INFORMATION TO USERS T his re p ro d u c tio n was made fro m a copy o f a d o cu m e n t sent to us fo r m ic ro film in g . W hile the m ost advanced technology has been used to photog ra ph and reproduce this docum en t, the q u a lity o f the re p ro d u ctio n is heavily dependent upon the q u a lity o f the m aterial su bm itte d. The fo llo w in g e xp lan a tion o f techniques is provided to help c la rify m arkings o r n o ta tio n s w hich may appear on this re p ro d u ctio n . 1 .T h e sign or “ ta rg e t” fo r pages apparently lacking fro m the docum ent photographed is “ Missing Page(s)” . I f it was possible to o b tain the missing page(s) o r section, they are spliced in to the film along w ith adjacent pages. T his may have necessitated c u ttin g through an image and d u p lic a tin g adjacent pages to assure com plete c o n tin u ity . 2. When an image on the film is o b lite ra te d w ith a ro u n d black m ark, it is an in d ic a tio n o f e ith e r blurred copy because o f m ovem ent during exposure, duplicate cop y, o r co p yrig h te d m aterials th a t should n o t have been film e d . F or blurred pages, a good image o f the page can be fo u n d in the adjacent frame. I f copyrig hte d m aterials were deleted, a target note w ill appear listin g the pages in the adjacent fram e. 3. When a map, draw ing o r chart, etc., is p a rt o f the m aterial being photographed, a d e fin ite m ethod o f “ sectioning” the m aterial has been fo llo w e d . I t is custom ary to begin film in g at the upper le ft hand corner o f a large sheet and to continu e fro m le ft to rig h t in equal sections w ith small overlaps. I f necessary, sectioning is co n tin u e d again -b e g in n in g below the firs t row and co n tin u in g on u n til com plete. 4. F o r illu s tra tio n s tha t cannot be sa tisfa cto rily reproduced by xerographic means, photog ra ph ic p rin ts can be purchased at a d d itio n a l cost and inserted in to y o u r xerographic copy. These p rin ts are available upon request fro m the Dissertations C ustom er Services D epartm ent. 5. Some pages in any do cum en t may have in d is tin c t p rin t. In all cases the best available copy has been film e d . University Microfilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 8513933 Peterson, Leonard Gene AN ASSESSMENT OF PERCEIVED INSTRUCTIONAL NEEDS AND INSERVICE TRAINING PREFERENCES O F FULL-TIME ACCOUNTING, DATAPROCESSING, AND ECONOMICS FACULTY IN MICHIGAN PUBLIC COMMUNITY COLLEGES M ic h ig a n S t a t e U n iv e rs ity University Microfilms International Ph.D. 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 Copyright 1985 by Peterson, Leonard Gene All Rights Reserved 1985 PLEASE NOTE: In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V 1. Glossy photographs or pages_____ 2. Colored illustrations, paper or p rin t_______ 3. Photographs with dark background_____ 4. Illustrations are poor copy______ 5. Pages with black marks, not original co py______ 6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of p a g e _______ 7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages 8. Print exceeds margin requirem ents______ 9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine_______ i/' 10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print_______ 11. Page(s)____________lacking when material received, and not available from school or author. 12. Page(s)____________seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows. 13. Two pages num bered 14. Curling and wrinkled pages______ 15. Dissertation contains pages with print at a slant, filmed as received__________ 16. Other . Text follows. University Microfilms International AN ASSESSMENT OF PERCEIVED INSTRUCTIONAL NEEDS AND INSERVICE TRAINING PREFERENCES OF FULL-TIME ACCOUNTING, DATA-PROCESSING, AND ECONOMICS FACULTY IN MICHIGAN PUBLIC COMMUNITY COLLEGES By Leonard G. Peterson A DISSERTATION Submitted t o Mi chi gan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of t h e r equi rements f o r t he degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department o f Teacher Education 1985 Copyri ght by LEONARD G. PETERSON 1985 ABSTRACT AN ASSESSMENT OF PERCEIVED INSTRUCTIONAL NEEDS AND INSERVICE TRAINING PREFERENCES OF FULL-TIME ACCOUNTING, DATA-PROCESSING, AND ECONOMICS FACULTY IN MICHIGAN PUBLIC COMMUNITY COLLEGES By Leonard G. Peterson The problem addressed was t o i d e n t i f y and a n a l y z e pe rce ive d instructional needs of M ic hi gan p u b l i c community c o l l e g e accounti ng, d a t a - p r o c e s s i n g , and economics f a c u l t y through a needs assessment questionnaire. The i n v e s t i g a t i o n l i k e w i s e examined t h e e x t e n t t o which t he s e i n s t r u c t i o n a l needs m i ght be met through