t s ' a b i l i t i e s r e a l i s t i c a l l y . 2. Hold r e a l i s t i c e x pecta tio n s about your job Acquaint y o u r s e l f with the philosophy of your i n s t i t u ­ t i o n (5 comments). Understand t h a t you a re not teaching a t a conservatory or a major f o u r - y e a r u n i v e r s i t y . Do not expect a l a r g e departmental' budget or fancy facilities. 176 Understand t h a t you a r e going t o teach nonconventional s tu d e n ts . Prepare y o u r s e l f to derive nonmusical s a t i s f a c t i o n from what your stud e n ts may achieve. 3. Learn to deal with d i v e r s i t y and a d v e r s i t y Be f l e x i b l e and v e r s a t i l e (10 comments). Learn to make do with e x i s t i n g resources (7 comments). Have p a tien c e. Learn to cope with anything and everything. Avoid " e l i t i s t " a t t i t u d e s about music. 4. Orient y o u r s e l f toward students Show an i n t e r e s t in your stud e nts and t h e i r problems (10 comments). Convey enthusiasm. Like people. 5. Encourage stu d e n t development Maintain high standards (6 comments). Give d i r e c t i o n to st ud en t l e a r n in g . Encourage stu d e n t p a r t i c i p a t i o n . S t a r t with what i s most f a m i l i a r to s t u d e n ts . Be a v a i l a b l e f o r he lp. 6. Learn r e c r u i t i n g techniques Learn public r e l a t i o n s and how to r e c r u i t . Expect a l a r g e student turnover; work on stu de n t r e t e n t i o n . Create your own demand. E sta b lish c o n ta c t with your local high school music program. 177 7. Be p r o f e s s i o n a l l y prepared Get as much and as varied a musical education as p o s s ib le (8 comments). Develop performance c a p a b i l i t i e s . Public school teaching experience i s b e n e f i c i a l . V i s i t the community c o lle g e a t which you intend to teach. Understand the lea rning pr ocess . 8. P a r t- tim e f a c u l t y should expect to encounter c e r t a i n difficu lties Plan t o f i n d ways to supplement your income. Do not expect to r eceiv e many f r i n g e b e n e f i t s . Expect to be taken advantage o f . Content Analysis of Question 3 " Is t h e r e a question you were not asked t h a t you would l i k e to.answer?" Twenty-five i n d iv id u a ls commented on t h i s question and the most f r e q u e n t ly c o n tr ib u te d response was: "Why do you continue to teach a t an i n s t i t u t i o n where negative f a c t o r s outweigh positive factors?" Among the answers to t h i s questio n were the following: I need the money. Because t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n of teaching both music majors and nonmajors of a wide v a r i e t y f a r superceded anything e l s e . My husband i s based h e r e , [and] I have been a b le t o propel a few outstanding stu d en ts in the r i g h t d i r e c t i o n , [ s t u d e n ts who would not have been able ] . . . to continue t h e i r s t u d i e s elsewhere. 178 In response to a s i m i l a r q u e s t io n , the following advantages of teaching in a community c o lleg e were put f o r t h : The enthusiasm of my s t u d e n t s , the mutual r e s p e c t and support of f ellow t e a c h e r s , and the academic freedom I encountered were heady experiences. Emphasis on te a c h i n g , not research or performance; allows you to teach a v a r i e t y of music s u b je c ts (or o t h e r ) ; allows you time to perform, c u t wood, whatever; pl en ty of chance f o r c r e a t i v i t y in tea ch in g; no real d i s c i p l i n e problems; allows f o r i n t e r a c t i o n with colleagues from o t h e r d i s c i p l i n e s . SUMMARY, PROFILES, AND DISCUSSION Summary This study was devoted to th e a n a l y t i c a l d e s c r i p t io n of music f a c u l t y employed within Michigan's public community c o l l e g e s . The s t u d y 's primary purpose was to c o n s t r u c t p r o f i l e s f o r t h r e e types of music f a c u l t y : faculty. f u l l - t i m e , p a r t - t im e g e n e r a l , and p a r t - t im e applied Secondary purposes included an examination of s e l f - r e p o r t e d job s a t i s f a c t i o n among the t h r e e f a c u l t y subgroupings and a determina­ t io n o f what subgroup members perceived t o be t h e i r major i n s t r u c t i o n a l related d if f ic u ltie s . Additional purposes were to a p pra ise professional se lf-im age , t o summarize the advice given by f a c u l t y members to p rospective community c o lle g e music i n s t r u c t o r s , and to recommend p r a c t i c e s intended to s t i m u l a te professional growth. A preliminary survey of music a d m i n i s t r a t o r s i d e n t i f i e d 238 music teachers employed in the Michigan community c o lle g e during 1981, some 82 tea che rs more than the number rep o rted by Merkel (1977, pp. 58, 59, 109). The q u e stio n n a ir e was mailed t o v i r t u a l l y a l l of the iden­ tif ie d instructors. From t h i s p o p u latio n , 123 usable q u e stio n n a ir e s were r e tu r n e d , as well as r e p o r t s t h a t 49 tea ch e rs were not c u r r e n t l y employed. A response r a t e of 65% was o b tain ed , includ ing the 123 respondents and the 66 q u e stio n n a ir e s not retu rn e d . The q u e stio n n a ir e developed f o r the study was modeled on e x i s t ­ ing d e s c r i p t i v e surveys of two-year c o lle g e f a c u l t y and r e f i n e d by a 179 180 panel of community c o lle g e f a c u l t y and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . demographic, s i t u a t i o n a l , and a t t i t u d i n a l q u e stio n s . I t included Most items were coded a t the nominal level of measurement, and thus could be d i s ­ played in contingency t a b l e s and a ssess ed by means of the c h isquare s t a t i s t i c . Of primary concern, however, was each i te m 's pro­ portio nal d i s t r i b u t i o n among the t h r e e f a c u l t y subgroups. Two d i s c r e t e a t t i t u d i n a l measures were included within the q u e s t io n n a ir e . The items comprising each measure were both rank ordered according to f a c u l t y subgroup means and f a c t o r analyzed. I n terna l consistency e s t im a t e s of r e l i a b i l i t y f o r the f o u r f a c t o r s e x tr a c t e d from the P o s itio n S a t i s f a c t i o n measure ranged from .71 to .86. R e l i a b i l i t y of the f o u r I n s t r u c t i o n a l D i f f i c u l t i e s f a c t o r s ranged from .65 to .76. These f a c t o r s were submitted to u n i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of variance t o t e s t f o r f a c u l t y subgroup d i f f e r e n c e s . Co rrela te s of Subgroup S tatu s Many of the items included in the q u e stio n n a ir e were found to r e l a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y with subgroup s t a t u s . Among these v a r i a b l e s , the following may be used to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between f u l l - t i m e and p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y : 1. 2. Tenure Number o f years on th e job 3. Number of hours taught per week 4. 5. Academic rank Possession of concurrent employment 6. Serving as music a d m i n i s t r a t o r 7. 8. Academic degree Total teaching experience 181 9. Age 10. Public school teaching experience 11. Gender A more d e t a i l e d comparison o f f u l l - t i m e and p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y i s contained in Appendix 15. Pa rt-tim e general and p a rt - t im e a p p lied f a c u l t y cannot be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d as e a s i l y as can f u l l - t i m e and p a r t - t im e i n s t r u c ­ tors. Differences between the p a r t - t im e subgroups were most marked with re s p e c t to the following v a r i a b l e s : 1. Site of instruction 2. Attended community c o lleg e 3. Experience as a commercial/studio musician 4. P referre d program o r i e n t a t i o n 5. Musical t a s t e 6. Job preferenc e Further d e t a i l s regarding the comparison of p a r t - t im e general and pa rt- tim e applied f a c u l t y may be found in Appendix 16. Findings Relating to Use of the Po s itio n S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale The f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y members demonstrated p o s i t io n s a t i s f a c ­ t i o n more c l e a r l y than did the p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y . F u ll-tim e s t a f f members i d e n t i f i e d approximately twice as many v a r i a b l e s and more c l u s t e r s of v a r i a b l e s as providing average s a t i s f a c t i o n than did p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y . Full-tim e i n s t r u c t o r s rep o rted de riving average s a t i s f a c t i o n or b e t t e r f o r a l l f o u r f a c t o r s defined through f a c t o r analysis. (The f o u r f a c t o r s rep resente d personal and professional 182 w e ll- b e in g , use of campus f a c i l i t i e s , s t a t u s o f c o l l e g i a l r e l a t i o n s , and j o b - r e l a t e d p r e s t i g e . ) P a r t- tim e general f a c u l t y rep o rted s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r two f a c t o r s : job-related prestige. s t a t u s of c o l l e g i a l r e l a t i o n s and Pa rt-tim e a p plied te a c h e r s rep orted s a t i s ­ faction fo r a single facto r: s t a t u s of c o l l e g i a l r e l a t i o n s . A comparison of subgroup means revealed the following r e l a ­ t i o n s h ip s : 1. Fu ll-tim e f a c u l t y de rived s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r personal and pro fe ssional s a t i s f a c t i o n from t h e i r jobs than did p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y . This Survival f a c t o r , whose r e l i a b i l i t y was estim ated a t .86, included ten items: sa lary , frin g e b e n efits , future salary prospects, d i v e r s i t y of teaching assignments, l e c t u r i n g , p a r t i c i p a t i o n in job d e c i s i o n s , o p p o r t u n it i e s f o r pro fession al growth, and o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r profes sional advancement. 2. F u ll-tim e i n s t r u c t o r s a l s o received s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r s a t i s f a c t i o n than did p a r t - t i m e s t a f f from use o f campus f a c i l i t i e s . Included in t h e F a c i l i t i e s f a c t o r , whose r e l i a b i l i t y was estimated a t .84, were f i v e v a r i a b l e s : adequacy o f the music l i b r a r y , c l a s s ­ room f a c i l i t i e s , group r ehe arsal f a c i l i t i e s , p r a c t i c e f a c i l i t i e s , and o f f i c e space. 3. No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in s a t i s f a c t i o n appeared between f a c u l t y subgroups regarding s t a t u s of c o l l e g i a l r e l a t i o n s , a f a c t o r t h a t e l i c i t e d th e h i g h e s t r a t i n g s of s a t i s f a c t i o n from a l l t h r e e subgroups. This Social f a c t o r had r e l i a b i l i t y estimated a t .76, and included t h r e e items: c o n g e n i a l i ty of c o ll e a g u e s , competency of c o ll e a g u e s , and personal c o n ta c t with the department head. 183 4. P a rt-tim e a pp lied te a c h e r s obtained s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s s a t i s f a c t i o n from the v a r i a b l e s r e p r e s e n ti n g j o b - r e l a t e d p r e s t i g e than did o th er f a c u l t y members. Included in t h i s P r e s t i g e f a c t o r , with an estim ated r e l i a b i l i t y of .71, were f o u r v a r i a b l e s : reputa­ t i o n of t h e sc hool, teaching lo a d , q u a l i t y of s t u d e n t s , and academic rank. Findings Relating to Use of the I n s t r u c t i o n a l D i f f i c u l t i e s Scale F u ll- tim e i n s t r u c t o r s i d e n t i f i e d more i n s t r u c t i o n a l r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s and c l u s t e r s as most troublesome than did p a r t - t im e faculty. atic: F u ll-tim e te a c h e r s c l e a r l y i d e n t i f i e d two f a c t o r s as problem­ encouraging st u d e n t musical involvement, and helping students meet course requirements. P a rt-tim e general te a c h e r s r a t e d encourag­ ing stu d e n t musical involvement as a source of d i f f i c u l t y . They a ls o i d e n t i f i e d helping stu d e n ts meet course requirements and manag­ ing e x i s t i n g resources as secondary a r e a s of concern. Reporting the l e a s t number of i n s t r u c t i o n a l r e l a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s were the p a r t - t im e applied t e a c h e r s , who r a t e d a s i n g l e f a c t o r , encouraging st u d e n t musical involvement, as problematic. A comparison o f subgroup means revealed the following: 1. Subgroups in common i d e n t i f i e d encouraging stu d e n t musical involvement as t h e i r most p e r s i s t e n t i n s t r u c t i o n - r e l a t e d problem. This Student Musical Involvement f a c t o r , with i t s b i l i t y est im ated a t .76, included f i v e v a r i a b l e s : relia­ encouraging mastery of musical m a t e r i a l s , expanding s t u d e n t s ' p e r s p e c t i v e s , teaching 184 students who do not p r a c t i c e , enhancing m u sic a lity o f stu d e n t p e r ­ formances, and maintaining s t u d e n t s ' i n t e r e s t . 2. P a rt-tim e a p p lied i n s t r u c t o r s i n dic ate d s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s d i f f i c u l t y than did f u l l - t i m e tea ch e rs in helping stu d e n ts meet course requirements. P a rt-tim e general teachers did not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from e i t h e r f u l l - t i m e or p a rt - t im e applied i n s t r u c t o r s regarding t h i s Student Requirements f a c t o r . t h ree v a r i a b l e s : The f a c t o r included providing make-up exams, teaching stud e nts who do no t do t h e i r assigned rea d in g s, and g e t t i n g stu d e n ts to t u r n in t h e i r assignments on time. 3. R e l i a b i l i t y was estimated a t .65. Faculty in common r a t e d th e performance of org an iz atio nal t as k s to be l i t t l e o r no problem. This Organization f a c t o r had r e l i a b i l i t y est im ated a t .71, and included t h r e e v a r i a b l e s : pacing m a t e r i a ls over the term, sequencing m a t e r i a l s , and preparing t e s t s . 4. Pa rt-tim e general f a c u l t y rep orted g r e a t e r d i f f i c u l t y than did o t h e r i n s t r u c t o r s in employing t h e i r s c h o o l 's res our ces t o b e st advantage. Included in t h i s Materials f a c t o r , with i t s r e l i a b i l i t y estimate d a t .70, were f i v e items: f in d in g supplementary c l a s s m a t e r i a l s , making do with i n s u f f i c i e n t i n s t r u c t i o n a l r e s o u r c e s, using a d i v e r s i t y o f media to advantage, s e t t i n g up the classroom, and making do with l im i t e d physical f a c i l i t i e s . Advice Given by the Music Faculty to Prospective Teachers Many f a c u l t y members were w i l l i n g to c o n tr i b u te advice to pros­ p e ctive community c o ll e g e music i n s t r u c t o r s . Their comments were 185 g e n e r a lly p o s i t iv e , s t r e s s i n g the p r a c t i c a l c o n sid e r a tio n s one must encounter in ord er to f u n ctio n comfortably in the p o s i t i o n . They counseled prosp ective t e a ch e rs to pursue as thorough and as varied a musical education as p ossib le and to supplement formal t r a i n i n g with performing and public school teaching experience. Some respondents s t r e s s e d the need to maintain f l e x i b i l i t y in a t t i t u d e and methodology to serve b e s t the d i v e r s i t y of stud e n ts one may encounter, many of whom a r e l i k e l y t o have had poor musical and aca­ demic p re p a ra tio n . advised: In d ealin g with s t u d e n t s , a few i n s t r u c t o r s be t o l e r a n t , but maintain high sta nd ard s. Faculty a ls o recommended t h a t prosp ective t e a ch e rs l e a r n rec ru iting techniques t o r ep le n is h a p r e d i c ta b l y high stu d e n t t u r n ­ over and t h a t p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y f i n d ways to supplement t h e i r income. Data obtained in t h i s study may be se gregated to form the following p r o f i l e s of f u l l - t i m e , p a r t - t im e g e n e r a l , and p a rt - t im e a pplied community c o lle g e music i n s t r u c t o r s . P r o f i l e of F u ll-tim e Community College Music I n s t r u c t o r s The average f u l l - t i m e music i n s t r u c t o r i s over the age of 45 (50%), i s male (90%), and has served the c olleg e f o r 10 y e a r s or longer (70%). The te a c h e r might serve as the a d m i n i s t r a t o r f o r the music program (40%) in a d d itio n to teaching an average of 17.8 hours a week. The i n s t r u c t o r i s assigned to teach a v a r i e t y of academic music courses and applied music in a classroom s e t t i n g (57%). he/she i s asked t o teach p r i v a t e instrumental music les sons as Often 186 well (43%). The t e a c h e r ' s stud e nts include both music majors (87%) and general stu de nts (97%). The i n s t r u c t o r (73%) teaches a t l e a s t one evening course in a d d it i o n to a daytime load. He/she almost c e r t a i n l y has been granted ten ure (90%), but only 30% holds academic rank. Most f u l l - t i m e music i n s t r u c t o r s hold a m a s te r 's degree (83%), while some of t h e i r f u l l - t i m e co-workers have earned a do c to ra te (17%). They have had experience in teaching p r i v a t e l y (90%) and a t the public school l e v e l s (80%). They value a r t music above a l l o th er types (80%) and a re l i k e l y to have maintained t h e i r performance s k i l l s (80%). Although i t i s u n l ik e l y t h a t they have taken a course about the community c olleg e as an i n s t i t u t i o n (17%), t h e r e i s some chance (27%) t h a t they have stu d ied the community c o l l e g e ' s fun ctio ns and philosophy. These i n s t r u c t o r s remain ex cite d about teaching (70%) and r e p o r t t h a t they derive a t l e a s t average s a t i s f a c t i o n from the courses taught (93%). They a re not overly impressed by th e q u a l i t y of students encountered; th e p l u r a l i t y of f u l l - t i m e i n s t r u c t o r s (42%) r e p o r t d e r i v ­ ing only average s a t i s f a c t i o n from stu de n t q u a l i t y . A m in ority of f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y (26%) fin d s l e s s than average s a t i s f a c t i o n from st ud e n t q u a l i t y . The m a jo r ity of f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y members do, how­ e v e r , r e p o r t owing t h e i r g r e a t e s t profes sional a l l e g i a n c e to s t u ­ dents (60%) and given th e opportunity t o guide the program, they would endeavor to favo