i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g , fa c u lt y preferences f o r in s e r v ic e t r a i n i n g , and f a c t o r s c o n t r i b u t i n g t o p a r t i c i p a t i o n in in s e r v ic e t r a i n i n g . The p o p u l a t i o n c o n s i s t e d o f f u l l - t i m e accounti ng, d a t a processi ng, and economics f a c u l t y i n Mi chi gan' s 29 p u b l i c community colleges. The survey i n s t r u m e n t was based on 34 community c o l l e g e i n s t r u c t i o n a l needs assessments. I n s t r u c t i o n a l competencies were c a t e g o r i z e d i n t o seven c l u s t e r s : evaluation, instructional l e a r n i n g t h e o r y , pl an ni ng and i m p l e me n ti n g i n s t r u c t i o n , with students, subject m a tte r, t ec hnol ogy, relationships and t e a c h i n g s t r a t e g i e s . The i n s t r u m e n t was v a l i d a t e d by a p i l o t study and by t h r e e n a t i o n a l l y known e x p e r t s i n s t a f f development. R e s u l t s o f t h e study Leonard G. Peterson were a nal yzed by MANOVA, u n i v a r i a t e F - t e s t s , and c h i - s q u a r e t e ch ni ques to determine i f demographic v a r i a b l e s a f f e c t e d respondents' p e r c e p t i o n s of instructional needs and f a c u l t y p r e f e r en c es f o r i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g . Although t h e means o f t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r and i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s c l u s t e r s ranked t h e h i g h e s t , few d i f f e r e n c e s i n t he i d e n t i ­ ficatio n of p er ce ive d needs appeared. teaching d i s c i p l i n e , Only one independent v a r i a b l e , contributed to s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe re nce s . Data- processi ng f a c u l t y were t h e most l i k e l y group t o p e r c e i v e i n s t r u c t i o n a l needs, w h i l e economics f a c u l t y were t h e l e a s t l i k e l y group t o p e r c e i v e instructional needs. Respondents a p p a r e n t l y f e l t t h a t i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g has a r e l a t i o n s h i p t o meet ing p e r c e i v e d i n s t r u c t i o n a l needs. One- t o t h r e e - day semi na rs, r a t h e r than one-week t o two-week workshops, predominated t h e respondents' choi ces o f i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g t i m e d u r a t i o n . Respond­ e n t s p r e f e r r e d t h e sponsorship o f i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g by community c o l l e g e s and p r o f e s s i o n a l organizations. A 56.6% r e t u r n of t h e p o p u l a t i o n i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y o f respondents were male, i n t h e 3 0 - and 4 0 - y e a r age b r a c k e t s , had 8 t o 19 years o f community c o l l e g e t e a c h i n g e xp e r i e n c e , had been employed i n business o r i n d u s t r y , had ma st er 's degrees, had not compl eted f or mal t e a c h e r t r a i n i n g , and had p a r t i c i p a t e d in i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g w i t h i n t h e past f i v e y e a r s . ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A s p e c i a l note o f acknowledgment i s gi ven t o t h e f o l l o w i n g pe opl e, whose encouragement and a s s i s t a n c e a re deeply a p p r e c i a t e d : t o D r. Jan Al l ema n-Br ooks , who convinced me t o r e - e n r o l l t h e d o c t o r a l program; in t o Dr . Kenneth N e f f , who guided t h e d i r e c t i o n of t h e research project; t o D r. Robert Pol and, c h a i r p e r s o n o f t h e guidance committee; t o D r. James Page, and f o r t w i c e s e r v i n g on my guidance committee; t o Dr . Robert R i s t a u , r es ea r ch p r o p o s a l . f o r his c o n trib u tio n to the i n i t i a l I am l i k e w i s e i ndebted t o K h a l i l M. E l a i n and Rafa M. Kasim of t h e O f f i c e o f Research C o n s u l t a t i o n f o r t h e i r e x p e r t i s e and counsel coordinating the s t a t i s t i c a l procedures used i n t h i s I appreciated the professional the Professional in research s tudy . a s s i s t a n c e o f Mary Dassance o f Resource Ce n te r a t Lansing Community C o l l e g e . I would a l s o l i k e t o t hank Sue Cooley f o r he r e d i t i n g and typing s k i l l s , which were i n s t r u m e n t a l in h e l p i n g me o r g a n i z e and polish t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n . F i n a l l y , a s i n c e r e tha nk -y ou t o t h e s u b j e c t s f o r t a k i n g t i m e t o c ompl ete a m u l t i - p a g e q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n t h e i r a l r e a d y busy p r o f e s s i o n a l 1i ves. i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABL ES................................................................................................................ v Chapter I. II. THE P R O B L E M .................................................................................................. 