r the nonmusic majors (60%). No s i n g l e reason can be c i t e d f o r the average f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y member's e n tr y i n t o community c o lle g e teachin g. Some o f h i s / h e r 187 colleagues accepted t h e i r jobs to gain teaching experience (27%) because they were t r a i n e d to e n t e r the f i e l d (17%), and to avoid public school teaching (23%). th e ir position. Some were app arently asked to assume None, however, reported t h a t they entered the f i e l d because they needed a second jo b . The typic al f u l l - t i m e music i n s t r u c t o r does, n e v e r t h e l e s s , con sid er community c olleg e teaching to be h is or her d e s i r e d p rofession (55%) and intends t o r e t a i n t h i s p o s i t io n (80%). Some, as expected, do covet a u n i v e r s i t y teaching p o s i t io n (24%), but v i r t u a l l y none would p r e f e r to e n t e r i n to a higher a d m i n i s t r a t io n a l po st a t the community c o lle g e l e v e l . F u ll- tim e f a c u l t y derive average s a t i s f a c t i o n or b e t t e r from the v a r i a b l e s comprising th e f a c t o r s of (a) personal and professi onal w e ll- b e in g , (b) use of on-campus f a c i l i t i e s , (c) s t a t u s of c o l l e g i a l r e l a t i o n s , and (4) j o b - r e l a t e d p r e s t i g e . They i d e n t i f i e d the following as t h e i r ten most s a t i s f y i n g p o sitio n v a r i a b l e s : (a) aca­ demic freedom, (b) c o n ta c t with c h airperson , (c) f r i n g e b e n e f i t s , (d) jo b s e c u r i t y , (e) p a r t i c i p a t i o n in d e c i s i o n s , ( f ) school r e p u t a ­ t io n and c o n g e n i a l i ty o f c o llea g u es , (g) scheduling freedom, (h) o p p o r t u n it i e s f o r o utside income, and ( i ) a d m in is tr a tio n of department. F u ll-tim e f a c u l t y r e p o r t experiencing i n s t r u c t i o n - r e l a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s when encouraging stu d e n t musical involvement, and helping stu d e n ts meet t h e i r course requirements. They found l e s s e r d i f f i c u l t y in managing e x i s t i n g resources and performing s p e c i f i e d 188 o rg an iz atio n al t a s k s . They i d e n t i f i e d the following individua l v a r i a b l e s (with item means ranging up t o 2.09) as most troublesome: (a) contending with s t u d e n t absences , (b) teaching stu d e n ts who do not p r a c t i c e ; (c) teaching immature s t u d e n t s , (d) expanding s t u d e n t s ' p e r s p e c t i v e s , (e) encouraging mastery of musical m a t e r i a l s . More than o t h e r f a c u l t y members, f u l l - t i m e i n s t r u c t o r s a re aware t h a t a music program's s t r e n g th depends on the q u a l i t y of music stud e nts produced by the local high sc hools. They advocate e s t a b ­ l i s h i n g good r e l a t i o n s with the music departments of t h e i r neighbor­ ing sc hools. P r o f i l e o f P a r t - ti m e General I n s t r u c t o r s of Music The average p a r t - t i m e general music te a c h e r i s under 36 years of age (66%), i s a p t to be male (53%), and has served the c o lle g e between one and t h r e e y e a r s (64%). This te a c h e r lacks both tenu re (6%) and academic rank (3%) and i s u n l ik e l y t o serve as the program's music a d m i n i s t r a t o r (11%). While the i n s t r u c t o r g e n e r a l l y teaches between one and s i x hours a week f o r the c o ll e g e (46%), t h e r e i s some chance t h a t he/she i s employed 15 hours o r more per week (23%). Indeed, some general i n s t r u c t o r s (23%) c o n sid e r t h e i r teaching load t o be heavy. The average general i n s t r u c t o r i s commonly assigned t o teach e i t h e r applied instrumental music in p r i v a t e (53%) or a v a r i e t y of applied music courses in a classroom s e t t i n g (58%). d u t ie s tend t o be s p e c i a l i z e d . Their o th er Many a re asked t o teach an academic music course (47%), n o t a b l y , music theory (24%). Others a r e asked to 189 d i r e c t some of the instrumental ensembles (19%), vocal ensembles (12%) or to teach whatever pop music o r music business courses a re o ffere d (5%). Often, the general i n s t r u c t o r has entered i n t o community c o lleg e teaching with a nonconventional background. Members of t h i s f a c u l t y su bset r e p o r t t h a t they worked e i t h e r in the music in d u stry (23% of a l l p a r t - t im e general i n s t r u c t o r s ) , or as a commercial/studio musician (44%). In g e n e r a l , instrumental music i n s t r u c t o r s hold a b a c h e l o r 's degree or l e s s (74% f o r those who teach no academic music c l a s s e s and 66% f o r those whose d u t ie s include teaching academic music classes). In c o n t r a s t , the ty p ic al vocal music te a c h e r (26% of the subgroup) i s most l i k e l y to possess a m a s t e r 's degree (66% f o r those who teach no academic music c l a s s e s and 90% f o r those whose d u t ie s include teaching academic c l a s s e s ) . The d i v e r s i t y of musical t a s t e noted among instrumental music i n s t r u c t o r s i s not matched by p a r t - t im e general vocal i n s t r u c t o r s . The p a rt - t im e general f a c u l t y contain a high percentage of i n s t r u c t o r s who are drawn from t h e i r local communities (82%), and some general i n s t r u c t o r s who have been community c o lle g e stud e n ts (35%). A r e l a t i v e l y low precentage have tau g h t in the public schools (36%) or have stu died the f u n c tio n s and philosophy of th e community c o lle g e (15%). The average p a r t - t im e general i n s t r u c t o r remains e x c i te d about teaching (72%), y e t some (22%) r e p o r t t h a t they a r e preoccupied with 190 matters besi des teaching. While most (88%) ob tain average s a t i s ­ f a c t i o n or b e t t e r from the courses they t ea ch , many general i n s t r u c ­ t o r s (41%) d e riv e l e s s than average s a t i s f a c t i o n from the q u a l i t y of community c o lleg e s t u d e n ts . Of a l l f a c u l t y , general i n s t r u c t o r s were l e a s t l i k e l y to r e p o r t t h a t they owed t h e i r g r e a t e s t a l l e g i a n c e to the student body (37%), but most favored o r i e n t i n g t h e i r music pro­ grams toward o th e r than the music major (54%). The p a r t - t im e general i n s t r u c t o r did not consider community c o lle g e teaching the pr e f e r r e d vocation (only 22% d i d ) , and wished instead to be employed as a performer or p r i v a t e t e a c h e r (37%), or as a u n i v e r s i t y te a c h e r (26%). They entered i n to community c olleg e teaching in order to gain teaching experience (56%) and to secure a second job (49%) supplementary t o th e one c u r r e n t l y held (85%). Some took p o s i t i o n s because no public school teaching jobs were a v a i l a b l e (9%). This su b set of f a c u l t y has not decided whether to remain in the f i e l d (48%). P a r t- tim e general f a c u l t y receive average s a t i s f a c t i o n or b e t t e r from the v a r i a b l e s comprising the following f a c t o r s : c o l l e g i a l r e l a t i o n s and j o b - r e l a t e d p r e s t i g e . s t a t u s of They r e p o r t deriving l e s s than average s a t i s f a c t i o n r e l a t i n g t o personal and pro fes si onal well-being and u t i l i z i o n of on-campus f a c i l i t i e s . These i n s t r u c t o r s i d e n t i f y the following seven individual items (with means ranging above 3.5) as t h e i r most s a t i s f y i n g p o s i t i o n v a r i a b l e s : (a) academic freedom, (b) c o n g e n i a l i ty of c o llea g u es , (c) c o n ta c ts with c h airp erso n , (d) competency of c o llea g u es , (e) courses t a u g h t , ( f ) scheduling freedom, and (g) nearness of r e l a t i v e s . 191 Pa rt-tim e general f a c u l t y r e p o r t experiencing t h e i r g r e a t e s t d i f f i c u l t i e s with the encouragement of stu d e n t musical involvement. They encounter moderate d i f f i c u l t i e s in helping stu dents meet course requirements and f in d l e s s e r d i f f i c u l t y performing o rg an i­ z atio n a l t a s k s . They i d e n t i f y the following individual v a r i a b le s (with item means ranging up to 2.19) as most troublesome: (a) teach­ ing students who do not p r a c t i c e , (b) contending with a range of stud e nt a b i l i t i e s , (c) contending with stud e n t absences, (d) tea ch ­ ing students who do not do t h e i r assignments. P r o f i l e o f P r i v a te Music I n s t r u c t o r s The average p a rt - t im e applied i n s t r u c t o r i s l i k e l y to be a female (60%) whose median age i s 36. The te a c h e r holds n e i t h e r academic rank (0%) nor serves as music a d m i n i s t r a t o r f o r the program (0%). Some, however, r e p o r t having been granted a form of ten ure (4%). Indeed, a m ajo rity of applied f a c u l t y (56%) have been asso­ c i a t e d with t h e i r co lleg e f o r f ou r ye ars or longer. Most (88%) do not depend on community co lleg e teaching f o r t h e i r e n t i r e income. Many applied teach ers (60%) teach between one and s i x hours a week f o r t h e i r c o l l e g e , although some (20%) are engaged f o r 15 hours o r more per week. Their les sons a re given prim a ril y o f f campus; in f a c t , most (52%) teach o f f campus e x c lu s iv e ly . Most consider t h e i r teaching load to be l i g h t (71%). The average applied tea ch e r holds a t l e a s t a b a c h e l o r 's degree and, most commonly (52%), a m a s t e r 's degree as the h ighest academic c r e d e n t i a l . The i n s t r u c t o r has n e i t h e r tau g ht a t the public 192 school l e v e l s (28%) nor worked as a commercial or stu d io musician (20%) and has not been employed in the music ind u stry (8%). Rarely has the tea ch e r been a community c o lleg e student (8%) o r has studied the functions and philosophy of the i n s t i t u t i o n f o r which he/she works (12%). Applied i n s t r u c t o r s a re c o n c e n t r i c a l l y o rien ted to c l a s s i c a l music (92%) and to the needs of music majors (70%), the student group they encounter most often (72% to 56% f o r nonmajors). They remain ex cite d about teaching (78%) and r e p o r t t h a t they d e riv e a t l e a s t average s a t i s f a c t i o n from t h e i r teaching assignment (87%). Although many r e p o r t t h a t they obtain l e s s than average s a t i s f a c t i o n from the q u a l i t y o f stu d e n ts they encounter (50%), they tend to r e p o r t t h a t they owe t h e i r primary profes si onal a ll e g i a n c e to stu d e n ts (52%), r a t h e r than to th e d i s c i p l i n e of music (48%). Of the various reasons f o r e n te rin g i n to community co lleg e tea chin g, the most f req u e n t ones given by ap plied f a c u l t y were to gain teaching experience (40%) and t o ob tain a second job (36%). In a d d i t i o n , some r e p o r t they entered the p rofession because they were t r a i n e d to do so (32%) while others (20%) i n d i c a t e they were a t t r a c t e d to community colleg e teaching f o r i t s prestige. Community c o lleg e teaching i s not a p r e f e r r e d voca­ t i o n , however (4%). Applied f a c u l t y a re l i k e l y to p r e f e r teaching a t the f o u r - y e a r c o lle g e leve l (46%) or to teach p r i v a t e l y and to perform (42%). Most have not decided whether or not they w ill s t a y in community c o lle g e teaching (52%). P a rt-tim e applied i n s t r u c t o r s d eriv e average s a t i s f a c t i o n or b e t t e r from the v a r i a b l e s comprising the f a c t o r s rep re se n tin g the 193 status of collegial re la tio n s . They r e p o r t t h a t they d e riv e l e s s than average s a t i s f a c t i o n regarding such f a c t o r s as personal and pro fession al w e l l- b e in g , use of on-campus f a c i l i t i e s , and jobrelated prestige. These i n s t r u c t o r s i d e n t i f i e d the following seven individual items (with means ranging above 3.5) as t h e i r most s a t i s f y i n g p o s i t io n v a r i a b l e s : (a) scheduling freedom, (b) geo­ graphy o f the reg io n , (c) c o n g e n i a l i ty of c o ll e a g u e s , (d) opportu­ n i t i e s f o r o utsid e income, (e) adequacy o f group r eh e arsal f a c i l i ­ t i e s , ( f ) academic freedom, and (g) courses t a u g h t. P a r t- tim e a p p lied f a c u l t y ap p aren tly encounter g r e a t d i f f i ­ c u l t i e s encouraging st u d e n t musical involvement. They a l s o expe­ rience moderate d i f f i c u l t y helping stu de n ts meet course requirements, and f in d l e a s t d i f f i c u l t th e management o f e x i s t i n g resources and performing s p e c i f i e d o r g a n iz a tio n a l t a s k s . They i d e n t i f i e d the following individual v a r i a b l e s (with item means ranging up to 2.16) as most troublesome: (a) teaching stu d e n ts who do not p r a c t i c e , (b) teaching stu d e n ts of minimal t a l e n t , (c) contending with stu d e n t absences, and (d) teaching immature st u d e n ts . Conclusions The data i n d i c a t e t h e r e a r e enough d e s c r i p t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s between f u l l - t i m e and p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y t o conclude t h a t they a re significantly dissim ilar. Appreciable age and gender d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t along with a n o tab le lack among p a r t - t im e i n s t r u c t o r s of public school teaching experience and a varian ce in j o b - r e l a t e d a t t i t u d e s . 194 Moreover, the groups d i f f e r e d in t h e i r teaching r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and in t h e i r rewards. D e scrip tiv e d i f f e r e n c e s between p a r t - t im e subgroup members were not nearly so pronounced. Of a l l t h r e e subgroups, however, the p a r t - t im e general i n s t r u c t o r s appeared to be the most heterogeneous in academic background, range of pro fession al experien ce, and musical taste. As might be expected, classroom tea ch e rs claimed to encounter more i n s t r u c t i o n a l r e l a te d d i f f i c u l t i e s than did p r i v a t e music t e a c h ­ ers. Full-tim e i n s t r u c t o r s , f o r example, met with g r e a t e r d i f f i c u l t y than applied f a c u l t y i n helping stu de nts f u l f i l l course requirements, and p a r t - t im e general i n s t r u c t o r s experienced more problems than did o th er f a c u l t y in u t i l i z i n g t h e i r s c h o o l 's resources t o b e s t advan­ tage. Many f a c u l t y members, however, expressed f r u s t r a t i o n in coping with students who do not p r a c t i c e , contending with stu d e n t absences, working with immature s t u d e n t s , and teaching students o f minimal musical t a l e n t . The m ajo rity of tea c h e r s appeared to be g e n e r a l l y s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r p o s i t i o n s . satisfaction Most tea c h e r s expressed high morale, average or b e t t e r with t h e i r teaching assignments, and high s a t i s f a c t i o n with c o l l e g i a l r e l a t i o n s . However, f u l l - t i m e tea ch e rs were found to d eriv e s a t i s f a c t i o n from a broader range of j o b - r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s than did p a r t - t i m e f a c u l t y . F u l l - ti m e f a c u l t y rep orted s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r s a t i s f a c t i o n than p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y from personal and pr o f e s sio n a l b e n e f i t s o f community c ollege te a c h i n g , and 195 from use o f campus f a c i l i t i e s . Pa rt-tim e applied i n s t r u c t o r s i n d i ­ cated rec eivin g l e s s s a t i s f a c t i o n in terms of p r e s t i g e than did o th er faculty. Regarding p r o f e s s i o n a l i z a t i o n , i t appeared t h a t many i n s t r u c t o r s i d e n t i f i e d only minimally with the community colleg e philosophy. Many p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y , e s p e c i a l l y , displayed a t t i t u d e s co ntra ry to those considered d e s i r a b l e . A s i z a b l e po rt io n of the music f a c u l t y , f o r example, were d i s s a t i s f i e d with the q u a l i t y o f t h e i r stu d e n ts and did not r e p o r t owing t h e i r g r e a t e s t pro fes si onal a l l e g i a n c e to s t u d e n ts . In a d d i t i o n , many i n s t r u c t o r s p r e f e r r e d to work a t a profession o t h e r than community co lleg e teaching. The number of f u l l - t i m e music tea ch e rs employed in Michigan public community c o lle g e s had (as of Spring 1981) remained c o n stan t since 1977, while the number of p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y had r i s e n . An incre ase in the number of p a r t - t im e f a c u l t y employed has been made in schools acro ss a l l enrollment c a t e g o r i e s . The l a r g e s t i n cre as es were r e g i s ­ t e r e d in schools with enrollments exceeding 10,000 s t u d e n ts ; the sm a ll e s t gains were made within schools with enrollments of under 2 , 000 . S t a t i s t i c s c o l l e c t e d by t h e presen t re s e a r c h e r matched Merkel’s (1977, p. 109) e x a c tl y with regard t o the average number of f u l l ­ time music tea che rs employed by i n s t i t u t i o n s c ategorized by s i z e of enrollment. An average of t h r e e f u l l - t i m e t e a ch e rs were employed in (urban) schools with enrollments above 10,000; however, c u r r e n t data i n d i c a t e an in cre ase from 6 to 8 in the average number of p a r t - t im e 196 i n s t r u c t o r s a t these schools. Two f u l l - t i m e tea che rs are employed in (suburban or r u r a l ) i n s t i t u t i o n s with enrollments of 5,000 to 9,999. The average number of pa rt- tim e employees has, however, increased from 6 to 9. One f u l l - t i m e music i n s t r u c t o r i s a l l t h a t i s g e n e r a l l y employed in (mixed-setting) schools which e n ro ll between 2,000 and 4,999 st u d e n ts . Yet t h e i r average number o f pa rt- tim e i n s t r u c t o r s has ap p aren tly r i s e n from one s t a f f member to f i v e . F i n a l l y , i t i s g e n e r a lly the case t h a t no f u l l - t i m e music i n s t r u c t o r s a re employed by ( r u r a l ) c o lleg e s with enrollments of under 2,000. These c o lleg e s have, however, increased t h e i r p a rt - t im e s t a f f from 1 to 1.5 music t ea ch e rs. Discussion The j o b - r e l a t e d a t t i t u d e s of the s u b j e c t s surveyed revealed t h a t the pro fession al i d e n t i t y of a l a r g e segment of community co lleg e music f a c u l t y , p rim a rily p a rt - t im e employees, has been incompletely developed. This conclusion i s supported by f i v e f i n d i n g s . First, many respondents (47%) reported t h a t they owed t h e i r g r e a t e s t p r o f e s ­ sional a l l e g i a n c e t o the d i s c i p l i n e of music, d e s p i te the expectation t h a t community c olleg e i n s t r u c t o r s should perceive themselves pro­ f e s s i o n a l l y as t e a ch e rs f i r s t , and then as s p e c i a l i s t s . With r es p ec t t o th e diminishing importance of community c o lle g e t r a n s f e r programs, the percentage of music tea che rs expressing d i s c i p l i n e - o r i e n t e d values appears t o be e xcessive. Second, many s u b je c ts (35%) i n d ic a te d they d e riv e l e s s than average s a t i s f a c t i o n from th e q u a l i t y of students they encountered, and more than h a l f of a l l who i d e n t i f i e d reasons to 197 leave community c o lle g e teaching c i t e the q u a l i t y of stu d e n ts as a factor. This was so, d e s p i te o f f i c i a l p o l i c i e s designed to develop open-admissions i n s t i t u t i o n s in which "the beginning and continuing point of reference i s th e lea rning needs and i n t e r e s t s of the people" (Gleazer, 1980, p. 88). express a preference t o teach Cohen and Brawer's T hird, most t e a ch e rs (74%) did not a t the community c o lle g e (1972) and H i l l ' s (1975) i n s i s t e n c e l e v e l , d e s p i te thatfailure t o do so i s a sign of profes sional immaturity. Fourth, many respondents (50%) ind ic ate d they b e lieve t h a t t h e i r music programs should be o r ie n te d p rim arily toward the university-bound music major. Their op inio n s, however, c o n t r a d i c t statements t h a t to serve t h i s minority of st ud en ts (the university-bound music majors) foremost o ften proves impractical and runs counter to the goals of general educa tion. F i n a l l y , that-some p a rt -t im e general f a c u l t y (21.5%) report ed t h a t they a re preoccupied with o th e r than teaching i s to reveal t h e i r dysfunctional s t a t u s within the "teaching c o l l e g e . " Within social systems a n a l y s i s , the p res en t problem of f a c u l t y expressing a t t i t u d e s c o n tr a r y to those d e s i r e s i s sa id to involve the "work-group" and i t s " c u l t u r e . " As explained by Hoy and Miskel 1982), organizational behavior (Here, the expression of j o b - r e l a t e d a t t i t u d e s ) r e s u l t s from i n t e r ­ a c t io n among i n s t i t u t i o n a l r o l e e xp ec ts io ns , the work-group, and i n d i ­ vidual needs. Of t h e s e f a c t o r s , the work-group may be most s i g n i f i c a n t to explain the s e t of values adopted by the group. Whereas r o le expec­ t a t i o n s tend to be f l e x i b l e (with a minimum of r u l e s imposed), the 198 c u l t u r e within the schools i s determined normatively by th e work­ group. Those wishing to a l t e r the normative c u l t u r e e s t a b l i s h e d by the work-group can attempt to modify the group's values through e i t h e r the imposition o f g r e a t e r b u r e a u c r a tic c o n t r o l s or through p r e s e r v ic e and i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g . According to Cohen and Brawer (1982, p. 6 8 ), the imposition of even s t r i c t e r b u r e a u c r a tic c o n t r o l s could a l i e n a t e the f a c u l t y . They a s s e r t t h a t such r e s t r i c t i o n s tend to transform p a r t i c i p a n t s i n to hourly workers, the outcome of which i s u n d e s i r a b l e . Many r e s ea rch e rs c o n sid er pre- and i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g as a b e t t e r means of in flu en cin g t e a c h e r behavior. When Jamerson (1979, p. 7) and oth ers suggest t h a t the gap between the s t a t e d goals of th e commu­ n i t y c o lleg e and t h e i r r e a l i z a t i o n can be narrowed i f i n d i v i d u a l s a re provided information and t r a i n i n g about the community c o l l e g e ' s purpose, they a re a c t u a l l y suggesting t h a t (1) values within th e work group can be shaped through the in tr o d u c tio n of new members with a p r e - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g background, and (2) i n - s e r v i c e i n t e r v e n t i o n can a l t e r the values o f c u r r e n t members of th e work group. Of the two approaches designed to develop f a c u l t y p o t e n t i a l , pre-service training is preferable. I n - s e r v i c e workshops, seminars o r conventions cannot s u b s t i t u t e f o r thorough p r e - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g , even though c on te n t may o v erlap. The two methods may d i f f e r in spe­ c i f i c i t y , depth o f in q u ir y , term o f i n s t r u c t i o n , and most i m p o rtan tly , type of i n s t r u c t i o n . Within p r e - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g t h e r e i s a g r e a t e r l i k e l ih o o d t h a t the a b s t r a c t problems encountered in teaching can be approached within the music classroom. 199 In f a c t , p r e - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g of two-year c o lle g e music i n s t r u c ­ t o r s within the music education curriculum was advocated as e a r l y as 1959 by Hudgins. More r e c e n t l y , support f o r p r e - s e r v i c e i n te r v e n t i o n under t h e control of music educators came from Bonelli (1973). He recommended t h a t "supervised teaching a t the graduate level . . . should involve a v a r i e t y of s p e c i a l i z e d concerns such as applied music study and music programs in community c o lle g e s" ( B o n e l l i , 1973, p. 81). Such supervised te a c h i n g , according to B o n e l l i , can be i n i t i a t e d in sp ecial courses and seminars. Recommendations Although u su a lly conceived as a graduate level a c t i v i t y , p re ­ s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g can s t a r t during o n e 's undergraduate ed ucation. Until more research i s conducted, however, to determine in d e t a i l what s u p e r l a t i v e music teaching and le a r n in g a t the community c o lle g e level e n t a i l s , u n i v e r s it y - b a s e d music education s p e c i a l i s t s w ill have l i t t l e concrete information from which to organize a s p e c i f i c course. Until such information i s forthcoming, stu d e n ts would be well advised to e n ro l l in any a v a i l a b l e general education course designed to o r i e n t stu de nts to th e community c o l l e g e . These courses should help acquain t the stud e n t with th e general l i t e r a t u r e t h a t p e r t a i n s to the h i s t o r y , philosophy, and functio n of the community c o ll e g e as a modern institution. The i n t e r e s t e d stu de n t will a l s o b e n e f i t by reading m a t e r i a ls s p e c i f i c a l l y about the r o l e o f music in th e community colleges. Some of t h es e sources a r e r e f e r r e d to in t h i s study. a d d i t i o n , th e p ro sp e ctiv e community c o ll e g e t e a c h e r can become In 200 acquainted with the community c o l l e g e ' s environment by spending time a t one or more o f i t s campuses and by interviewing i t s s t a f f . P r a c t i c a l experience may be gained most advantageously, as recommended by Bonelli (1973, p. 8 1 ) , by teaching under the su per­ v i s i o n of master t e a c h e r s . The sequence of experiences ( t o e x t r a ­ p olate from B o n e l l i ' s paradigm) might begin with the observation of model community c o lle g e t e a ch e rs working with music majors and general community c o lleg e s t u d e n t s . Next, the stu d e n t could progress to micro-teaching under d i r e c t s u p e r v i s i o n , and th e n , to serving as an i n t e r n a t the community c o lle g e i t s e l f . These experiences a r e , of c ours e, supplementary t o the s t u d e n t ' s b asic musical ed u ca tio n , which should be as broad and as thorough as p o s s i b l e . I n - s e r v i c e a s s i s t a n c e might then be employed to promote a d j u s t ­ ment t o o n e 's new jo b , to promote p rofessio n al r o l e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , to help res olve i n s t r u c t i o n a l - r e l a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s , and t o remain professionally current. In a d d it i o n to e x t a n t pro fessio nal develop­ ment programs, music a d m i n i s t r a t o r s can aid in f a c u l t y development, the following procedural 1. sugge stions might s t i m u l a te such growth. Create an environment t h a t encourages f a c u l t y t o keep c u r r e n t with innovations in th e music p rofession and ed u catio n. This may be accomplished by subscribing to a number of p ro fes sio n al magazines and journals. Encourage d isc u ssio n of p ro fes sio n al tren d s a t departmental meetings. 2. Implement a p a r t - t i m e f a c u l t y e v aluation program. I t may focus on s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n in which the f a c u l t y member i s asked to compare h i s / h e r performance a g a i n s t a s e t of s p e c i f i e d c r i t e r i a . 201 3. Let f a c u l t y be c r e a t i v e . untapped f a c u l t y e x p e r t i s e . Try to disc ern and use are as of Experiment with an open-classroom s e t up, team t e a c h in g , more unique stu dent combinations. Encourage f a c u l t y use of i n s t r u c t i o n a l media. 4. Teach, encourage, and help f a c u l t y to r e c r u i t s t u d e n ts . Discuss ways to use a l l kinds of lim ite d resources to b e s t advantage. 5. Maintain frequ e nt c o n ta c t with p a r t - t i m e , a p p li e d , and adju nct i n s t r u c t o r s . larly. Encourage them to evalu ate t h e i r students regu­ Find ways to reward them f o r taking p a r t in the musical l i f e o f the c o ll e g e . Involve them in decision making and help them to see t h e i r importance t o the program. 6. I n v i t e a w e ll- r e sp e c te d community c ollege music t e a c h e r to organize an i n - s e r v i c e workshop, and encourage f a c u l t y to a t t e n d . Videotape the sessio n so t h a t other music programs can b e n e f i t from the experience. 7. Promote u n ity between pa rt-tim e f a c u l t y and f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y , and between f a c u l t y and a d m i n i s t r a t io n . Avoid inte rgroup r i v a l r y based on employment s t a t u s and fu nctio n. 8. Use departmental meetings t o disc uss i n s t r u c t i o n a l problems (such as encouraging stu de nt musical involvement or helping st ud en ts meet course requirem ents ), adoption of new m a t e r i a l s , c u r r i c u l a r development, and c u r r i c u l a r r e v i s i o n . 9. Encourage f a c u l t y t o continue t h e i r own education and to l ea rn more about the community c o l l e g e , i t s f ou n datio ns, and i t s clientele. 202 10. association. Encourage f a c u l t y p a r t i c i p a t i o n in a pro fessio nal music Support t h e i r attendance a t the annual Michigan Commu-1 n i t y College Arts and Humanities Association convention. Help organ­ ize a regional meeting of music a d m i n i s t r a t o r s / f a c u l t y . The i n s t i t u t i o n of more rigorous p r e - s e r v i c e and i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g procedures a re indeed important to develop the p o te n tia l of a l l who d e s i r e to teach music a t th e community c o lle g e l e v e l . There i s , however, another commonly overlooked f a c t o r which i n f l u ­ ences profes sional growth, and t h a t i s the c o l l e c t i v e f o r c e of the f a c u l t y members themselves. Two lea d ers in the community c o llege movement place the onus of p r o f e s s i o n a l i z a t i o n upon members of the f a c u l t y : Cohen and Brawer (1977). Stoops (1966) and Stoops (1966, pp. 52-53) a s s e r t e d t h a t the development of profe ssional standards within the community c o lleg e s could only be achieved through the e x e r c is e of academic freedom by f a c u l t y in the process of self-e xam ination and s e l f - c r i t i c i s m . He believed t h a t the d e s t in y of the community co llege hinged on the a b i l i t y of the f a c u l t y to judge i t s own competence. concurred. They s t a t e : Cohen and Brawer The community c olleg e f a c u l t y ' s " s h o r t ­ comings as a pr ofession are seen in i t s f a i l u r e to control en tr y into and to p o lic e i t s own ranks. . . . Fu r th e r , i t has developed n e i t h e r a unique ethos nor a code of e t h i c s to which i t s members subscribe" (Cohen & Brawer, 1977, x i ) . Indeed, r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the p ro fessio nal development of music t ea ch e rs has been assigned h i s t o r i c a l l y to members of the profes sion 203 itself. Music tea ch e rs have not been s a t i s f i e d with d e fi nin g them­ se lves s o l e l y as elementary school t e a ch e rs or high school t e a c h e r s . They have sought to bring t o t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n s a s e l f - i d e n t i t y based on t h e i r involvement with music. The concern shown in 1884 by public school music tea ch e rs brought t o g e t h e r by common i n t e r e s t s led t o the o rg an iz atio n of the Department o f Music within the National Education Associatio n. Then, as Birge s t a t e s (1928): "The r e s u l t i n g conscious­ ness of the power in u n ite d e f f o r t brought about a d e s i r e on the p a r t of many leading [music] superviso rs f o r an independent n ational asso ­ c i a t i o n " (p. 240). This national a s s o c i a t i o n , founded in 1907 by in d iv i d u a ls drawn to g e th e r by professional concerns, became the Music Educators National Conference, the o r g a n i z a t i o n , according to Sunderman (1971), resp on sib le f o r the developing "consciousness on the p a r t of educators t h a t music education i s a p rofessio n in i t s own r i g h t " (p. 336). While the voluntary assemblage of school music te a c h e r s to d i s ­ cuss m atters of common i n t e r e s t may have led to t h e i r u nio n iz atio n (in the b e s t sense of t h e word), t h e i r growing concern about education, and t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n ^ secured t h e i r professional s t a t u s . As former MENC Pre sid e n t Hood noted in 1952, profe ssional r ec o g nitio n r e s u l t s from the continuing involvement of music educators in a l l f i e l d r e l a t e d to the teaching of music: I t takes more than good teaching today t o make a successful recognized p ro fes sio n of music ed ucation. . . . We know . . . t h a t i t behooves us to be p a r t of education and the schools as a whole and not a sm all, highly s p e c i a l i z e d , s e p a r a t e , tec h n ic al area o f the curriculum. . . . We cry f o r professio nal r e c o g n i ti o n , but sometimes f o r g e t t h a t 204 such r e c o g n itio n must be preceded by a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n . . . . in our f i e l d [and] in a l l r e l a t e d f i e l d s t h a t a f f e c t u s , in both local and widespread s i t u a t i o n s (Hood, 1952, pp. 15, 17). P r e s i d e n t Hood's words suggest t h a t the t r u l y profession al community c o lle g e music educator should f u n ctio n within the s t a t e d philosophy o f th e community c o l l e g e , and t h a t he o r she should be an a s s e t to the i n s t i t u t i o n . The pro fession al community c o ll e g e music t e a c h e r , in o t h e r words, should accede t o "place the i n t e r e s t s and concerns of stud e nts above h i s f i e l d of study" (Monroe, 1972, p. 178). The p ro fes sio n al performing musician, the academician, and the improperly t r a i n e d i n s t r u c t o r , a l l a r e more l i k e l y to follow t r a d i ­ t i o n a l s t a n d a r d s , which a re b e t t e r s u i t e d t o an e l i t i s t i n s t i t u t i o n than t o the community c o ll e g e . In th e p a s t , t h e r e had been r ec og n ition t h a t the j u n i o r c o l l e g e ' s fun ctio n d i f f e r e d from t h a t o f o t h e r i n s t i t u t i o n s . The MENC Committees on Music in the Ju nio r Colleges formed during the l a t e 1930s, in 1954, and in 1970 a re examples. None, however, has managed to s u r v i v e , o s t e n s i b l y f o r lack of support from music i n s t r u c t o r s in s e r v i c e a t two-year c o l l e g e s . I f progress toward p r o f e s s i o n a l i z a t i o n i s to be made, however, c u r r e n t i n s t r u c t o r s have to show more i n t e r e s t than they have in the p a st in pursuing t h e i r own p rofession al i n t e r e s t s . I n s t r u c t o r s will need to explore the e x p e r t i s e within t h e i r own ranks i f t h e i r common problems a r e to be solved. In a s t a t e such as Michigan in which l i t t l e intra departm enta l communication has been e s t a b l i s h e d , i n i t i a t i n g i n t r a f a c u l t y c on ta ct w ill be d i f f i c u l t . 205 I t might be a p p r o p r i a te f o r department chairperso ns to e s t a b l i s h c o n ta c t among themselves a t an annual meeting of the Michigan Commu­ n i t y College Arts and Humanities A s s o c ia t io n , and f o r them to agree to organize regional meetings so t h a t i n s t r u c t o r s would not need to t r a v e l long d i s t a n c e s to a t t e n d . At each regional meeting, a f l o a t ­ ing s e r i e s of workshops might well be organized. These workshops would bring to local community c o ll e g e s m a t e r i a ls and methods intended to inform f a c u l t y members of innovations within t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n . The workshops could be organized t o p i c a l l y : one might deal with curriculum development and r e v i s i o n , anoth er with a p t i t u d e and achieve­ ment t e s t i n g , and a t h i r d might p e r t a i n t o th e teaching of applied music. Results of the regional meetings and workshops could be report ed a t the annual MCCAHA convention. I t would be h e l p f u l , a l s o , i f some of the regional meetings could be scheduled to coincide with o th er pro fession al f u n c t i o n s , such as the annual MENC Midwest Confer­ ence held in Ann Arbor. This would give f a c u l t y members a chance to see what o t h e r members of the music p rofes sio n a re doing. Given increased i n t e r e s t among community co lleg e music t e a c h e r s , i t might be worthwhile f o r f a c u l t y members t o a f f i l i a t e with the MENC and to organize i n to a s p e cia l i n t e r e s t group. Doing so would enable the MENC and i t s f e d e r a t e d s t a t e org an iz atio n (in Michigan, the Michigan Music Educators As sociation) to a s s i s t in the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of r o l e models f o r p ro sp e ctiv e t e a ch e rs and c u r r e n t t e a ch e rs to emulate and in the composition of data banks of information s p e c i f i c to teaching music a t th e community c olleg e l e v e l . The MENC could a ls o 206 help generate g u idelin es under which tea che rs may be t r a i n e d . In a d d i t i o n , a f u l l e r examination of music a t the community c o lle g e level may be undertaken and i t s f in d in g s disseminated to a wider range of music educators than has t h e r e t o f o r e been p o s s i b l e . Recommendations f o r Furthe r Research Further research about the community c o lle g e music f a c u l t y needs to be conducted within o th er regions and n a t i o n a l l y . I t would be a p p ro p r i a te f o r an o rg an iz atio n such as th e American Association o f Community and J u n io r Colleges (AACJC) to commission a national study of music i n s t r u c t o r s and the environment in which they work. Of p a r t i c u l a r m erit would be a study which included a p p lie d music i n s t r u c t o r s , a group t h a t has been unduly negle cted. Researchers wishing to r e p l i c a t e the present study within another region should take the following suggestions i n to c o n s i d e r a ti o n : 1. When s o l i c i t i n g the names o f i n s t r u c t o r s , have a d m i n i s t r a ­ t o r s i n d i c a t e c l e a r l y which teachers are c u r r e n t l y employed, because sometimes t h e i r l i s t s a r e outdated. I f t h i s i s done, i t should be po ss ib le t o determine sampling b ias more a c c u r a t e l y . 