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e Problem ........................................................ Decreased Funding and I ncreased A c c o u n t a b i l i t y . . . D e fic ie n c ie s in Preservice Train in g fo r Community C o l l e g e F a c u l t y ................................................... Decreased F a c u l t y M o b i l i t y ........................................................ T echn ol ogi ca l Advances i n S o ci e t y and i n Education . ................... I n c r e a s i n g Use o f P a r t - T i m e F a c u l t y . . . Changing S tude nt C l i e n t e l e ........................................................ Need f o r t h e S t u d y ............................................................................... Purpose o f t h e Study . ................................................................. Statement o f t h e P r o b l e m ................................................................. Research Questi ons ............................................................................... H y p o t h e s e s .................................................................................................. D e f i n i t i o n of T e r m s ........................................................................... D e l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e S t u d y ............................................................. L i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e S t u d y ................................................................. Basic A s s u m p t i o n s ............................................................................... O r g a n i z a t i o n of t h e S t u d y ............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11 12 12 14 16 16 17 18 18 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE...................................................................... 20 I n t r o d u c t i o n ............................................................................................. Needs A s s e s s m e n t .................................................................................... D e f i n i t i o n o f Needs Assessment ............................................... Purposes o f Needs Assessment ................................................... Needs Assessment in Community C o ll e ge s ............................ R e l a t i o n s h i p o f Needs Assessment t o I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g ............................................................................................. I n s e r v i c e Education .......................................................................... D e f i n i t i o n of I n s e r v i c e Education ..................................... Purposes o f I n s e r v i c e Education..... .......................................... H i s t o r i c a l Background of I n s e r v i c e Education . . . . S u m m a r y ...................................................................................................... 20 20 20 22 25 26 28 28 29 31 35 Page III. IV. V. RESEARCH PROCEDURES ................................................................................ 37 I n t r o d u c t i o n ............................................................................................. P o p u l a t i o n .................................................................................................. Instrumentatio n .................................................................................... V a l i d a t i o n o f t h e I n s t r u m e n t ................................................... I n s t r u m e n t R e l i a b i l i t y ................................................................. Data C o l l e c t i o n and A n a l y s i s of D a t a ..................................... 37 37 38 42 43 44 ANALYSIS OF D A T A ......................................................................................... 46 I n t r o d u c t i o n ............................................................................................. Part I: Demographic D a t a ............................................................. Part I I : Needs A s s e s s m e n t ............................................................. Fi ndi ngs R e s u l t i n g From Ranking of Means o f t h e Seven I n s t r u c t i o n a l C l u s t e r s : Hypothesis 1 . . . . Fi ndi ngs R e s u l t i n g From A p p l i c a t i o n of MANOVA and U n i v a r i a t e F - T e s t Techniques: Hypotheses 2 Through 1 1 ........................................................................................ Part I I I : F i n d i n g s R e s u l t i n g From A p p l i c a t i o n o f MANOVA, U n i v a r i a t e F - T e s t , and Chi -Squar e Techniques: Hypotheses 12 Through 21 R e su lt s o f Appl yi ng t h e MANOVA Technique ............................ A na l y s i s o f P e rc e iv e d C r i t i c a l Needs ..................................... Per ceived Needs Met Through I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g . . . . P r e f er e nc es f o r I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g .......................................... Summary o f C h i - S q u a r e R es ul ts ............................................... 46 47 56 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 57 57 69 -98 99 102 102 106 ............................. 107 Summary of t h e R e s e a r c h ................................................................. I n t r o d u c t i o n ........................................................................................ Review o f t h e L i t e r a t u r e ............................................................. Summary o f t h e F i n d i n g s ............................................................. C o n c l u s i o n s ............................................................................................. Recommendations f o r F u r t h e r Research ..................................... 107 107 108 108 114 117 APPENDICES......................................................................................................................... 119 A. T AB L E S ................................................................................................................. 120 B. COMMUNICATIONS AND NEEDS-ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE 139 . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... iv 155 LIST OF TABLES Tabl e 1. Page Study P o p u l a t i o n and Respondents, by Community C ol l eg e ............................ and S u b j e c t - M a t t e r Area 39 2. Summary o f Responses by Number and P e r c e n t .................................. 44 3. Department al A f f i l i a t i o n ...................................... 48 4. Gender o f R e s p o n d e n t s ................................................................................ 48 5. Age o f R e s p o n d e n t s ......................................................................................... 49 6. F a c u l t y S t a t u s of Respondents .............................................................. 49 7. Ma jor Teaching D i s c i p l i n e s o f Respondents .................................. 50 8. Community C o l l e g e Teaching Experience of Respondents . . . 50 9. Respondents' Level o f Education and Departments in Which C o l l e g e Degrees Are H e l d ...................................................................... 51 10. Number o f Years o f Hi gher Education 52 11. P r ev i o u s F u l l - T i m e Employment in B u s i n e s s / I n d u s t r y . . . . 53 12. Number o f Years o f F u l l - T i m e Employment in Busi ness/ I n d u s t r y ........................................................................................................... 53 13. Completion o f a Formal T e a c h e r - T r a i n i n g Program .................... 53 14. P a r t i c i p a t i o n in I n s e r v i c e - T r a i n i n g Program During t he Past F i v e Y e a r s ........................................................................................ 54 Sponsorship and C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Two Most Recent I n s e r v i c e - T r a i n i n g Experi ences ........................................................ 55 16. Student-Body Headcount as of F a l l 1983 ........................................... 55 17. Number o f Students E n r o l l e d in Courses in S u b j e c t ' s Teaching D i s c i p l i n e in F a l l 1983 ................................................... 56 15. of Respondents v ................................................ T a b le Page 18. Means of t h e Seven I n s t r u c t i o n a l i n Rank Order . 58 19. W i l k ' s M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a l y s i s of V a ri a nc e o f P er cei ved I n s t r u c t i o n a l Needs, by Gender ........................................................ 58 W i l k ' s M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a l y s i s o f V a ri a nc e o f Per ce iv ed I n s t r u c t i o n a l Needs, by Age of Teachers ................................. 59 W i l k ' s M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a l y s i s of V a ri a nc e o f P er cei ved I n s t r u c t i o n a l Needs, by Teaching D i s c i p l i n e ........................ 