2. Try to conduct the study during f a l l semester so as to s u r ­ vey the maximum number of i n s t r u c t o r s l i k e l y to be employed during the academic y e ar. 3. Revise the survey instrument to e l i c i t employment s t a t u s and fu n ctio n more c l e a r l y . Respondents should sp e cify i f t h e i r only r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s a r e to teach p r i v a t e l e s s o n s . I t may a ls o be useful to i d e n t i f y i n s t r u c t o r s employed s o l e l y to teach p r i v a t e l e s s o n s , ap p lied music c l a s s ( e s ) and/or ensembles. 207 4. Revise the a t t i t u d i n a l measure r a t i n g s c a le s according to research purposes. The Po s itio n S a t i s f a c t i o n measure may be f i t t e d with a b i - p o l a r ( s a t i s f a c t i o n / d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n ) s c a l e . The I n s t r u c ­ t io n a l D i f f i c u l t i e s r a t i n g s c ale may be expanded from t h r e e - t o f i v e steps. 5. Revise the l i s t of questio ns to include th e following: At what stage in your c a r e e r did you make the decision to become a community co llege teacher? Are you g e n erally s a t i s f i e d with your job? Full-tim e i n s t r u c t o r s : Had you s t a r t e d your community c ollege teaching c a r e e r as a p a rt - t im e teacher? P art-tim e i n s t r u c t o r s : Do you a s p i r e to f u l l - t i m e s t a t u s ? What percentage of your t o t a l income does community colleg e teaching account for ? I f n e i t h e r s a l a r y nor tenure were of concern, would you remain in community c o lleg e teaching? L i s t the professi onal music organizatio n s to which you belong. To what degree do you support the goals o f open admissions and remedial education? Estimate the t o t a l time spent each week in performing community c o l l e g e - r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s . I t i s a ls o recommended t h a t a d d itio n al research be conducted in the following a re a s : 208 1. I d e n t i f y , analyze, and document s u p e r l a t i v e community c o llege music teaching. Such research should i d e n t i f y a p p r o p r i a te research a c t i v i t i e s fo r current in stru cto rs. I t should a ls o lead t o the development of a methods t e x t f o r teaching music a t the community c o ll e g e l e v e l . 2. Compile and analyze community co llege music a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' views on r e l e v a n t a c c r e d i t a t i o n standards f o r community c o lle g e music programs. Administrators may a l s o be surveyed with regard to the c r i t e r i a used in gra n tin g tenure to community c o lle g e music f a c u l t y . APPENDICES 209 APPENDIX 1 COVER LETTER FOR QUESTIONNAIRE 210 A p ril 25, 1981 Dear Colleague, I am c o n ta cting you a t t h i s time t o ask a personal f a v o r . I t i s t h a t you share with me your perception s about your jo b . As a community c o ll e g e music i n s t r u c t o r , you probably have some f a i r l y d e f i n i t e a t t i t u d e s and opinions about your j o b , and how i t may be improved. I would very much l i k e t o hear your concerns and i n co rp o ra te them i n t o the doctoral study I am conducting of community c o lle g e music i n s t r u c t o r s and t h e i r working c o n d it i o n s . Being a community c o ll e g e music i n s t r u c t o r myself, I became curious as t o the kinds of problems we encounter on a d a i l y b a s i s . My c u r i ­ o s i t y led me to develop the p res en t stu d y, which has been approved by members of the Department of Music Education a t Michigan S t a t e U n iv e rsity . I am su re t h a t you will a p p r e c i a te th e importance of t h i s i n v e s t i g a ­ t i o n , and c e r t a i n l y hope t h a t you will p a r t i c i p a t e in i t . All t h a t i s asked is t h a t you complete the enclosed q u e s t io n n a ir e . You will f in d t h a t the q u e stio n n a ir e has been designed so t h a t t h e r e a r e no r i g h t or wrong answers. So p lease fe e l f r e e to express your t r u e f e e l i n g s . And I a s s u r e you t h a t a l l information c o l l e c t e d will be kept in s t r i c t c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . In re p o r t i n g the d a t a , no r e f e r ­ ence will be made to any p a r t i c u l a r music program or music f a c u l t y member:. I would be most a p p r e c i a t i v e i f you would complete and r e t u r n the q u e stio n n a ir e as soon as p o s s ib l e . A stamped, s e l f - a d d r e s s e d envelope has been provided f o r your convenience. Hoping to hear from you soon, I remain, Sinc ere ly y o urs, Mark F i n k e ls te i n Doctoral Candidate, and Community College Music I n s t r u c t o r Enclosures 211 APPENDIX 2 QUESTIONNAIRE 212 14) ( - COMMUNITY COLLEGE MUSIC FACULTY QUESTIONNAIRE 3 □ No 4 □ U n c e r t a i n '1 D o y o u pl a n t o s ta y in c o m m u n it y c o lle g e te a c h in g ? 2. W h a t w e r e s o m e o f t h e re a s o n s w h y y o u e n t e r e d c o m m u n ity c o lleg e te a c h in g ? □ □ y o u n e e d e d a s e c o n d job® □ t o a v o id h a v in g t o te a c h a t t h e p u b lic s c h o o l levels □ to fill in le is u re tim e ® D f o r th e p re s tig e 6 □ n o jo b o p e n in g s a t th e p u b lic s c h o o l le v e ls 7 □ n o jo b o p e n in g s a t th e 4 -y e a r c o lle g e o r u n iv e r s ity lev els □ t o g ain te a c h in g e x p e rie n c e ® □ t o b e e m p lo y e d w h ile fin is h in g a g r a d u a te d e g re e □ o t h e r 11 4. W h a t is y o u r e m p lo y m e n t s ta tu s ? (D u rin g S p r in g 1 9 8 1 ) □ F u ll- T im e 1 □ P a r t- T im e 2 1 3 3 A re y o u e m p lo y e d else w h e re ? P Y es, in m u s ic □ Y es, b u t n o t in m u s ic * □ N o° 5. W hich o n e o f th e f o llo w in g p o s itio n s d o y o u f in d 6. most a ttr a c tiv e ? □ O th e r® -------- c o m m u n ity c o lle g e te a c h in g 1 □ c o m m u n ity c o lle g e a d m in is tr a tio n 2 u n iv e rs ity teaching® □ u n iv e r s ity a d m in is tr a tio n 4 □ p u b lic s c h o o l te a c h in g 6 □ p u b lic s c h o o l a d m in is tr a tio n 6 □ jo b in t h e m u s ic -b u sin e s s, o r - in d u s tr y 7 □ n o n - m u s ic p o s itio n in b u s in e s s o r in d u s tr y 6 □ o th e r® _______________________________ (C h e c k o n ly o n e ) (3 1 ) □ I am e x c ite d a b o u t te a c h in g 1 □ I h a v e o t h e r th in g s o n m y m in d a t p r e s e n t b e s id e s te a c h in g P I f in d m y r o u ti n e boring® □ o th e r - 1. T o w h ic h , a m o n g th e fo llo w in g , d o y o u o w e y o u r g r e a te s t a lle g ia n c e ? □ th e te a c h in g p r o f e s s io n 1 □ y o u r stu d e n ts® In y o u r o p in io n , w h ic h s tu d e n t g r o u p (3 2 ) (C h e c k o n ly o n e ) □ y o u r c o lle g e 2 □ th e d is c ip lin e o f m u s ic should rece iv e u n iv e r s ity -tr a c k m u s ic m a jo r s 1 □ g e n e ra l, n o n - m u s ic s tu d e n t s 2 □ o c c a s io n a l (a v o c a tio n a l) s tu d e n ts® □ c o m m e r c ia l- m u s ic s tu d e n t s 4 □ o t h e r ? ___________________________________ H o w d o y o u p e rc e iv e y o u r te a c h in g lo a d ? □ (3 3 ) t h e m o s t a t t e n t i o n f r o m y o u r m u s ic p ro g r a m ? □ it te n d s t o b e h e a v y 1 (C h e c k o n ly o n e ) it te n d s t o b e lig h t2 (3 4 ) □ o t h e r : _____________________ (3 5 -3 6 ) H o w m a n y class h o u r s a w e e k d o y o u te a c h ? P A R T II. (2 8 ) (2 9 ) □ □ (1 7 -2 7 ) (3 0 ) (C h ec k o n ly o n e ) D H o w w o u ld y o u d e s c rib e y o u r p r e s e n t m o tiv a tio n a l s ta te ? 10. (1 6 ) (C h e c k a s m a n y a s a p p ly ) y o u w e re p re p a r e d in c o lle g e t o te a c h a t th e ju n io r c o lle g e le v e l1 2 y o u r s p o u s e o r re la tiv e w o r k s in t h e v ic in ity □ 3. □ Y es 1 1. P O S IT IO N S A T IS F A C T IO N S U sing th e c o lu m n s t o t h e rig h t, p le a s e e v a lu a te th e d e g r e e o f s a tis f a c tio n y o u d e riv e f r o m e a c h o f t h e fo llo w in g : In a d d itio n : p lease c irc le th o se ite m s v o u fee l w o u ld c o n tr ib u te s ig n ific a n tly t o y o u r w a n tin g to leave c o m m u n ity c o lleg e te a c h in g . 157-80) I : 1. c o n g e n ia lity o f c o lle a g u e s ............................................................................................ 5 4 3 2 1 na (1 6 ) 2. c o m p e te n c y o f c o lle a g u e s ............................................................................................ 5 r e p u t a ti o n o f s c h o o l ........................................................................................................ 5 3 3 2 2 1 1 na na (1 7 ) 3. 4 4 4. 5. c o u rs e s t a u g h t ..................................................................................................................... te a c h in g l o a d ........................................................................................................................ 5 4 3 2 1 na (1 9 ) 5 4 3 2 1 na ( 20 ) 6. q u a l ity o f s t u d e n t s ........................................................................................................... 5 4 3 2 1 na ( 21 ) 7. a c a d e m ic r a n k .................................................................................................................... 5 4 3 2 1 na ( 22 ) B. s a la r y ....................................................................................................................................... 5 4 3 2 1 na 9. frin g e b e n e f i t s .................................................................................................................... 5 4 3 2 1 na (2 3 ) (2 4 ) 10. o p p o r tu n i tie s f o r o u ts id e in c o m e ............................................................................ 5 4 3 2 1 na (2 5 ) 11. f u tu r e s a la ry p ro s p e c ts ................................................................................................. 5 4 3 2 1 na (261 213 (1 8 ) In a d d itio n : p lease circ le th o s e item s y o u fee l w o u ld c o n tr ib u te s ig n ific a n tly t o y o u r w a n tin g t o leave c o m m u n ity c o lleg e te a c h in g .__________________________ 157-80) ♦ (2 7 ) 12. n e a rn e s s t o g ra d u a te sc h o o l ................................. 5 3 2 na 13. a d e q u a c y o f m usic lib ra ry ..................................... 5 3 2 na (2 8 ) 14. re g io n a l c l i m a t e ........................................................... 5 3 2 na na (2 9 ) (301 15. c u ltu r a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s ............................................. 5 3 2 16. a d e q u a c y o f c la s sro o m f a c ilitie s ........................ 5 3 2 na (3 1 ) 17. s c h e d u lin g f r e e d o m .................................................. 5 3 2 na (3 2 ) 18. d iv e rs ity o f te a c h in g a s s i g n m e n t s ...................... 5 3 2 na (3 3 ) 19. lo w p r io r i ty a c c o rd e d t o re s e a rc h ..................... 5 3 2 (3 4 ) 20. jo b s e c u r i t y .................................................................... 5 3 2 na na 21. r o ta tio n o f te a c h in g a s s ig n m e n ts ........................ 5 3 2 na (3 6 ) 22 . q u a lity o f s u p p o r t s e r v ic e s ..................................... 5 3 2 na (3 7 ) 23. r e s e a rc h o p p o r tu n i tie s .............................................. 5 3 2 na (3 8 ) 24. re s e a rc h f a c i l i t i e s ....................................................... 5 3 2 na (3 9 ) 25. a d e q u a c y o f g ro u p re h e a rsa l f a c i li tie s .............. 5 3 2 na (4 0 ) (3 5 ) 26. a d e q u a c y o f p r a c tic e f a c ilitie s ............................... 5 3 2 na (4 1 ) 27. p e rs o n a l c o n t a c ts w ith h e a d o f d e p a r t m e n t .. 5 3 2 na (4 2 ) 28. b e a u ty o f g e o g ra p h ic a l r e g i o n ................................ 5 3 2 na (4 3 ) 29. f a c u l ty r e c ita l d e m a n d 3 2 . ... na (4 4 ) 30. le c tu r in g ............................................................................ 5 5 3 2 na (4 5 ) 31. c o n d u c t i n g ...................................................................... 5 3 2 na (4 6 ) 32. p a r t ic i p a tio n in jo b d e c is io n s .............................. 5 3 2 na (4 7 ) 33. a d m in is tr a tio n o f d e p a r t m e n t .............................. 5 3 2 na (4 8 ) 34. f a c u l ty re c ita l o p p o r t u n i t i e s ................................. 5 3 2 na (4 9 ) 35. a d e q u a c y o f p e r f o r m a n c e fa c ilitie s ................. 5 3 2 na (5 0 ) 36. a d e q u a c y o f o f fic e s p a c e ........................................ 5 3 2 na (5 1 ) n e a rn e s s t o frie n d s a n d re la tiv e s ........................ ..................................... 5 3 2 na (5 2 ) 38. o p p o r tu n i tie s f o r p ro fe s s io n a l a d v a n c e m e n t 5 3 2 na (531 39. o p p o r tu n i tie s f o r p ro fe s s io n a l g r o w th 37. ............ 5 3 2 na (5 4 ) 40. a c a d e m ic f r e e d o m .................................................... 5 3 2 na (5 5 ) 41. o th e r (s p e c ify ) _______________________________ 5 3 2 na (5 6 ) P A R T III IN S T R U C T IO N A L D IF F IC U L T IE S A s te a c h e rs , w e fa c e m a n y in s tr u c tio n a l d iffic u ltie s . S o m e a r e m o r e o f a p r o b le m t h a n o th e r s . U sin g t h e s c a le p r o v id e d : (1 ) p le a s e e v a lu a te th e d if f ic u lty y o u personally e x p e rie n c e w ith e a c h o f th e fo llo w in g ; (2 ) circle t h e t w o m o s t d if f i c u lt p ro b le m s y o u fa c e . , , O f M A JO R 1 O f A V E R A G E D ifficulty D ifficulty O f L IT T L E 3 o r NO D ifficulty 1. c o n t e n d in g w ith s t u d e n t a b s e n c e s ............................................................................ 2. w o rk in g w ith im m a tu r e s t u d e n t s .............................................................................. 3. s p e a k in g lo u d e n o u g h in t h e c l a s s r o o m .................................................................. □ □ □ 4. fin d in g s u p p le m e n ta ry class m a te r i a ls ..................................................................... □ □ O □ □ D 5. re la tin g t o s tu d e n t s o f a d if f e r e n t e t h n ic o r ra c ia l b a c k g r o u n d .................. □ □ □ 6. 7. e n c o u ra g in g m a s te r y o f m u s ic a l m a t e r i a l s ........................................................... □ m a in ta in in g d is c ip lin e in t h e c l a s s r o o m ............................................ ..................... 8. w o rk in g w ith a d u l t s t u d e n t s ........................................................................................ □ □ □ □ □ □ D □ □ O □ (1 6 ) (1 7 ) (1 8 ) (1 9 ) (2 0 ) (2 1 ) 9. s in g in g in f r o n t o f y o u r class ..................................................................................... □ D □ 10. c o n t e n d in g w ith t o o la rg e a c l a s s .............................................................................. □ □ □ (2 5 ) 11. p ro v id in g m a k e -u p e x a m i n a t i o n s .............................................................................. □ □ □ (2 6 ) 12. g e t tin g e n o u g h r o c k o r ja z z i n t o t h e c u r r i c u l u m ............................................... □ □ □ (2 7 ) 13. m a k in g d o w ith in s u f f ic ie n t in s tr u c tio n a l r e s o u r c e s ........................................ □ D □ (2 8 ) 14. u s in g a d iv e r s ity o f m e d ia t o a d v a n ta g e .................................................................. □ □ □ (2 9 ) 15. p r o m o t in g p s y c h o m o t o r fle x ib ility ........................................................................ □ □ □ (3 0 ) 16. p a c in g m a te ria ls o v e r t h e te r m □ □ □ (3 1 ) ................................................................................. (2 2 ) (2 3 ) (2 4 ) 215 O f M A JO R 1 D iffic u lty Of AVERAGE2 D iffic u lty O f L IT T L E or N O D iffic u lty 17. e x p a n d in g s t u d e n t s ' p e r s p e c t iv e s .................................................................................... □ □ □ (3 2 ) 18. s ta r tin g class o n tim e .......................................................................................................... □ □ □ (3 3 ) 19. in d u c in g s tu d e n t s t o se e k tu t o r ia l h e l p ........................................................................ □ □ □ (341 20. e n c o u ra g in g a ffe c tiv e re s p o n s e t o m u s ic l i s t e n i n g ................................................ □ □ □ (3 5 ) 21. le c tu rin g w ith o u t u n d u e re c o u rs e t o n o te s ................................................................ □ □ □ (3 6 ) 22. re la tin g m u s ic a l c o n c e p ts t o s tu d e n t s w ith d iv e r g e n t m u s ic a l ta s te s ........... □ □ □ (3 7 ) 23. ta k in g tim e a w a y f r o m in s tr u c tio n a l ti m e t o g ive t e s t s ........................................ □ □ □ (3 8 ) 24. te a c h in g s tu d e n t s w h o d o n o t d o th e ir a s s ig n e d r e a d in g s .................................. □ □ □ (3 9 ) 25. s e ttin g u p t h e c la s s ro o m ..................................................................................................... □ □ u sin g real m u s ic a l illu s tr a tio n s , n o t ju s t th e o r e tic a l o n e s .................................. □ □ □ □ (4 0 ) 26. 27. a n s w e rin g n aiv e q u e s tio n s .................................................................................................. □ □ □ (4 2 ) 28. g e ttin g e n o u g h a r t m u s ic in to th e c u r r i c u lu m ............................................................ □ □ □ (4 3 ) 29. p re p a rin g e n o u g h c la s s ro o m m a te r ia ls t o go a r o u n d ........................................... □ □ □ (4 4 ) 30. 31. e n c o u ra g in g m u s ic a l in v e n tiv e n e ss, o r c r e a t i v i t y ..................................................... □ □ □ (4 5 ) p ro v id in g s tu d e n t s w ith a re a lis tic e v a lu a tio n o f t h e ir a b i lit ie s ........................ □ □ □ (4 6 ) 32. e n c o u ra g in g s tu d e n ts t o c o n t in u e o n in m u s ic ....................................................... □ □ □ (4 7 ) 33. s e q u e n c in g m a te ria ls o v e r th e s e m e s t e r ........................................................................ □ □ □ (4 8 ) 34. p re p a r in g t e s t s .......................................................................................................................... □ □ □ (4 9 ) 35. te a c h in g s tu d e n t s w h o d o n o t p r a c t i c e ........................................................................ □ □ □ (5 0 ) 36. c o m b a tin g s tu d e n t s ' to n e - d e a f n e s s ................................................................................... □ □ □ (5 1 ) 37. in d u c in g s tu d e n t s t o m a in ta in th e ir o w n o p in i o n s .................................................. □ □ □ (5 2 ) 38. re la tin g t o s tu d e n t s o f a d if f e r e n t s o c io -e c o n o m ic b a c k g ro u n d ..................... □ □ □ (5 3 ) 39. p e rfo r m in g in f r o n t o f y o u r c la s s ...................................................................................... □ □ □ (5 4 ) 40. e x p la in in g id e as as c o n c re te ly as p o s s ib le .................................................................. □ □ □ (5 5 ) 41, o rd e rin g t e x tb o o k s th r o u g h th e p r o p e r c h a n n e ls ................................................... □ □ □ (5 6 ) 42. m a k in g d o w ith lim ite d p h y s ic a l f a c i l i t i e s ............................................................. ... □ □ □ (5 7 ) 43. h av in g t o d e m o n s t r a te te c h n iq u e s s e v e ra l tim e s f o r a s t u d e n t ’s b e n e f i t ...... □ □ □ (5 8 ) 44. e n h a n c in g m u s ic a lity o f s tu d e n t p e r f o r m a n c e s ......................................................... □ □ □ (5 9 ) 45. te a c h in g s tu d e n t s w h o d is p la y le a rn in g d is a b ilitie s ................................................ □ □ □ (6 0 ) 46. m a in ta in in g s tu d e n t s ' i n t e r e s t ............................................................................................ □ □ □ (6 1 ) 47. m a k in g w o rk d e m a n d s o n s tu d e n t s e x p l i c i t ................................................................ □ □ □ (6 2 ) 48. h a v in g t o m a k e d o w ith in c o m p le te i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n ............................................ □ □ □ (6 3 ) 49. c o r r e c tin g p a p e r s ...................................................................................................................... □ □ □ (6 4 ) 50. c o n c lu d in g c la s s o n t i m e ...................................................................................................... □ □ □ (6 5 ) 51. s e le c tin g a p p r o p r i a te class m a te r i a ls ............................................................................... □ □ □ (6 6 ) 52. te a c h in g s tu d e n t s o f m in im a l m u s ic a l ta le n t ............................................................ □ □ □ (6 7 ) 53. u s in g a b r o a d ra n g e o f m u s ic in y o u r t e a c h i n g ......................................................... □ □ □ (6 8 ) 54. c o n te n d in g w ith a s tu d e n t 's d e f e a tis t a t t i t u d e ........................................................ □ □ 55. g e ttin g s tu d e n t s t o tu r n in th e ir a s s ig n m e n ts o n t i m e ........................................... □ □ □ □ (6 9 ) (7 0 ) 56. te a c h in g a c la s s in w h ic h a w id e ra n g e o f s t u d e n t a b ilitie s a r e d is p la y e d ...... □ □ □ 67 o th e r : □ □ □ (711 (7 2 ) 5R o th e r : □ □ □ (7 3 ) P A R T IV . --------------------------------------- .------.— —. BACKGROUND J o b D e ic rip tio n : 1. □ p ro f e s s o r W h a t is y o u r a c a d e m ic ra n k ? 1 □ a s s o c ia te p r o f e s s o r □ a d j u n c t in s tr u c to r ® 2. □ Y es1 A re y o u th e m u s ic a d m in is tr a to r f o r y o u r p ro g ra m ? D Y es 1 DNo □ in s tr u c to r □ a s s is ta n t p r o f e s s o r (1 6 ) (1 7 ) D N o2 2 (1 8 ) D o y o u h a v e te n u r e ? 4. A t w h a t tim e s d o y o u te a c h ? 5. W h e re , f o r t h e c o lle g e , d o y o u te a c h ? □ on cam pus 6. W h a t ty p e s o f s tu d e n t s d o y o u te a c h ? _ (C h e c k all t h a t a p p ly ) □ □ d a y co u rses1 □ e v e n in g c o u rs e s '2 4 □ □ □ 2 □ o th e r® ____ 3. 7. (4 1 ) u n iv e rs ity -tra c k m u s ic m a jo r s 1 o c c a s io n a l (a v o c a tio n a l) s tu d e n ts® □ w e e k e n d co u rses® (1 9 ) < ( 20 ) □ o ff cam pu s' □ ( 2 1 -2 5 ) g e n e ra l, n o n - m u s ic s tu d e n t s c o m m e r c ia l- m u s ic s tu d e n t s 4 o th e r :® __________________________ C h e c k ( V 1 tlle c o u rs e s t h a t y o u a r e n o w te a c h in g . □ m u s ic h is to r y □ m u s ic f o r e d u c a tio n m a jo r s 1 □ th e o r y o r e a r tr a in in g ' 6 □ in s tr u m e n ta l ) _5 □ p r iv a te le s s o n s : ( □ vocal □ m u s ic b u s in e s s /in d u s try c o u rs e * v o c a l e n s e m b le ® □ in s tr u m e n ta l e n s e m b le 1 0 □ c la s s in s tr u c tio n (a p p lie d )® □ (2 6 -3 6 ) □ m u s ic a p p r e c ia tio n □ o th e r 11 216 B ac k g ro u n d : □ N o t a t p resen t 9 A re y o u a p e r f o r m in g m u s ic ia n ? 9. W h a t is t h e h ig h e s t d e g re e t h a t y o u h a v e e a rn e d ? □ none1 □ a s s o c ia te 2 □ b a c h e lo r s 3 □ m a ste rs 4 □ d o c to r a te ® 1 9 A re y o u w o rk in g o n a d e g re e a t p r e s e n t? □ Y es □ No 10. D Y es 1 8. 11. W e re y o u e v e r a c o m m u n it y c o lle g e s tu d e n t ? 12. H av e y o u ta k e n a n y c o u rs e s a b o u t t h e c o m m u n ity co lleg e? D Y es1 □ No 3 (3 7 ) (3 8 ) □ o th e r: (3 9 ) (4 0 ) D N o2 □ Y es1 __ (4 2 -4 3 ) y e a rs . 13. H o w lo n g h a v e y o u b e e n e m p lo y e d b y y o u r c o lle g e ? 14. H n w In n g h av p y n n hppn te a c h in g ? 15. A sid e f r o m y o u r p r e s e n t p o s itio n , w h a t p ro f e s s io n a l e x p e rie n c e in m u s ic d o y o u h a v e ? tn t a l n f _ (4 1 ) □ N o2 y e a rs . (4 4 -4 5 ) (C h e c k all t h a t a p p ly ) □ g r a d u a te a s s i s t a n t 1 □ p r iv a te te a c h in g 2 □ n m u s ic i n d u s tr y 2 ta u g h t a t th a p u h li r t r h n n l levels® □ □ c o m m e r c i a l/ s t u d io m u s ic ia n O th er:® 16. W e re y o u n e w t o th e c o m m u n ity w h e n y o u f ir s t a c c e p te d y o u r c u r r e n t jo b ? 17. W h a t m u s ic d o y o u v a lu e m o s t? □ a rt m u s ic 1 PERSON A L DATA: A n d w h ic h s e c o n d ? □ p o p 2 □ ro c k 3 □ N o2 □ Y es1 □ ja z z ® (5 2 ) (5 3 -5 4 ) ( I n d ic a te # 1 a n d # 2 ) □ fo lk 4 (4 6 -5 1 ) | jn th a r:® ( o p tio n a l) 1. W hat is y n ilr ana? 2. W h a t is y o u r s e x ? (5 5 -5 6 ) '■ ■ 1 □ fe m a le O P E N -E N D E D Q U E S T IO N S : D m a le 2 (5 7 ) ( o p tio n a l) 1. W h a t ty p e s o f e x p e rie n c e s (fo rm a l o r o th e rw is e ) d id y o u fin d m o s t u s e fu l in p r e p a r in g y o u t o te a c h a t th e c o m m u n it y c o lle g e lev el? 2. W h a t a d v ic e w o u ld y o u give t o p r o s p e c tiv e c o m m u n ity c o lle g e m u s ic te a c h e r s ? 3. Is th e r e a q u e s ti o n y o u w e re n o t a s k e d t h a t y o u w o u ld lik e t o a n s w e r? " W o u ld y o u lik e t o re c e iv e t h e re s u lts o f th i s s tu d y ? P lease r e t u r n th i s q u e s tio n n a ir e t o : □ Y es THANK YOU ** □ N o t n e c e s s a ry M r. M a rk F in k e ls te in , D e p a r tm e n t o f M u sic E d u c a tio n , M ic h ig a n S ta t e U n iv e rs ity , E a st L a n sin g , M ic h ig a n 4 8 8 2 4 . APPENDIX 3 INVENTORY OF QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS AND THEIR SOURCES TABLE 217 TABLE A -3 .1 .--In ve n to ry of Questionnaire Items and Their Sources V ariable Name Sample Source 1. 2. Degree a , b, c , P rio r teaching experience 3. Teaching load b, c , e , f , j , m e , h, j> 1 4. 5. Age Sex 6. On-the-job experience 7. 8. Rank Tenure 9. Courses taught 10. Job preference 11. Career plans b, f c 12. Concurrent job b 13. C l a s s i f ic a t i o n of students d 14. Employment s ta tu s b 15. Serve as a d m in is tra to r b 16. When teach e 17. Attended community co lleg e b 18. P re ferre d program aim k 19. Locale of school f Sample Sources: a , b, c , e , j a , b, c , e s j b , e , g, h a, e, j a, j e, h a b c d e f g h i j k 1 m = = = = = = = = = = = = = f, i, j, m Bayer, 1973 Brawer, 1976 Eaton, 1964 Fleming, 1978 Greene, 1968 H i l l , 1976 Jansen, 1971 Merkel, 1977 Morgan, 1966 NEA, 1979 P o lla rd , 1978 Stover, 1970 Wozniak, 1973 218 APPENDIX 4 POTENTIAL SOURCES OF POSITION SATISFACTION TABLE 219 TABLE A -4.1 .—P otential Sources of Position S a tisfa ctio n Economic B enefits 1. Salary (B,S,A) 2. Future s a la ry prospects (B,A) 3. O ppo rtun ities f o r o u tsid e income (B) 4. Fringe b e n e f its (B,S,A) Social B enefits 1. Reputation of the school (B,S,A) 2. Academic rank (S,A) Function 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Personal 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Courses tau g h t (B,A) Teaching load (B,A) Lecturing or conducting Low p r i o r i t y given to research (S) Faculty performance demand B en efits P a r t ic ip a t io n in job d e cisio n s (A) Scheduling freedom (A) Academic freedom D iv e rs ity of teaching assignments Rotation o f teaching assignments Job s e c u r ity Physical Environment 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Adequacy Adequacy Adequacy Adequacy Adequacy of of of of of o f f i c e (S) reh e arsal f a c i l i t i e s (group and in d iv id u a l) performance f a c i l i t i e s (A) classroom f a c i l i t i e s (S) research f a c i l i t i e s (B,S,A) In terp e rso n al Environment 1. C ongeniality of colleagues (B,S,A) 2. . Personal c o n ta cts with head o f department (S) 220 TABLE A -4.1 .—Continued P ro fe ssio n a l Environment 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Competency of colleagu es (B,A) A d m inistration o f department (B,S,A) Q uality o f support s e r v ic e s (S) Q u ality of stu d e n ts (B,S,A) Research o p p o r tu n itie s (B,S) Faculty performance o p p o r tu n itie s (A) O p p o rtu n ities f o r p ro fessio n al advancement (B,S) O p p o rtu n ities f o r p ro fe ssio n a l growth (S) Q uality of music l i b r a r y External B enefits 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Nearness to graduate school (B) Nearness to f r ie n d s and r e l a t i e s (B,A) Climate (B,A) C ultural o p p o rtu n itie s (B,S,A) Physical a t t r a c t i v e n e s s o f th e geographical region (S) SOURCES: Brown, 1966 = B; Shank, 1968 = S; Aurand, 1970 = A. aT o ta ls : (B,S,A) = 8 (B,S) = 14, in c lu s iv e (B,S) = 10, in c lu s iv e (s) = 18, in c lu s iv e (A) = 19, in c lu s iv e (B) = 18, in c lu s iv e APPENDIX 5 POTENTIAL SOURCES OF INSTRUCTIONAL-RELATED DIFFICULTIES TABLE 222 TABLE A -5.1.—P otential Sources o f Instructional-R elated D iff ic u lt ie s 3 I. I n s tru c tio n a l S k i l l s 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. II. Teaching a c la s s in which a wide range of a b i l i t i e s a re displayed Maintaining s t u d e n t's i n t e r e s t Explaining ideas as c o n crete ly as p o ssib le Teaching stu d e n ts who d isp la y le a rn in g d i s a b i l i t i e s Contending with prolonged or sporadic absences Making do with lim ite d physical f a c i l i t i e s Making do with dim inishing in s t r u c t i o n a l resources Preparing t e s t s Pacing m a te r ia ls over th e semester o r term Sequencing th e m a te ria ls over th e sem ester or term S e lec tin g a p p ro p ria te c la s s m a te ria ls f o r stu d e n t purchase R elating musical concepts to stu d e n ts with d ivergent musical t a s t e s Teaching stu d e n ts of minimal musical t a l e n t Having to make do with incomplete musical in stru m en tatio n Providing stu d e n ts with a r e a l i s t i c e v alu atio n of t h e i r a b ilitie s Finding m a te ria ls to supplement c la s s m a te ria ls Using a d i v e r s i t y of media to b e s t advantage Inducing stu d e n ts to m aintain t h e i r own opinions Lecturing w ithout undue recourse to notes Singing in f r o n t o f th e c la s s Making use of real musical i l l u s t r a t i o n s , no t j u s t th e o r e ti c a l ones Demonstrating formal performance s k i l l s in f r o n t of the c la s s Contending with a s t u d e n t 's d e f e a t i s t a t t i t u d e Classroom management s k i l l s or chores 1. C orrecting papers 2. Maintaining d i s c i p l i n e in the classroom 3. Making work demands on stu d e n ts e x p l i c i t 4. Taking time away from in s tr u c tio n a l time to give t e s t s 5. Preparing t e s t s 6. • Providing make-up examinations 7. Preparing enough classroom m a te ria ls to go around 8. Ordering c la s s m a te ria ls through the proper channels 9. Providing stu d e n ts with a r e a l i s t i c e v lu a tio n of th e ir a b ilitie s 10. S t a r ti n g c l a s s on time 11. Concluding c la s s on time 12. Speaking loud enough in the classroom 13. S e ttin g up th e classroom 14. G etting stu d e n ts to tu rn in t h e i r assignments on time 15. Contending w ith too la r g e a c la s s 223 224 TABLE A-5.1.--Continued III. Educational O bjectives 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. IV. Combating tone-deafness Promoting psychomotor f l e x i b i l i t y Enhancing m u sic a lity of stu d e n t performances Encouraging a f f e c t i v e response to music l i s te n i n g Encouraging musical inventiveness or c r e a t i v i t y Encouraging mastery o f musical m a te ria ls S e lec tin g and using a broad range o f music G etting enough a rt. music in to the curriculum G etting enough rock o r ja z z in to the curriculum I n te r a c tio n with stu d e n ts 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Inducing stu d e n ts to seek t u t o r i a l help Having to demonstrate techniques or procedures several times f o r th e b e n e f it of an individual Working with immature stu d en ts Teaching stu d e n ts who do not do t h e i r assigned readings Working with a d u lt stu d e n ts Teaching stu d e n ts who do not p ra c tic e Providing stu d e n ts with a r e a l i s t i c e v lu a tio n of th eir a b ilitie s Answering naive q u estion s Maintaining d i s c i p l i n e in the classroom Inducing stu d e n ts to m aintain t h e i r own opinions Expanding s tu d e n ts ' p e rsp ec tiv e s Relating to stu d e n ts of a d i f f e r i n g socio-economic background Relating to stu d e n ts of a d i f f e r i n g e th n ic or r a c ia l background Encouraging stu d e n ts to continue on in music aSome items appear w ithin more than one f a c t o r . APPENDIX 6 RANK-ORDERING OF MOST SATISFYING POSITION VARIABLES BY SUBGROUP TABLE 225 TABLE A.6 -1 .-Rank-O rdering o f Most S a tisfyin g P osition Variables by Subgroup3 Rank Item D e sc rip to r M S.D. 4.069 3.962 3.903 3.900 3.897 3.893 3.893 3.862 3.852 3.828 3.767 3.750 3.710 3.696 3.655 3.633 3.619 3.600 3.600 3.536 3.483 3.429 3.429 3.400 3.321 3.276 3.267 3.167 3.125 3.103 3.100 3.074 3.032 .923 1.371 .908 1.125 .939 1.068 1.098 .990 .989 .805 .728 .844 .864 1.063 1.111 1.189 1.117 .932 1.041 .962 1.022 1.399 1.200 .932 1.090 1.066 .907 1.007 1.147 1.372 1.372 1.207 .948 4.000 3.852 3.800 3.656 3.581 3.579 3.531 3.393 .957 .980 1.176 .892 .950 1.133 1.309 1.406 Full-Time 1 2 3 4 5 6.5 6.5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18.5 18.5 20 21 22.5 22.5 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 40 27 9 20 32 3 1 17 10 33 8 18 2 31 15 36 7 4 30 . 39 11 16 28 38 37 5 22 34 12 35 21 14 . 6 Academic freedom Contact with chairman Fringe b e n e f its Job s e c u r ity P a r t i c . in d e cisio n s School re p u ta tio n C ongen iality of colleagues Scheduling freedom 0pp. f o r o u tsid e income Admin, of department Salary D iv e rs ity o f assignments Competency o f colleagu es Conducting C ultural o p p o rtu n itie s O ffice space Academic rank Courses taught Lecturing Growth Salary prospects Classroom f a c i l i t i e s Geography Advancement Nea r n e s s / r e l a t i ves Teaching load Support S t a f f R ecital opportunity* Near grad school* Performance f a c i 1i t i e s * Rotation of a s s i s t a n t s * Climate* Q u ality of stud en ts* Part-Time General 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 40 1 27 2 4 17 37 35 Academic freedom C ongeniality of colleagues Contacts with chairman Competency o f colleagues Courses tau g h t Scheduling freedom N e arn ess/R elatives Performance f a c i l i t i e s 226 227 TABLE A.6 -1 .—Continued Rank Item D e sc rip to r M S.D. 3.371 3.320 3.317 3.268 3.130 3.056 3.050 3.031 3.000 1.044 1.347 1.112 1.243 1.392 1.235 1.096 1.168 1.015 4.095 3.727 3.714 3.647 3.583 3.526 3.522 3.474 3.421 3.318 3.316 3.304 3.000 .831 1.120 1.056 1.455 .996 1.073 1.163 .905 1.261 .839 1.390 1.428 1.056 Part-Time General 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 3 10 5 28 31 33 15 6 30 School re p u ta tio n Opportunity f o r o u tsid e income Teaching load Geography Conducting* A dm inistration* C ultu ral opportunity* Q uality o f stud en ts* Lecturing* Part-Time Applied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 17 28 1 10 25 40 4 16 37 2 35 27 3 Scheduling freedom Geography C o n g e n ia lity /co lle ag u e s Opportunity o u tsid e income Group reh e arsal Academic freedom Courses tau g h t Classroom f a c i l i t i e s N e a r n e s s /r e la tiv e Competency o f colleagues* Performance f a c i l i t i e s * Contacts with chairman* School re p u ta tio n * aS t a t i s t i e s computed excluding the "not a p p lic a b le " column. ♦ In d ic a te s t h a t th e v a ria b le i s m arginally c l a s s i f i e d . APPENDIX 7 RANK-ORDERING OF LEAST SATISFYING POSITION VARIABLES BY SUBGROUP TABLE 228 TABLE A-7.1.