60 R es ul ts o f U n i v a r i a t e F - T e s t s f o r Mean Ra ti ngs According t o t h e E f f e c t of Respondents' Teaching D i s c i p l i n e s . . . 61 W i l k ' s M u l t i v a r i a t e A na l ys i s o f V a ri a nc e o f P er cei ved I n s t r u c t i o n a l Needs, by Community C o l l e g e Teaching E x p e r i e n c e ...................................................................................................... 62 W i l k ' s M u l t i v a r i a t e A na l ys i s of V ar i anc e o f P er cei ved I n s t r u c t i o n a l Needs, by Years o f Hi ghe r Educati on . . . 62 W i l k ' s M u l t i v a r i a t e Ana l ys i s of V ar i anc e o f Per ce iv ed I n s t r u c t i o n a l Needs, by Pr evi ous F u l l - T i m e Employment in Business or I n d u s t r y ....................... 63 W i l k ' s M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a l y s i s o f Var ia nc e o f Per ceived I n s t r u c t i o n a l Needs, by Completion or Noncompletion of Formal Teacher T r a i n i n g ...................................................................... 64 W i l k ' s M u l t i v a r i a t e A na l ys i s of V ar i anc e o f Per ce iv ed I n s t r u c t i o n a l Needs, by P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g Wi t h i n t h e Past Fi ve Y e a r s .......................................... 64 W i l k ' s M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a l y s i s o f V ar i anc e o f Per ce iv ed I n s t r u c t i o n a l Needs, by Student-Body Headcount ................... 65 Respondents' P e r c e p t i o n s About Whether Pe rc e iv e d Needs Could Be Met Through I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g ................................. 66 W i l k ' s M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a l y s i s of V a ri a nc e o f P r e f e re n ce s f o r I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g , by Gender o f Teachers ................... 70 Re sul ts of Chi -S qua re A p p l i c a t i o n on P r ef e r e n c e s f o r I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g , by Gender of Teachers ............................ 71 W i l k ' s M u l t i v a r i a t e A na l ys i s of V ar i an c e o f P r e f e re n ce s f o r I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g , by Age of T e a c h e r s ............................ 71 2 0. 2 1. 2 2. 23. 2 4. 25. 26. 2 7. 2 8. 29. 3 0. 3 1. 32. vi Clusters, Page T a b le 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 4 2. 43. 44. 45. 46. R e s u l t s of Chi -S qua re A p p l i c a t i o n on P re fe re n ce s f o r I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g , by Age o f T e a c h e r s ..................................... 72 Recomputed Chi -Squar es f o r Items 110 and 111 on P r e f e r e n c e f o r I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g , by Age o f Teachers . 73 W i l k ' s M u l t i v a r i a t e A na l ys i s o f V ar i anc e of P re f er e nc es f o r I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g , by Teaching D i s c i p l i n e ................... 73 R e s u l t s of U n i v a r i a t e F - T e s t s f o r Mean Rati ngs According t o P r e f e re n ce s f o r I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g , by Teaching D i s c i p l i n e ...................................................................................................... 74 R e s ul ts of Chi -Squa re A p p l i c a t i o n on P re f er e nc es f o r I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g , by Teaching D i s c i p l i n e ............................ 75 Recomputed Chi -S qua re f o r Item 112 on P r e f e re n ce s f o r I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g , by Teaching D i s c i p l i n e ....... ....................... 75 W i l k ' s M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a l y s i s o f V ar i anc e of P r ef er enc es f o r I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g , by Years of Community Col l ege Teaching E x p e r i e n c e ................................ 76 R e s u l t s o f C hi -S qua r e A p p l i c a t i o n on P r e f er e nc es f o r I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g , by Years o f Community C ol l e g e Teaching Exper ience ............................................................................... 77 Recomputed Chi -S qua re f o r Item 110 on P r e f er e nc es f o r I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g , by Years of Community C o ll e ge Teaching Expe ri ence ............................................................................... 78 W i l k ' s M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a l y s i s of Var ia nc e of P r ef er enc es f o r I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g , by Years o f Hi gher Education . . 78 R e s u l t s of C hi -S qua r e A p p l i c a t i o n on P re f er e nc es f o r I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g , by Years of Hi gher Education . . . . 79 Recomputed Chi -S qua re f o r Item I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g , by Years 111 on P re f er e nc es f o r o f Hi ghe r Education . . . . 80 W i l k ' s M u l t i v a r i a t e A na l ys i s of V ar i anc e of P re f er e nc es f o r I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g , by Pr evi ous Employment in Business or I n d u s t r y ............................................................................... 80 R e s ul ts o f U n i v a r i a t e F - T e s t s f o r Mean Rati ngs According t o Respondents' P r ef e r e n c e f o r I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g , by Pr evi ous Employment i n Business or I n d u s t r y ................... 81 v i i Page T ab le 47. 48. 49. 5 0. 5 1. 5 2. 5 3. 5 4. 55. 56. 5 7. 5 8. 5 9. R es ul ts of Chi -S qua re A p p l i c a t i o n on P r e f e r e n c e s f o r I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g * by Pr evi ous Employment in Business or I n d u s t r y ............................................................................... 82 W i l k ' s M u l t i v a r i a t e A na l ys i s o f V ar i a n c e of P r e f e r e n c e s f o r I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g * by Completion o r Noncompletion o f Formal Teacher T r a i n i n g .................................................................. 83 R e s ul ts of Chi -Squa re A p p l i c a t i o n on P r e f e r e n c e s f o r I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g , by Completion or Noncompletion of Formal Teacher T r a i n i n g ...................................................................... 84 W i l k ' s M u l t i v a r i a t e A na l ys i s o f V ar i a n c e o f P r e f e r e n c e s f o r I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g , by P a r t i c i p a t i o n in I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g ............................................................................................................ 85 R es ul ts of Chi -S qua re A p p l i c a t i o n on P r e f e r e n c e s f o r I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g , by P a r t i c i p a t i o n in I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g w i t h i n t h e P ast F i v e Y e a r s .......................................... 85 W i l k ' s M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a l y s i s o f V ar i a n c e o f P r e f e r e n c e s f o r I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g , by Student-Body Headcount . . . 86 R es ul ts o f U n i v a r i a t e F - T es t s f o r Mean Ra ti ngs According t o Respondents' P r e f e r e n c e s f o r I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g , by Student-Body Headcount .................................................................. 87 R es ul ts of C hi -S qua r e A p p l i c a t i o n on P r e f e r e n c e s f o r I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g , by Student-Body Headcount .................... 87 Recomputed Chi -S qua re f o r I tem 111 on P r e f e r e n c e s f o r I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g , by Student-Body Headcount ..................... 88 R es ul ts of Chi -S qua re A p p l i c a t i o n on F a ct o rs C o n t r i b u t ­ ing t o P a r t i c i p a t i o n in I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g , by Gender o f R e s p o n d e n t s .............................................................................................. 89 R e s u lt s of C h i- S qu a re A p p l i c a t i o n on F a ct o rs C o n t r i b u t ­ ing t o P a r t i c i p a t i o n in I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g , by Age o f R e s p o n d e n t s .................................................................................................. 90 Recomputed Chi -Squa re f o r I tem 118 on t h e F act or s C o n t r i b u t i n g t o P a r t i c i p a t i o n in I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g , by Age of R e s p o n d e n t s ........................................................................... 91 Recomputed Chi -S qua re f o r I tem 121 on t h e F act or s C o n t r i b u t i n g t o P a r t i c i p a t i o n in I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g , by Age of R e s p o n d e n t s ........................................................................... 91 v i i i Page T ab le 60. 61. 6 2. 63. 6 4. 65. 6 6. 