--Rank-Ordering o f Least S atisfying Position Variables by Subgroup3 Rank Item D e sc rip to r • M S.D. Research f a c i l i t i e s R ecital demand Low research p r i o r i t y Research o p p o rtu n itie s Music l i b r a r y Group resea rch f a c i l i t i e s * P ra c tic e f a c i l i t i e s * 2.350 2.556 2.700 2.700 2.724 2.852 2.897 1.226 .856 1.174 1.174 .841 1.486 1.398 1.628 1.957 1.972 2.000 2.018 2.095 2.241 2.250 2.263 2.283 2.340 2.417 2.447 2.717 2.766 2.766 2.797 2.824 2.848 2.865 2.889 2.902 2.960 1.155 .928 .971 1.010 .963 .889 1.063 .786 1.261 1.403 1.300 .974 1.348 .974 1.137 .955 1.229 .994 1.333 .991 1.112 1.375 1.475 1.700 1.769 2.000 2.000 2.053 2.125 .949 1.363 Full-Time 1 2 3.5 3.5 5 6 7 24 29 19 23 13 25 26 P a rt-tim e General 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15.5 15.5 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 9 24 29 20 13 23 38 19 11 26 36 21 34 22 16 8 39 14 32 7 18 25 • 12 • Fringe b e n e f its Research f a c i l i t i e s R ecital demand Job s e c u r ity Music l i b r a r y Research o p p o rtu n itie s Advancement Low r e s . p r i o r i t y Future s a la r y P ra c tic e f a c i l i t i e s O ffice space Rotation of a s s i s t a n t s R ecital o p p o rtu n itie s Support se rv ic e s Classroom f a c i l i t i e s Salary Growth Climate* Decisions* Rank* D iv e rsity * Group reh e arsal f a c i l i t i e s * Near graduate school* P a rt-tim e Applied 1 2 3.5 3.5 5 6 24 9 23 30 11 19 Research f a c i l i t i e s Fringe b e n e f its Research o p p o rtu n itie s L ecturing Future s a la r y Low r e s . p r i o r i t y 229 1.000 .953 1.177 .835 230 TABLE A -7.1.— Continued Rank 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14.5 14.5 16.5 16.5 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Item 38 13 29 34 32 5 31 21 22 20 7 8 6 39 36 26 33 12 14 15 18 D escrip to r Advancement Music l i b r a r y R ecital demand R ecital o p p o rtu n itie s P r i o r i t y d e cisio n s Teaching load Conducting Rotation o f a s s i s t a n t s Support se rv ic e s Job s e c u r ity Rank Salary Q uality of s t a f f Growth O ffice space P ra c tic e f a c i l i t i e s A dm inistration* Near graduate school* Climate* C ultural o p p o rtu n itie s * D iv ersity * M S.D. 2 .1 6 7 .985 .951 .931 1.263 .985 1.098 1.618 .850 1.092 1.419 1.007 1.049 1.197 1.018 1.423 1.510 1.131 1.267 .875 .793 1.188 2.176 2.250 2.294 2.400 2.409 2.429 2.500 2.500 2.529 2.529 2.636 2.708 2.722 2.769 2.773 2.824 2.833 2.895 2.913 2.923 aS t a t i s t i c s c a lc u la te d excluding th e "not a p p lic a b le " column. ♦ In d ic a te s t h a t th e v a ria b le is m arginally c l a s s i f i e d . APPENDIX 8 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR THE 40 POSITION SATISFACTION ITEMS TABLE 231 TABLE A -8.1.—Frequency D is trib u tio n fo r the 40 Position S a tisfa ction Items3 r.«>a+ No. D escriptor 1 Colleague c o n g en iality 2 Colleague competency 3 School re p u ta tio n 4 Courses taught 5 Teaching load 6 Q uality of studen ts 7 Academic rank 8 Salary Fringe b e n e f its 9 10 Outside income 11 Future s a la ry prospects 12 Nearness to graduate school 13 Adequacy of music l ib r a r y 14 Regional clim ate 15 Cultural o p p o rtu n itie s 16 Classroom f a c i l i t i e s 17 Scheduling freedom 18 D iv e rsity of assignments 19 Low research p r i o r i t y 20 Job s e c u r ity 21 Rotation of assignments S a tisf a c t i °" 29% 16% 17% 20% 13% 11% 8% 8% 11% 21% 7% 8% 1% 5% 12% 14% 25% 9% 1% 11% 3% Considerf a c tio n 31% 37% 31% 29% 24% 21% 13% 19% 13% 24% 15% 9% 8% 15% 24% 19% 33% 23% 4% 14% 5% Below S a tisf a c ti°" 28% 35% 35% 38% 31% 29% 35% 44% 12% 19% 23% 13% 28% 38% 34% 30% 20% 23% 17% 19% 20% L ittle o)!!-a9e s a t i s * f a r t? ™ f & 1 « 3% 7% 8% 8% 19% 32% 15% 17% 5% 6% 17% 10% 28% 15% 20% 19% 9% 14% 12% 14% 14% 3% 1% 7% 3% 8% 7% 8% 8% 33% 9% 26% 7% 23% 9% 5% 11% 2% 6% 9% 23% 5% M. App11' Cable Missino 9 5% 4% 2% 3% 5% 0% 20% 3% 27% 21% 12% 54% 13% 16% 5% 7% 10% 25% 57% 18% 53% 3 3 3 4 5 3 10 2 3 3 3 6 4 6 4 2 3 7 9 3 5 TABLE A -8.1.—Continued No. D escriptor 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Q uality o f support se rv ic e s Research o p p o rtu n itie s Research f a c i l i t i e s Group rehearsal f a c i l i t i e s P ra c tic e f a c i l i t i e s Personal c o n ta cts with chairman Beauty o f region R ecital demand Lecturing Conducting P a r tic ip a tio n in d ecisio n s A dm inistration o f department R ecital o p p o rtu n itie s Performance f a c i l i t i e s O ffice space Nearness to f rie n d s O pportunities f o r advancement O pportunities f o r growth Academic freedom Great S a tis­ f a c tio n 5% 1% 1% 14% 14% 37% 20% 0% 4% 8% 13% 13% 8% 23% 13% 19% 2% 8% 30% Consider­ able S a tis­ f a c tio n 15% 4% 3% 15% 12% 19% 21% 4% 19% 15% 17% 25% 16% 25% 15% 21% 18% 24% 34% P e r c e n ta g e s a re rounded to the n e a re s t in te g e r. Average S a tis­ f a c tio n 32% 16% 12% 18% 18% 26% 31% 24% 19% 9% 24% 27% 19% 19% 20% 27% ;■ 26% 29% 21% Below Average S a tis­ f a c tio n L ittle i f any S a t is f a c t i on Not Applicable Number Missing 17% 11% 12% 15% 18% 3% 9% 15% 10% 6% 10% 12% 18% 14% 13% 6% 21% 15% 3% 9% 13% 18% 14% 32% 9% 8% 19% 8% 7% 12% 8% 19% 19% 21% 8% 19% 13% 3% 22% 55% 53% 24% 6% 5% 9% 39% 39% 55% 24% 15% 25% 4% 18% 18% 14% 11% 8% 6 5 8 4 4 7 5 6 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 3 4 4 APPENDIX 9 POSITION VARIABLES RATED INAPPLICABLE BY MORE THAN 20% OF CASES TABLE 234 TABLE A -9.1.—P o sitio n V ariables Rated Inapplicable by More than 20% o f Cases Item D e s c r ip to r % 0f Sample F u ll Time (N = 31) P a r t Time G eneral (N = 66) P a r t Time A p p lied (N = 25) ---------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Fv.on V a lid C ases % o f V a lid C ases F v ■ V a lid % o f V a lid C ases C ases F_on V a lid % o f V alid C ases C ases 19 Low r e s e a r c h p r i o r i t y 57% 1 1: 28 39% 42 62 68%* 15 23 65%* 23 R esearch o p p o r tu n iti e s 55% 11 29 38% 43 64 67%* 13 24 54%* 31 C onducting 55% 8 30 27% 41 65 63%* 17 24 71%* 12 N earn ess to g ra d school 54% 15 29 52% 39 64 61%* 11 23 48% 21 R o ta tio n o f a ssig n m e n ts 53% 11 30 37% 40 64 62% 13 23 46%* 24 R esearch f a c i l i t i e s 53% 11 27 41% 40 63 63% 14 24 58%* 29 R e c ita l demand 39% 13 28 46% 28 64 44% 7 24 29% 30 L e c tu rin g 39% 6 30 20% 30 64 47% 12 24 50%* F rin g e b e n e f i t s 27% 0 30 0% 21 64 33% 11 24 46% 34 R e c ita l o p p o r tu n iti e s 25% 7 30 23% 17 64 26% 6 23 26% 18 D iv e r s it y o f a ssig n m e n ts 25% 3 29 10% 18 63 29% 10 23 43% 25 Group r e h e a r s a l f a c i l i t i e s 24% 4 30 13% 14 65 21% 11 23 48% 32 P a r t i c i p a t i o n in d e c is io n s 24% 2 30 7% 18 64 28% 9 24 37% 10 O pportun i t i e s / o u t s i de income 21% 4 31 13% 14 64 22% 7 24 29% Academic rank 20% 10 28 36% 8 60 13% 7 24 29% 9 7 ♦R ated " n o t a p p l ic a b le " by 50% o r more o f th e su b g ro u p . APPENDIX 10 RANK-ORDERING OF MOST TROUBLESOME INSTRUCTIONAL VARIABLES BY SUBGROUP TABLE 236 TABLE A -10.1.—Rank-Ordering o f Most Troublesome In s tru c tio n a l Variables by Subgroup lank Item D e sc rip to r M S.D. 1.839 1.900 1.968 2.065 2.097 2.161 2.161 2.226 2.258 2.267 2.280 2.290 2.290 2.290 2.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 2.333 2.345 2.387 .688 .662 .706 .772 .700 .583 .583 .669 .631 .691 .792 .643 .588 .588 .702 .596 .596 .466 .606 .614 .715 1.719 1.905 1.985 2.141 2.159 2.190 2.212 2.242 2.270 2.274 2.290 2.297 2.317 2.344 2.355 2.391 2.393 .701 .756 .754 .710 .723 .780 .734 .583 .723 .682 .584 .728 .668 .672 .680 .657 .690 :u ll Time 1 2 3 4 5 6.5 6.5 8 9 10 11 13 13 13 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 19 20 21 1 35 2 17 6 55 24 52 22 56 48 54 20 19 36 44 45 31 30 43 11 Student absences S tu d e n t, p r a c tic in g Immature stu d e n t Student p e rs p e c tiv e s Mastery On-time assignment Do not do assignment Minimal t a l e n t Divergent t a s t e s Range o f a b i l i t y Instrum en tation D e f e a ti s t a t t i t u d e A ffe c tiv e re sp . T u to ria l couns. Tone-deafness Student m u sic a lity Learning d i s a b i l i t y Evaluation C r e a t iv i t y M ultip le demonstration Make-up exams P a rt-tim e General 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 35 56 1 52 17 24 2 6 • 42 36 54 30 55 31 13 44 20 Student p r a c tic in g Range of a b i l i t y Student absences Minimal t a l e n t S t. p e rs p e c tiv e s Do not do assignment Immature stu d e n ts Enc. mastery Limited f a c i l i t i e s Tone-deafness D e a f e a tis t a t t i t u d e C r e a tiv ity On time assignments Evaluation In su fficie n t in s t. res. Student m u sic a lity A ffe c tiv e response 237 238 TABLE A-10.1.—Continued Rank Item D escrip to r M S.D. 1.727 2.043 2.120 2.160 2.200 2.217 2.318 .767 .706 .833 .624 .577 .736 .568 Part-Time Applied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 35 52 1 2 6 17 31 Student p ra c tic in g Minimal t a l e n t Student absences Immature stu d en ts Mastery Student p e rsp ec tiv e s Evaluation APPENDIX 11 INSTRUCTIONAL VARIABLES RATED MODERATELY PROBLEMATIC TABLE 239 TABLE A-11.1. — In s tru c tio n a l Variables Rated Moderately Problematic Item D escrip to r M S.D. 2.677 2.677 2.677 2.677 2.677 2.677 2.677 2.613 2.613 2.600 2.548 2.516 2.516 2.516 2.484 2.467 .541 .653 .475 .475 .541 .541 .599 .558 .667 .563 .568 .626 .570 .677 .724 .571 2.692 2.688 2.684 2.683 2.677 2.651 2.641 2.625 2.623 2.610 2.606 2.603 2.600 2.594 2.563 2.538 2.508 2.500 2.484 2.476 2.469 2.452 2.431 2.413 .465 .639 .540 .502 .505 .544 .545 .549 .637 .526 .551 .525 .616 .610 .500 .663 .744 .707 .591 .644 .642 .694 .612 .663 Full Time 14 23 26 27 34 40 50 15 18 46 47 13 37 42 49 32 Media usage Time a w ay /tests Real music Naive q uestions Preparing t e s t s Explanations Concluding c la s s Psychomotor S t a r ti n g on time Student i n t e r e s t Work demands In stru c t, res. Student opinions Physical f a c i l i t i e s Grading papers Guidance P art-tim e General 16 10 15 11 12 50 40 27 37 28 18 32 19 51 46 4 41 48 47 53 43 14 22 45 Pacing m a te ria ls Class siz e Psychomotor Make-up exams Rock/jazz in our curriculum Concluding on time Explanations Naive q uestions Student opinions A rt music in curriculum S t a r ti n g on time Guidance T u to ria l counsel. S e le c tin g m a te ria ls Student i n t e r e s t Supplem. m a te ria ls Ordering t e x t s Instrum entation Work demands D iv e rsity of musics M ultip le demonstr. Media Divergent t a s t e s Learning d i s a b i l i t y 240 241 TABLE A-11.1.—Continued Item D escrip to r M S.D. 2.684 2.682 2.682 2.667 2.667 2.650 2.636 2.609 2.600 2.588 2.550 3.545 2.524 2.500 2.500 2.478 2.476 2.455 2.435 2.429 .582 .477 .477 .483 .483 .489 .492 .583 .598 .507 .605 .595 .602 .513 .512 .665 .512 .596 .590 .676 Part-Time Applied 56 37 43 15 45 20 40 16 50 55 14 54 22 24 30 44 36 47 32 46 Range of a b i l i t y Student opinions M ultiple demonstration Psychomotor Learning D i s a b i li t y A ffe ctiv e re sp . Explanations Pacing m a te ria ls Concluding on time On time assignments Media D e f e a tis t a t t i t u d e Divergent t a s t e s Do not do assignments C r e a tiv ity Student m u sic a lity Tone deafness Work demands Guidance Student i n t e r e s t APPENDIX 12 RANK-ORDERING OF LEAST TROUBLESOME INSTRUCTIONAL VARIABLES BY SUBGROUP TABLE 242 TABLE A-12.1.--Rank-Ordering o f Least Troublesome In s tru c tio n a l Variables by Subgroup Rank Item Desc rip tor M S.D. 2.968 2.968 2.968 2.935 2.935 2.935 2.903 2.839 2.839 2.839 2.839 2.774 2.774 2.774 2.774 2.710 2.742 2.742 2.742 .180 .180 .180 .359 .250 .250 .301 .374 .454 .374 .454 .497 .425 .497 .497 .461 .575 .631 .445 2.938 2.919 2.906 2.877 2.877 2.859 2.850 2.831 2.823 2.820 2.797 2.787 2.750 2.730 2.700 .242 .275 .344 .331 .331 .393 .360 .461 .385 .500 .443 .451 .471 .601 .561 3.000 3.000 .000 .000 Full-Time 2 2 2 5 5 5 7 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 15 18 18 18 4 8 21 3 7 9 39 5 25 38 41 53 16 29 33 51 10 12 28 Supplemenatry m a t e r i a l s Adult stu d e n ts Lecturing Speaking voice D isc ip lin e Singing in c l a s s Performing E th n i c i t y S e t ti n g up Socio. background Ordering t e x t s Diverse musics Pacing mater. Preparing m a t e r i a ls Sequencing m a t e r i a l s S e l e c ti n g m a t e r i a l s Class s i z e Rock/jazz in curriculum Art music in curriculum P a r t - ti m e General 1 2 3 4.5 4.5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 8 39 3 5 7 38 49 21 9 29 26 34 33 25 23 Adult stu d en ts Performing Speaking voice E th n i c i t y D i s c i p li n e Socio-econ. Grading papers Lecturing Singing Preparing m a t e r i a l s Real music Preparing t e s t s Sequence m a t e r i a l s Set up c la s s Time f o r t e s t s Pa rt-tim e Applied 3 3 3 8 Speaking voice Adult students 243 244 TABLE A-12.1.—Continued i-----■ ..a - w n ...a « « u g tank 3 3 3 6 7 8 9 10.5 10.5 12 13 14 15 16 17 18.5 18.5 20 21 22 23.5 23.5 25 26.5 26.5 28.5 28.5 Item 9 39 41 7 38 29 4 21 26 25 11 23 49 5 10 34 48 12 51 27 19 28 53 13 33 18 42 Desc riptor Singing/class Performing Ordering t e x t s Disci p iin e Socio. background Preparing m a t e r i a l s Supplementary m a t e r i a ls Lecturing Real Music S e t t i n g up Make-up exams Time awayytests Grading papers Ethnicity Class s i z e Preparing t e s t s Instrumentation Rock/jazz in curriculum Se lec tin g m a t e r i a ls Naive qu estio ns T uto rial couns. Art music in curriculum Diverse musics Insufficient res. Sequencing m aterial S t a r t i n g on time Limited f a c i l i t i e s M S.D. 3.000 3.000 3.000 2.955 2.952 2.947 2.913 2.905 2.905 2.900 2.895 2.889 2.882 2.870 2.857 2.833 2.833 2.800 2.789 2.773 2.762 2.762 2.727 2.714 2.714 2.700 2.700 .000 .000 .000 .213 .218 .229 .288 .301 .301 .513 .315 .323 .332 .344 .359 .383 .383 .523 .419 .429 .436 .436 .456 .561 .463 .470 .470 APPENDIX 13 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR THE 56 INSTRUCTIONAL DIFFICULTIES ITEMS TABLE 245 TABLE A-13.1.—Frequency D is trib u tio n fo r the 56 In stru ctio n a l D iffic u ltie s Items3 No. Descriptor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Student absences Immature students Speaking loud enough Supplementing m a te r ia ls E th n i c / r a c i a l d i v e r s i t y Encouraging mastery Maintaining d i s c i p l i n e Working with a d ults Singing f o r c la s s Too l a r g e a c la s s Make-up Exams Rock/jazz in curriculum Poor i n s t r u c t i o n a l r e s . Using media Promoting psychomotor Pacing m a te r ia ls Student perspectives S t a r t i n g on time Students seek t u t o r i a l Encouraging a f f e c t Lecturing Divergent t a s t e s Devoting time f o r t e s t s Students & Assignments S e ttin g up classroom Using real music Naive questions Art music in curriculum Of l i t t l e or No D ifficulty Of Average D ifficulty Of Major Difficulty Number Missing 27% 32% 95% 78% 87% 31% 91% 96% 89% 80% 68% 76% 56% 61% 69% 71% 35% 67% 60% 50% 90% 47% 77% 38% 84% 79% 68% 69% 44% 49% 3% 17% 13% 58% 9% 4% 11% 13% 27% 19% 36% 31% 28% 28% 45% 29% 35% 42% 8% 46% 17% 47% 11% 20% 30% 30% 29% 19% 2% 5% 0% 11% 0% 0% 0% 7% 4% 4% 9% 8% 3% 1% 20% 4% 5% 8% 2% 7% 6% 15% 5% 1% 2% 1% 0 0 5 3 3 0 4 3 7 6 9 9 8 9 13 3 5 5 10 10 11 5 13 8 8 6 5 11 TABLE A-13.1.—Continued No. Descriptor 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 Preparing m a te r ia ls Student.creativity' Student evaluation Vocational guidance Sequencing m a te r ia ls Preparing t e s t s Students do not p r a c t ic e Student tone-deafness E l i c i t i n g student opinion Socio-economic background Performing f o r c la s s Explaining con cretely Ordering t e x t s Limited physical f a c i l i t i e s Multiple demonstrations Enhancing stu dent m u sica lity Student learnin g d i s a b i l i t i e s Maintaining c l a s s i n t e r e s t Expressing work demands Incomplete instrumentation Correcting papers Concluding c l a s s on time Se lec ti ng m a t e r i a ls Students of minimal t a l e n t Using broad range of music Defeatist a ttitu d e s On-time assignments Range of student a b i l i t i e s M D ifficulty 86% 45% 40% 56% 77% 78% 15% 43% 66% 88% 93% 67% 77% 53% 53% 48% 49% 57% 54% 63% 79% 70% 70% 33% 66% 40% 40% 37% Of Average Difficulty 11% 45% 53% 41% 21% 20% 46% 47% 29% 11% 7% 31% 14% 36% 41% 44% 43% 40% 42% 25% 17% 26% 27% 49% 29% 53% 51% 40% Of Major Difficulty 3% 10% 7% 3% 2% 2% 39% 10% 5% 1% 0% 2% 9% 11% 6% 8% 8% 3% 4% 12% 4% 4% 3% 18% 5% 7% 9% 23% Number Missing 11 6 6 6 6 12 6 9 8 6 8 5 10 8 7 5 8 7 5 21 14 8 8 4 6 7 11 10 APPENDIX 14 CORRELATES OF SELECTED VARIABLES TABLE 248 TABLE A-14.1.—Correlates3 o f Selected Variables*5 Tenure r Sex (female/male) status .80 on job .58 Entered cc teaching-relative in v i c i n i t y hours teach .55 tenure higher degree .47 status (years) teaching .45 e x c i te d about teaching age .41 o th er job Music Administrator r status .40 school teaching .30 - .3 7 tenure .24 - .3 6 hours teach -.2 2 .22 degree -.22 o th er job .22 o t h e r job -.19 .40 former cc stud e nt - .2 2 stay/ leave cc .39 student/ music o r i e n t e d school teaching .38 sex 'i .46 p r e f e r job .18 .21 student/ music o r ie n te d .18 on job .20 sex .37 teach a pp lied voice .18 p r e f e r job .32 administrator -.1 7 rank .32 new to community .26 administrator .24 studied the cc .21 C o r r e l a t i o n s c a l c u l a t e d with p a ir - w ise d e l e t i o n s ^Variables appear in dichotomized form. 249 -. 1 7 APPENDIX 15 COMPARISON OF FULL-TIME AND PART-TIME FACULTY CHARACTERISTICS 250 COMPARISON OF FULL-TIME AND PART-TIME FACULTY CHARACTERISTICS Demographically. Full-tim e f a c u l t y were o l d e r (79% of f u l l ­ time i n s t r u c t o r s were over age 36, compared with 38% of p a rt- tim e i n s t r u c t o r s ) and more l i k e l y to be male (90% to 49%)than were p a r t time f a c u l t y . Experientially. Full-tim e f a c u l t y held higher academic degrees (100% of f u l l - t i m e i n s t r u c t o r s in d ic a te d holding a m a s te r 's degree or above, compared with 42% of p a r t - t im e i n s t r u c t o r s ) , and were more experienced as community c o llege t e a c h e r s ; most f u l l - t i m e teachers (70%) had been employed f o r 10 years or lo n g e r , while most p a r t time f a c u l t y (58%) had served from one to t h r e e y e a r s . Full-tim e f a c u l t y (27%). were somewhat more l i k e l y than p a rt- tim e f a c u l t y (13%) to have studied the fu n ctio n s and philosophy of the community co lleg e. Fewer f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y (27%) than p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y (85%) held concurrent p o sitio n s , including employment as church or so c ie ty band musicians. F u n c t io n a l ly . Full-tim e f a c u l t y (40%) were more l i k e l y than p a rt - t im e general f a c u l t y (11%) to serve as music a d m i n i s t r a t o r s for t h e i r programs. A ttitudinally. The majority of a l l f a c u l t y reported they remain "excited" about teaching (73%) and derive average s a t i s f a c ­ t io n or b e t t e r from the courses they teach (87%). F ull-tim e f a c u l t y , however, were the most p o s i t i v e in t h e i r preference f o r community 251 252 co lleg e teaching (55% to 17% f o r f u l l - t i m e and p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y , r e s p e c t iv e ly ) and most (80%) planned to remain a t t h e i r p o s i t i o n s . Most p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y were undecided. When asked to determine t h e i r p r i o r i t i e s , f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y were l e s s l i k e l y than p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y to r e p o r t t h a t they owe t h e i r g r e a t e s t professional a l l e g i a n c e to the d i s c i p l i n e of music (27% to 53%), and more l i k e l y to acknowledge t h e i r a l l e g i a n c e to stude nts (60% to 41%, f o r f u l l - t i m e and p a r t - t im e s t a f f , r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . Full-time tea ch e rs were a l s o l e s s l i k e l y to have i d e n t i f i e d music majors as the stu de n t group deserving of primary co n sid era tio n (41% f o r f u l l - t i m e i n s t r u c t o r s as compared with 53% f o r p a r t - t i m e i n s t r u c ­ tors). Pa rt-tim e and f u l l - t i m e i n s t r u c t o r s d i f f e r e d somewhat in t h e i r reasons f o r e n te r in g community c o lle g e teach ing . Full-tim e f a c u l t y (0% compared with p a r t - t i m e 45%) were u n l ik e l y t o have accepted t h e i r p o s i t io n s while in search of a second job and were l e s s l i k e l y than p a rt - t im e personnel to have sought employment because a r e l a ­ t i v e worked in the v i c i n i t y (7% to 24%) o r to gain teaching expe­ rien ce (27% t o 52%). Of a l l in d iv i d u a ls surveyed, f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y were the most l i k e l y to have ente red the profession f o r reasons o th er than those l i s t e d (63% compared with 40% f o r pa rt- tim e f a c u l t y ) , to avoid having t o teach a t the public school l e v e l s (23% t o 11%), and because no se n i o r c o lle g e p o sitio n was a v a i l a b l e (17% to 13%). APPENDIX 16 COMPARISON OF PART-TIME GENERAL FACULTY AND PART-TIME APPLIED FACULTY CHARACTERISTICS 253 COMPARISON OF PART-TIME GENERAL FACULTY AND PART-TIME APPLIED FACULTY CHARACTERISTICS Demographically. A g r e a t e r proportion of a p plied f a c u l t y (50$) than general f a c u l t y (33%) were above th e age of 36. Applied i n s t r u c ­ t o r s (60% to general 47%) were a l s o somewhat more l i k e l y to be female. Experientially. Regarding o n -th e-job e x perien ce, more a pp lied teachers (40%) than general i n s t r u c t o r s (27%) had held t h e i r p o s i ­ t i o n s between fo u r and nine y e a r s . S i m i l a r l y , a p plied f a c u l t y (16% as compared with 9% of general i n s t r u c t o r s ) were more l i k e l y t o have served t h e i r c o lle g e f o r 10 ye ars or longer. P a r t- tim e general f a c u l t y were more heterogeneous than applied teach ers in academic background and pro fes sio n al music experience. General f a c u l t y , f o r example, were l e s s l i k e l y than a p plied f a c u l t y to have earned a m a s t e r 's degree o r higher (40% to 52%), but were more l i k e l y to have been community c o ll e g e stu de n ts themselves (35% of general i n s t r u c t o r s , as compared with 8% of a p p lied i n s t r u c t o r s ) and to have worked as e i t h e r a commercial/studio musician (44% to 20%) o r in the music i n d u str y (23% to 8%). 254 255 Pa rt-tim e general f a c u l t y (82%) were a ls o more l i k e l y than e i t h e r applied i n s t r u c t o r s (60%) o r f u l l - t i m e i n s t r u c t o r s (52%) to have res id ed within t h e i r c o l l e g e ' s community d i s t r i c t when they f i r s t accepted t h e i r teaching p o s i t i o n s . F u n c t io n a l ly . The range of time spent by p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y on campus appears to vary widely. Nevertheless, more ap p lied teachers (60%) than p a r t - t im e general tea ch e rs (46%) taught only between one and s i x hours a week f o r t h e i r c o ll e g e . Moreover, most applied tea chers (52%, in c o n t r a s t with 11% of general i n s t r u c t o r s ) taught s o l e ly off-campus. One f u r t h e r f u n ctio nal d i f f e r e n c e between general and applied i n s t r u c t o r s was t h a t a small m inor ity of general i n s t r u c ­ t o r s (11%) held th e post of music a d m i n i s t r a t o r . A t t i t u d i n a l l y . P a rt-tim e general i n s t r u c t o r s (22%) were somewhat more l i k e l y than a p p lied i n s t r u c t o r s (4%) to i n d i c a t e community co lleg e teaching as t h e i r primary vocational pre fe ren c e. While a s u b s t a n t i a l segment of both p a rt - t im e subgroups favored teaching a t the f o u r-y ea r c o ll e g e l e v e l , the general i n s t r u c t o r s (26%, as com­ pared with 46% of ap p lied f a c u l t y ) were l e s s prone to consider the se n io r c o llege t h e i r r e fe ren c e group. C o nsiste nt with the applied t e a c h e r ' s o r i e n t a t i o n , however, was t h e i r conformity of musical preferen ce. More a p plied f a c u l t y (92%) than general f a c u l t y (73%) i d e n t i f i e d a r t music, meaning " c l a s s i c a l " music as t h e i r f i r s t p reference. When pro fession al a l l e g i a n c e i s considered, most a pp lied i n s t r u c ­ t o r s (52% as compared with 37% of general f a c u l t y ) in d ic a te d t h e i r primary l o y a l t y t o s t u d e n ts . There was g r e a t e r agreement among 256 applied i n s t r u c t o r s (70%) than among general i n s t r u c t o r s (46%), however, t h a t music majors should be given p r e f e r e n t i a l trea tm e n t. Applied and general teachers displayed s i m i l a r motivations f o r e n te rin g i n to community c o lle g e teaching. Part-tim e general i n s t r u c ­ t o r s , however, were somewhat more l i k e l y than were applied f a c u l t y to r e p o r t e n te rin g the prof es sion to gain teaching experience (56% f o r general teachers vs. 40% f o r applied f a c u l t y ) , and to obtain a second job (49% to 36% f o r general and applied f a c u l t y , r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . On the o th er hand, p a rt - t im e general i n s t r u c t o r s (9%) were alone in repo rtin g t h a t they accepted t h e i r p o s i t io n s because no jobs were a v a i l a b l e a t the public school l e v e l s . LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES A l b e rt , L. S . , & Watson, R. J . Mainstreaming p a rt- tim e f a c u l t y : Issue or imperative? New Directions f o r Community Colleqes, 1980, 8 ( 2 ) , 73-80. American Association o f Community and Ju n i o r Colleges. 1980 Community, J u n i o r , and Technical College D i r e c t o r y . Washington, D.C.: Author, 1982. Aslanian, V. The music program in the community c olleges of C a l i f o r n i a . In the Report o f the Fourteenth Annual Meeting, College Music Symposium, 1970, J10, 134-137. Atkinson, K. A. Michigan f u l l - and p a rt-tim e vocational i n s t r u c t o r s ' perceptions toward t h e i r prof es sional development r e l a t i v e to t h e i r occupational r o l e as public two-year colleg e i n s t r u c t o r s (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S t a te U niv e rs ity, 1981), D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 1982, 42, 3402A. (Univers i t y Microfilms No. 8202389). Aurand, C. H., J r . A preliminary study of c a r e e r p a t t e r n s and se l e c te d determinants of job choice as they a f f e c t job mobility of music f a c u l t y in i n s t i t u t i o n s a c c re d i te d by the N.A.S.M. (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , University o f Michigan, 1971). D isser­ t a t i o n A bstra cts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 1972, 32, 4233A. (Universtiy Microfilms No. 72-4819). Aurand, C. H., J r . & Blackburn, R. T. Career p a tt e r n s and job m obility of c o lle g e and u n i v e r s i t y music f a c u l t y . Journal of Research in Music Education, 1973, 21^(2), 162-168. Bader, Y. Music and th e community co lleg e st u d e n t. Symposium, 1974, 14, 71-75. Bakkegard, B. M. Music in the j u n i o r c o ll e g e . J o u r n a l , 1952, 23(2), 87-90. College Music Ju n ior College Baldwin, R. Adult and c a r e e r development: What a re the im plications f o r f a c u l ty ? Current Issues in Higher Education, 1979, JL_ ( 2 ) , 13-20. 258 259 Bayer, A. E. College and u n i v e r s i t y f a c u l t y : A s t a t i s t i c a l d e s c r i p ­ tio n (ACE Research Report, Vol. 5, No. 5 ) . Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, June 1970. Bayer, A. E. Teaching f a c u l t y in academe: 1972-1973 (ACE Research Reports, Vol. 8 , No. 2). Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, August 1973. Bel f o r d , M. L. I n v e s t i g a t i o n and the a n a l y s i s of the pu b lic j u n i o r c o ll e g e curriculum with emphasis on the problems of the t r a n s f e r music major. Journal of Research in Music Education, 1970, 18 ( 4 ) , 407-413. Bender, L. W., & Breuder, R. Pa rt-tim e t e a c h e r s - - S t e p c h il d r e n of the community c o ll e g e . Community College Review, 1973, 1 ( 1 ) , 29-37. Bender, L . , & Hammons, J . 0. Adjunct f a c u l t y : Forgotten and neqlected. Community and J u n io r Colleqe J o u r n a l , 1972, 4 3 ( 2 ) , 20 - 2 2 . Benoit, R . J . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and a t t i t u d e s of Florida community c o ll e g e f a c u l t y (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n iv e rsity of F l o r i d a , 1978). D i s s e r t a t i o n A bstr acts I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 1979, 39, 5889A. (U niversity Microfilms No. 7907723). Berdie, D. R . , & Anderson, J . F. Questionnaires: Metuchen, N .J .: Scarecrow P re ss , 1974. Design and Use. Birge, E. B. History o f public school music in th e United S t a t e s . Washington, D.C.: Music Educators National Conference, 1966. ( O r i g i n a l ly published, 1928). B l a i , B. J r . What makes a good j u n i o r c o lle g e teacher? Improving College and U niv e rsity Teaching, 1975, 23 ( 3 ) , 187. Blocker, C. E ., Plummer, R. M., & Richardson, R. C. The two-year co lleg e : A so c ial s y n t h e s i s . Englewood C l i f f s , N .J .: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1965. Bonelli,. E. The r o l e of the music a d m i n i s t r a t o r . In Monographs on music in higher education (No. 1). Washington, D.C.: National Association o f Schools of Music, 1973, 77-83. Brawer, F. B. P e r s o n a l it y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of c o lle g e and u n i v e r s i t y f a c u l t y : Im plicatio ns f o r th e community c o l l e g e . Washington, D.C.: American Associatio n of Ju n io r C ol leges, 1968. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 026 048). 260 Brawer, F. B. A p r o f i l e of music i n s t r u c t o r s in two-year c o l l e g e s . Los Angeles: Center f o r the Study of Community Colle ges, 1976. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 126 974). Brawer, F. B. S a t i s f a c t i o n and humanities i n s t r u c t o r s in two-year c o l l e g e s . (ERIC Clea ring house f o r J u n io r Colleges top ic al paper No. 56). Washington, D.C.: American Association of J u n i o r Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 128 048). Brawer, F. B. P e r s o n a l i t y a t t r i b u t e s of two-year c olleg e i n s t r u c ­ t o r s . Community College F r o n t i e r s , 1979, 7 ( 3 ) , 22-26. Brown, D. G. The market f o r c o lle g e t e a c h e r s . U nivers ity of North Carolina P r e s s , 1965. Chapel H i l l , N.C.: B u rn ett, C. W. The Trojan horse phenomenon reconsidered. College Review, 1982, JLO ( 1 ) , 18-23. Community Bushnell, D. S. Organizing f o r change: New p r i o r i t i e s f o r community c o l l e g e s . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973. Campbell, F. K. A survey and a p p ra isa l of music programs of a c c re d ite d two-year c o lleg e s of the United S t a te s (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , U nivers ity of I l l i n o i s , 1968). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s , 1969, 29 , 624A. (U niversity Microfilms No. 68-12,089). Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. Continuity and d i s c o n t i n u i ty: Higher education and the schools; A r e p o r t and recommendations. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973. Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. Confronting i d e n t i t y : The community c o lle g e i n s t r u c t o r . Englewood C l i f f s , N .J .: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c . , 1972. Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. The two-year co llege i n s t r u c t o r t o d ay . New York: Pra eger, 1977. Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. The American community c o l l e g e . Francisco: Jo ssey-Bass, 1982. San Cohen, A. M., & F r i e d la n d e r , J . What do community c o lle g e i n s t r u c ­ t o r s want? Community College Review, 1980, 1_ ( 3 ) , 66-71. Cosand, J . P. The community c o lleg e in 1980. In A. C. Eurich ( E d .) , Campus 1980: The shape of the f u t u r e in American higher educa­ t i o n . New York: Dell Publishing Co., 1969, 134-149. Cosand, J . P. P ersp ectiv e: Community c o lleg e s in the 1 9 8 0 's . Wash­ ing to n , D.C.: American Association of Ju nio r Colle ges, 1979. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 156 269). 261 C u r t i s , L. W. Ju n i o r c o lle g e music f o r general and sp ecial s tu d e n ts . Speech and d isc u ssion in Music Educators National Conference Yearbook, 1938. Chicago, 111.: Music Educators National Con­ f e r e n c e , 1938, 141-155. Dahl, R. W. Faculty in the two-year c o ll e g e . In Co llins W. Burnett ( E d . ) , The community and j u n i o r c o l l e g e . Lexington, Kentucky: Center f o r Prof ess ional Development, College of Education, University of Kentucky, n . d . , 95-116. Eaton, J . M. A study of o r i e n t a t i o n of new f a c u l t y members in Michigan community colleg e s (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S t a t e U n iv e rs ity , 1964). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s , 1964, 25, 6329. ( U n iv ersity Microfilms No. 65-01733). Ecke rt, R. E ., & S t e c k l e i n , J . E. Career motivations and s a t i s f a c ­ t i o n s of j u n i o r c o lle g e t e a c h e r s . Ju n io r College J o u r n a l , 1959, 30 ( 2 ) , 83-89. Eels, W. C. The j u n i o r c o l l e g e . Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n , 1931. E liaso n , N. C. Pa rt-tim e f a c u l t y : A national p e rs p e c t iv e . Directio ns f o r Community C olle g es, 1980, 8 ( 2 ) , 1-12. New ERIC Clearinghouse f o r Ju n io r College Information. About the f a c u l t y : A b r i e f h i g h li g h t in g important l i t e r a t u r e since 1971 on f a c u l t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , a t t i t u d e s , s a t i s f a c t i o n , p r e p a r a t i o n , evalua­ t i o n , and c o l l e c t i v e b a rg a i n in g . Los Angeles: Author, 1976. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 125 702). Faxon, J . (Chairperson). The s t a t u s of the a r t s in Michigan. (Report on the J o i n t L e g i s l a t i v e Committee on the A r t s ) . Lansing, MI.: J o i n t L e g i s l a t i v e Committee on the A r t s , 1974. Feman, M. K. A study of the music program a t Orange City Community C o lle g e . Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Teachers College, Columbia U n i v e r s i ty , 1962. F e r r e t t , S. K. The implementation of a s t a f f development program f o r p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y in a community c olleg e based on Havelock's t h e o r e t i c a l model of the change process: A case study (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S t a t e U n i v e rs i ty , 1975). D i s s e r t a t i o n A bstr acts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 1976, 37, 3292A. (U niv ersity Microf ilm s No. 76-27093) Fleming, J . R. The p r e - s e r v i c e p rep aratio n of j u n i o r c o lle g e vocal music tea ch e rs (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of Southern M i s s i s s i p p i , 1971). D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 1972, 32, 526A. (U niversity Microfilms No. 72-09069). 262 Fra nkel, J . Ju n io r c ollege f a c u l t y job s a t i s f a c t i o n . Los Angeles: ERIC Clearinghouse f o r Ju n io r Colleges, 1973. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 081-425). F r e id la n d e r , J . We a r e s a t i s f i e d with our jo b s; I t ' s only the working conditions t h a t we d o n 't l i k e . In The humanities in two-year c o lle g e s: Faculty c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Los Angeles: Center f o r the Study of Community Colleges, and ERIC Clearinghouse f o r Ju n ior Co lleges , 1976, 61-68. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 130 721). F r ie d la n d e r , J . I n s t r u c t i o n a l p r a c t i c e s of p a rt-tim e f a c u l t y in community c o l l e g e s . Paper presented a t the Annual Forum of the Association f o r I n s t i t u t i o n a l Research, San Diego, C a l i f o r n i a , May 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 169 971). Gaddy, D. Faculty rec ruitm ent. Ju n io r College Research Review, 1969, 4 (1) . Washington, D.C.: American Association of J u n i o r Colle ges, 1969. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service Nol ED 032 864). Gannon, P. J . F i f t y years of community involvement in Michigan. In R. Yarrington ( E d .), Ju n i o r c o lle g e s: 50 s t a t e s / 5 0 y e a r s . Washington, D.C.: American Association of Ju nior Colleges, 1969. 104-115. Gaff, J . G. Toward f a c u l t y renewal. P u b l i s h e r s , 1976. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Gagermeier, M. J . The r o l e of music in the j u n i o r colleg e (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Uni ve rsity of Michigan, 1967). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s tr a c t s , 1968, 28, 5089A. (University Microfilms No. 6807602). Garrison, R. H. J u n i o r colleg e f a c u l t y : Iss ues and problems. A preliminary na tional a p p r a i s a l . Washington, D.C.: American Association of Ju n io r Colleges, 1967. (ERIC Document Repro­ duction Service No. ED 012 177). Garrison, R. H. Teaching in a j u n i o r c o lleg e : A b r i e f profes sional o r i e n t a t i o n . Washington, D.C.: American Association of Ju n io r Colle ges, 1968. Gleazer, E. J . , J r . AACJC approach: Preparation of j u n i o r c o lleg e i n s t r u c t o r s . Ju n i o r College J o u r n a l , 1964, 35 ( 1 ) , 3-4. Gleazer, E. J . , J r . The community co lleg e : Values, v i s i o n , and v i t a l r t y . Washington, D.C.: American Association of Community and Ju n io r Colle ges, 1980. 