6 7. R es ul ts of C h i- Sq ua r e A p p l i c a t i o n on F a ct o rs C o n t r i b u t ­ ing t o P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g , by Teaching D i s c i p l i n e o f Respondents ............................................. 92 R es ul ts of C hi -S qua r e A p p l i c a t i o n on F a c t o r s C o n t r i b u t ­ ing t o P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g , by Teaching Expe ri ence o f Respondents ............................................. 93 Recomputed C hi -S qua r e f o r Item 117 on t h e Fact or s Contributing to P a r t i c i p a t i o n in In s e rv ic e T ra in in g , by Teaching E xpe ri ence of Respondents .................................... 94 R es ul ts of Chi -S qua re A p p l i c a t i o n on F act or s C o n t r i b u t ­ ing t o P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g , by Respondents' Years o f Hi gher Educati on ...................................... 95 R es ul ts of C h i- Sq ua r e A p p l i c a t i o n on Fa ct or s C o n t r i b u t ­ ing t o P a r t i c i p a t i o n in I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g , by Respondents' P r ev ious F u l l - T i m e Employment in B u s i n e s s / I n d u s t r y .................................................................................. 96 R es ul ts of C hi -S q ua r e A p p l i c a t i o n on F act or s C o n t r i b u t ­ ing t o P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g , by P a r t i c i p a n t s ' Completion or Noncompletion of Formal Teacher T r a i n i n g ..................................... 97 R e s ul ts of C hi -S q ua r e A p p l i c a t i o n on F act or s C o n t r i b u t ­ ing t o P a r t i c i p a t i o n in I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g , by Respondents' Completion o r Noncompletion of I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g W i t h i n t h e Past F i v e Y e a r s ............................................. 97 R es ul ts o f C hi -S q ua r e A p p l i c a t i o n on F act or s C o n t r i b u t ­ ing t o P a r t i c i p a t i o n in I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g , by S t u d e n t - B o d y H e a d c o u n t ....................................................................... 98 68. The Nine Needs-Assessment Items P e rc e iv e d t o Be o f Top P r i o r i t y ...................................................................... 69. The 11 Needs-Assessment Items Per ce iv ed t o Be o f Lowest P r i o r i t y ................................................................................................................. 70. 71. Needs-Assessment Items Re cei vi ng a M a j o r i t y of "Yes" Responses Concerning Whether t h e Needs Can Be Met Through I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g ........................................................... Respondents' P r e f e r e n c e s of Sponsors f o r I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g ................................................................................................................ ix 101 103 104 T a b le 72. 7 3. 7 4. Page Respondents’ P r e f e r e n c e s of Time f o r I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g ........................................................................................................... 104 Fa ct or s C o n t r i b u t i n g t o Respondents' P a r t i c i p a t i o n in I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g .................................................................................... 105 I n s e r v i c e - T r a i n i n g - P r e f e r e n c e Items R e cei vi ng a P l u r a l i t y of N e g a t i ve Responses ....................................................... 105 x CHAPTER I THE PRC' _M I n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e Problem Tw o- y ea r c o l l e g e s have assumed a g r e a t e r i mpor ta nce in h i g h e r educati on because i n c r e a s i n g numbers o f s t ude nt s a r e a t t e n d i n g these institutions. 2,543,901 Nationally, in f a l l t w o - y e a r p u b l i c c o l l e g e e n r o l l m e n t grew from 1971 t o 4 , 7 9 9 , 7 6 8 in f a l l 1984, an i n c r e a s e of 89% ( 1984 Community, T e c h n i c a l , and J u n i o r C o l l e g e D i r e c t o r y , 1 9 8 4 ) . However, t h e pe rce nt age i n c r e a s e has d e c l i n e d from t h e e n r o l l m e n t boom o f t h e e a r l y 1970s. 1968, 28% o f In nearly all stude nt s e n r o l l e d in i n s t i t u t i o n s of h i g h e r e d u ca t i on were a t t e n d i n g t w o - y e a r c o l l e g e s . By 1981, a p p r o x i m a t e l y 46% o f those e n r o l l e d in c o l l e g e a t te nde d community colleges (Magarrel, 1982). As o f f a l l 1981, i n c r ea se s in community c o l l e g e e n r o l l m e n t s accounted f o r t h e m a j o r i t y o f n a t i o n a l e n r o l l m e n t gains i n p u b l i c postsecondary 1982). I n 1958, one in community c o l l e g e s ; t e n i n s t i t u t i o n s ( N i e l s e n & Pol is hook , f i v e s t ud e n t s began y ear s l a t e r , t h e i r c o l l e g e work in one in t h r e e s tudents begant h e i r c o l l e g e e x p e r i e n c e i n community c o l l e g e s ; and by f a l l 1981, more than h a l f o f thos e be gi nning c o l l e g e did so in community c o l l e g e s ( N i e l s e n & Pol ishook, 1982). Hence, i n c r e a s i n g numbers o f stude nt s a r e o b t a i n i n g t h e i r f i r s t exposure t o h i g h e r e d u ca t i o n i n t w o - y e a r c o l l e g e s . 