263 G l o s t e r , E. D. A f a c u l t y morale study in a community c o l l e g e . Unpublished doctoral practicum, Nova U n ive rs ity , 1975. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 111 453). Goetz, E. Music in th e j u n i o r c o lleg e today. In Music Educators National Conference Yearbook, 1939-1940, 30, 392-399. Goetz, E. Ju n io r colleg e music. In Music Educators National Conference Yearbook, 1939-1940, 30, 388-391. Greene, C. M. The scope and fun ctio n of music in the community co lleg e s under t h e superv ision of the s t a t e u n i v e r s i t y of New York (Doctoral d i s s e r a t i o n , Florida S t a te U n iv e rs ity, 1968). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s , 1969, 29, 751A. (University Microfilms No. 69-11,298). Greenwood, R. P. Making " w h a t's - h i s - f a c e " fe e l a t home: I n t e g r a ti n g p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y . New Directio n s f o r Community Colleges, 1980, 8 ( 2 ) , 55-60. Grymes, R. J . , J r . A survey and a n a l y s i s of p a r t - t im e i n s t r u c t o r s a t J . Sargent Reynolds Community C olle ge . Richmond, Va.: J . Sargent Reynolds Community College, 1976. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 125 687). Guthrie-Morse, B. The u t i l i z a t i o n of p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y . College F r o n t i e r s , 1979, 1_ ( 3 ) , 8-17. Community Hammons, J . , Wallace, T. H., Smith & Watts, G. S t a f f development in the Community c o ll e g e : A handbook. (ERIC Clearinghouse f o r Ju n i o r Colleges t o p ic al paper No. 66). Los Angeles: ERIC Clearinghouse f o r Ju n io r Colleges , 1978. (ERIC Document Repro­ duction Service No. ED 154 887). Hendrix, V. L. Functional r e l a t i o n s h i p s of j u n i o r c o llege environ­ ments and s e l e c t e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of f a c u l t i e s , s t u d e n t s , the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , and the community^ (Office of Education, P r o j e c t No. 5-0770). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1967. Herzberg, F . , Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. The motivation to work. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1959. H i l l , M. D. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between s o c i a l i z a t i o n , experienc e, r e fe ren c e group i d e n t i t y and a t t i t u d e s of community c o lleg e f a c u l t y . (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Pennsylvania S t a te U nivers ity , 1975). D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 1976, 37, 777A. (U niversity Microfilms No. 76-17, 175). Hood, M. V. Music in American education: our h e r i t a g e demands a c t i o n , not defense. Music Educators J o u r n a l , 1952, 38 ( 6 ) , 17-19. 264 Hoth, E. K. Factors of f a c u l t y job s a t i s f a c t i o n as r e l a t e d to communication s a t i s f a c t i o n (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Wayne S t a te U n iv e rs ity , 1979). D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 1980, 40, 5702A. (U niversity Microfilms No. 8010145). Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. Random House, 1978. Educational a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . New York: Hudgins, J . W., J r . A c r i t i c a l a n a l y s i s of the p r e - s e r v i c e p rep a ra ­ tio n f o r music i n s t r u c t o r s in public j u n i o r c o lle g e s (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of Texas a t Austin, 1959). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s , 1960, 20, 2659. (U niversity Microfilms No. 59-06714). Jamerson, F. The community c olleg e tea ch e r: A confused i d e n t i t y . Community College F r o n t i e r s , 1979, ]_ ( 3 ) , 4-7. Jansen, U. H. Music c u r r i c u l a in the j u n i o r c o l l e g e s . Unpublished paper. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 050 714). Kelley, W., & Wilbur, L. Teaching in the community j u n i o r c o l l e g e . New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1970. Kelly, M., & Connolly, J . O r ien ta tio n f o r f a c u l t y in j u n i o r c o l l e g e s . (ERIC Clearinghouse f o r Ju n i o r Colleges Monograph No. 10). Washington, D.C.: American Association of Ju n io r Colle ges, June, 1970. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 043 323). Kepple, R. A. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between se l e c te d s t a t u s c h a r a c t e r i s ­ t i c s and job s a t i s f a c t i o n of two-year c o lleg e f a c u l t y (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , American U n iv e rs ity , 1978). D i s s e r t a t i o n A bstra cts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 1979, 39, 5890A. ( U n iv ersity Microfilms No. 7907555). K erlinger, F. N. Foundations of behavioral r e s e a r c h . Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1964. New York: K o l t a i , L. The p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y and the community c o l l e g e . Speech given a t the Conference on Pa rt-tim e Teachers, Inglewood, C a l i f o r n i a , January 1976. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.- 118 174). Kuhns, E. P. Pa rt-tim e f a c u l t y . ( 5 ) , 8-12. Ju n io r College J o u r n a l , 1963, 33, Kurth, E. L ., and M i l ls , E. R. Analysis of degree of f a c u l t y s a t i s ­ f a c t i o n in Florida community-junior c o l l e g e s . Final r e p o r t . G a i n e s v i l le : Florida U n iv e rs ity , I n s t i t u t e of Higher Eaucation, 1968. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 027 902). 265 Kyre, K. K. A comparative d e s c r i p t i o n of p a rt - t im e and f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y in the South Carolina technic al education system on s e l e c te d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s p e r t i n e n t to the teaching r o l e (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of V i r g i n i a , 1981). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b stra cts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 1982, 42, 2992A. (U niv ersity Microfilms No. 8129329). Lansing Community College Open Admissions Committee. Report of the open admissions committee. Unpublished m anu script, Lansing Community College (Michigan), 1980. L e s l i e , D. W., Kellams, S. E ., & Gunne, G. M. P a rt-tim e f a c u l t y in American hig her e d u c a tio n . New York: Pra eger, 1982. Levy, L. S ig n if ic a n c e of s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s between community c o lle g e teaching groups. Ju n i o r College J o u r n a l , 1958, 28 ( 8 ) , 444-451. Lincoln, H. B. (E d.). Direc tory o f music f a c u l t i e s in c o lleg e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s , U.S. and Canada: 1972-1974 (4th e d . ) . Binghamton, N.Y.: College Music S o c i e t y , 1972. Lombardi, J . P a r t- tim e f a c u l t y in community c o l l e g e s . (ERIC Clearin g­ house f o r Ju n io r Colleges t o p ic al paper NO. 54). Los Angeles: Un iversity of C a l i f o r n ia a t Los Angeles, 1975. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 115 316). London, H. B. In between: The community c o ll e g e t e a c h e r . Annals of the American Academy of P o l i t i c a l and Social Science, 1980, 448, 62-73. Lopp, J . E. A curriculum a n a l y s i s o f problems in the music c u r r i c u l a of s e l e c t e d j u n i o r c o ll e g e s in Georgia (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , U nivers ity of Georgia, 1973). D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts I n t e r n a ­ t i o n a l , 1974, 34, 5591A. ( U n iv ersity Microfilms No. 74-04834). Macnow, G. Two-year c o ll e q e s t h r i v i n g . ber 2, 1981, pp. 1A, 11A. D e t r o i t Free P r e s s , Septem­ Martensen, T. A sugge stive music program f o r Texas j u n i o r c o l l e g e s . In Music Educators National Conference Yearbook, 1939-1940, 30, 402-409. Mason, R. J . Designing music programs f o r j u n i o r c o l l e g e s . Educators J o u r n a l , 1968, 54 ( 8 ) , 89-93. Music Martorana, S. V. The community c o lle g e in Michigan (The Survey of Higher Education in Michigan, S t a f f Study No. 1). Lansing, Michigan: Michigan L e g i s l a t i v e Study Committee on Higher Education, 1956. 266 McCall, H. R., Jamrich, J . X., Hereford, K. T . , & Friedman, B. D. Problems o f new f a c u l t y members in c olleg e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s . East Lansing, MI.: Michigan S t a te U n iv e rs ity , 1961. Medsker, L. The j u n i o r c o lleg e : McGraw-Hill, 1960. Medsker, L ., & T i l l e r y , D. of two-year c o l l e g e s . Progress and p r o s p e c t . Breaking the access b a r r i e r s : New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971. New York: A profile Merkel, R. P. An i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the d u t i e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of music te a c h e r s in Michigan two-year colleg e s (Doctoral d i s s e r t a ­ t i o n , University of Michigan, 1977). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b stra cts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 1978, 38, 3355A. (U niversity Microfilms No. 77-26309). Moorehead, R. E. An a n a l y s i s of f a c u l t y job s a t i s f a c t i o n in th e public regional community c o lleg e s and the s t a t e tec h n ic al c o lleg e s of Connecticut (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of Connecticut, 1979). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b str acts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 1979, 40, 635A. (University Microfilms No. 7917363). Monroe, C. R. P r o f i l e of a community c o l l e g e . Jossey-Bass, 1972. San Francisco: Morgan, H. B. An evalu atio n of adequacy of graduate music o f f e r i n g s a t C a l i f o r n i a c o lle g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s . Los Angeles: Claremont Graduate School and U n ivers ity Center, 1966. (ERIC Document Reproduction Serv ice No. ED 017 066). Moss, F. P. The pe rc eption of s e l e c te d f a c u l t y of th e departments of music of Alabama s t a t e u n i v e r s i t i e s of the music major t r a n s ­ f e r stu d e n ts from Alabama s t a t e j u n i o r c o lleg e s (Doctoral d i s s e r ­ t a t i o n , U n ive rsity of Alabama, 1977). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b str acts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 1977, 38, 3356A. (University Microfilms No. 77-25873). National Asso cia tio n of Schools of Music. Guidelines f o r j u n i o r co llege music programs. Washington, D.C.: Author, 1972. National Association of Schools of Music. Reston, Va.: Author, 1981. NASM Handbook 1981. National Center f o r S t a t i s t i c s . Digest of Education S t a t i s t i c s . Washington, D.C.: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Education D iv isio n, 1979. National Education Asso cia tio n. Higher education f a c u l t y : C h a rac te r­ i s t i c s and o p i n io n s . Washington, D.C.: Author, 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 174 154). 267 Nie, N. H., Hull, C. H., Je n k i n s , J . G., Ste in b re nn er, K., & Bent, D. H. SPSS: S t a t i s t i c a l package f o r the social sc iences (2nd e d . ) . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975. O'Banion, T. Teachers f o r tomorrow: S t a f f development in the community-junior c o l l e g e . Tucson, AR.: University of Arizona P r e s s , 1972. O'Banion, T. S t a f f development: A p r i o r i t y on persons. In Roger Yarrington, ( E d . ) , New S t a f f f o r new stu d en ts : Educational opportunity f o r al1~ (Report of the 1973 Assembly of the American Association o f Community and Ju n i o r C olle g es). Washington, D.C.: American Association of Community and Ju n io r C o lle ges, 1974, 23-41. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 089 803). Palinchak, R. S. The evolu tion of the community c o l l e g e . N .J .: Scarecrow P r e s s , 1973. Metuchen, Park, Y. Ju n io r c o ll e g e f a c u l t y : Their values and p e r c e p t i o n s . (ERIC Clearinghouse f o r Ju n io r Colleges Monograph No. 12). Washington, D.C.: American Association f o r Ju n i o r C ol leges , June 1971. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 050 725). Parsons, M. H. Realizing p a rt - t im e f a c u l t y p o t e n t i a l . f o r Community C o l le g e s , 1980, 8^ ( 2 ) , 47-54. New Directio n s P o l l a r d , J . M. The scope and nature of music programs in ru ral public community c o lle g e s (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , North Texas S t a t e Uni­ v e r s i t y , 1977). D i s s e r t a t i o n Abs tracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 1978, 38, 3899A. (U niversity Microfilms No. 77-29569). Quanty, M. P a rt-tim e i n s t r u c t o r survey. Overland Park, Kansas: Johnson County Community College, 1976. (ERIC Document Repro­ duction Service No. ED 127 000). Raney, C. Community c o lle g e and the educational a s s i s t a n t . Music Symposium, 1972, .12, 14-19. College Reiss, M. The place o f th e j u n i o r c o lleg e in t r a i n i n g musicians. Music Educators J o u r n a l , 1950, 36, ( 3 ) , 20-21. Robinson, J . P . , Athanasiou, R ., & Head, K. B. Measures of occupa­ t i o n a l a t t i t u d e s and occupational c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Survey Research Center, I n s t i t u t e f o r Social Research, 1969. Sanders, A. D. Faculty morale: A study of a community c o ll e g e system. InC . Burnett ( E d . ), The two-year i n s t i t u t i o n in American higher e d u c a ti o n . Lexington, Kentucky: University of Kentucky, 1971, 45-52. 268 Schmeltekopf, D. D. Professional s t a t u s and community college f a c u l t y : The r o l e of th e a s s o c i a t i o n s . New Directions f o r Community C o lle g es, 1983, _10 ( 3 ) , 77-89. Schneider, E. H., & Cady, H. L. Evaluation and syn th e sis of research s t u d i e s r e l a t e d to music e d u ca tion . Cooperative Research P o r j e c t No. E- 016, Office o f Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare). Columbus, Ohio: Ohio S ta te U n iv e rs ity , 1965. Sc hultz , R. E. A h i s t o r i c a l p e rspectiv e of community c o lleg e teach­ e r s and teachin g. In 0. K. McCullough ( E d .), Proceedings: Conference on th e Community/junior c o l l e g e . Knoxville: U nivers ity of Tennessee College of Education, 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 188 702). Shank, P. C. An e x p lo ra to ry i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f the i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p s among the primary elements within the rewards system, p o sitio n requirements and p o s i t io n s a t i s f a c t i o n s f o r f a c u l t y in six c o lle g e s of education in Michigan (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michiqan S t a te U n iv e rs ity , 1968). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s tr a c t s , 1968, 29, 1736A. (University Microfilms No. 68-17132). Short, C. R. (Ed.). Directory of music f a c u l t i e s in c o lleg e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s . UTS, and Canada, 1974-1976 (5th e d . ) . Binghamton, N.Y.: College Music So ciety, 1974. S i e h r , H. E. Problems of new f a c u l t y in community c olleg e s (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S t a te U n iv e rs ity , 1962). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s , 1963, 24, 596. (University Microfilms No. 63-01757). S i e h r , H. E., Jamrich, J . , & Hereford, K. T. Problems of new f a c u l t y members in community c o l l e g e s . East Lansing, MI.: Michigan S t a te U niv e rs ity , 1963. Sillman, D. Sources and information: Using p a rt- tim e f a c u l t y e f f e c ­ t i v e l y . New Directio ns f o r Community C o lle g es, 1980, 8 ( 2 ) , 89-100. Sly, A. The music department of the j u n i o r c o lle g e . Proceedings of the Music Teachers National A s s o c ia t io n , 1947, 41, 94-103. Stoops, J . A. Teachers f o r the community c o ll e g e . In John A. Stoops, ( E d .), The community college in higher e d u c a tio n . Bethlehem, PA.: Lehigh University P r e s s , 1966, 51-67. Stover, E. L ., Clausen, L. P . , Hansen, C., & Hammer, H. Music in the j u n i o r c o l l e g e . Washington, D.C.: Music Educators National Conference, 1970. 269 Sunderman, K. F. H i s t o r i c a l foundations of music education in the United S t a t e s . Metuchen, N . J . : Scarecrow P r e s s , 1971. Viggiano, F. A. A new look a t the j u n i o r c o lleg e music program. Ju n io r College J o u r n a l , 1955, 26 ( 3 ) , 159-163. Wager, W. J . , & McGrath, E. J . Liberal education and music. New York: Teachers College P re ss , Columbia U n iv e rs ity , 1962. Weisberg, H. F . , & Bowen, B. D. An in tr o d u c tio n t o survey research and data a n a l y s i s . San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Co., 1977. White, C. H. Music p h ilo s o p h ie s, f a c u l i t e s , and curriculums. College J o u r n a l , 1967, ^ 7 , ( 7 ) , 20-21. Junior Wille, J . H. An a n a l y s i s of c a r e e r motivations and job s a t i s f a c t i o n s among public community c olleg e f a c u l t y in se l e c te d s t a t e s (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Northern I l l i n o i s U n i v e rs i ty , 1981). D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 1981, 42, 1455A. (Univers i t y Microfilms No. 8122252). Wilson,R. C . , Gaff, J . G., Dienst, E. R . , Wood, L . , & Barry, J . L. College p r o f e s so rs and t h e i r impact on s t u d e n t s . New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1975. Wolfram, V. Music in th e j u n i o r c o ll e g e . 1957, 28 ( 4 ) , 216-219. J u n io r College J o u r n a l , Wozniak, L. C. A study of th e r e l a t i o n s h i p of s e l e c te d v a r i a b le s and the job s a t i s f a c t i o n / d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n of music f a c u l t y in two-year co lleg es (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Catholic University of America, 1973). D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 1973, 33, 2349A. (University Microfilms No.73-25151). Wurster, S. R. Community j u n i o r co lleg e f a c u l t y : Needs, c h a r a c t e r ­ i s t i c s , and s o u r c e s . Unpublished paper, 1969. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 036 294). Youngman, M. B. Analyzing soc ial and educational research d a t a . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979.