1 2 During t h e 1970s and e a r l y 1980s, p u b l i c community c o l l e g e s were t h e f a s t e s t growing i n s t i t u t i o n s o f h i g h e r educati on in Michigan. E n r o l l m e n t in Mi chi gan' s 29 p u b l i c community c o l l e g e s grew from 126,682 in f a l l 1971 t o 217,230 i n f a l l 1983, an i n c r ea se o f 71% ( Mi chi ga n, 1983). As p u b l i c community c o l l e g e s have been charged w i t h educati ng a g r e a t e r number o f freshman and sophomore s t ud e nt s , other forces for change have a f f e c t e d community c o l l e g e f a c u l t y , as w e l l . l i t e r a t u r e in the f i e l d , According t o community c o l l e g e s and t h e i r f a c u l t i e s must fa c e t h e f o l l o w i n g contemporary f o r c e s : 1. C o m p e t i t i o n f o r l i m i t e d t a x d o l l a r s and i nc re ase d p u b l i c demand f o r a c c o u n t a b i l i t y 2. F a c u l t y d e f i c i e n c i e s in p r e s e r v i c e p r e p a r a t i o n 3. Decreased f a c u l t y m o b i l i t y 4. T e chn ol ogi ca l 5. I n c r e a s i n g use o f p a r t - t i m e f a c u l t y 6. Changing s t u d e n t c l i e n t e l e advances in i n s t r u c t i o n These change f a c t o r s s t r o n g l y a f f e c t community c o l l e g e f a c u l t y who a r e a t t e m p t i n g t o meet t h e i r s t u de n t s ' e du ca t io na l result, d i s cus si ons of i n s t r u c t i o n a l needs. As a improvement a r e a t t r a c t i n g more a t t e n t i o n and g a i n i n g h i g h e r p r i o r i t y on many t w o - y e a r p u b l i c c o l l e g e campuses. following The s i x change f a c t o r s a r e discussed i n d e t a i l pages. on t h e 3 Decreased Funding and I ncreased A c c o u n t a b i l i t y I n t h e l a t e 1970s and e a r l y 1980s, community c o l l e g e s were faced w i t h t h e harsh r e a l i t y of decreased fundi ng o r a t l e a s t more competition f o r l i m i t e d t a x d o llars . f i n a n c i n g and f i s c a l S t e a d y - s t a t e community c o l l e g e r e tr e n c h me n t o r a u s t e r i t y has been w e l l n a t i o n a l l y and in Mi chi gan. According t o t h e l i t e r a t u r e , publicized stab ilizatio n or c u r t a i l m e n t in fundi ng has c o n t r i b u t e d t o a l e s s mobi l e f a c u l t y (Ce n tr a , 1978; W a l l ac e , 1975). Financial c ritic a l problem f o r community c o l l e g e s thr ough out t h e 1980s. In t h e 1970s, s t u d e n t s , support w i l l employers, t a x p a y e r s , c o nt inue t o be a and p u b l i c o f f i ­ c i a l s began t o v o i c e t h e i r demands f o r a c c o u n t a b i l i t y and r el ev anc e. English and Kaufman (1975) d e f i ne d a c c o u n t a b i l i t y as "a process of demonst rat in g t h a t t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n has accomplished t h a t which i t it would accomplish" (p. 5 ). Ce nt ra (1978) sai d w rot e , Another reason f o r t h e r e c e n t emphasis on f a c u l t y development and i n s t r u c t i o n a l i mprovement . . . is t h e general disenchantment, expressed by s t ud e n t s , p a r en t s, and l e g i s l a t o r s . . . w i t h t h e q u a l i t y o f c o l l e g e i n s t r u c t i o n , (p. 189) D e fic ie n c ies in Preservice T r a i n i n g f o r Community College Faculty D e f i c i e n c i e s in p r e s e r v i c e p r e p a r a t i o n t o teach in t h e commu­ n i t y c o l l e g e have been a n o th e r f o r c e f o r change. Many a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and f a c u l t y groups are d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e t r a d i t i o n a l preparation they r e c e i v e d f o r p e r fo r mi n g u n t r a d i t i o n a l t a s k s ("Community C ol l ege F a c u l t y Development," 1973). theory, P r e s e r v i c e programs a re r a r e l y based on r a r e l y e v a l u a t e d , and seldom supported o r r e j e c t e d on t h e i r 4 merits. " P r e s e r v i c e p r e p a r a t i o n of p r of e s s i o n a l s t a f f members i s r a r e l y i d e a l and may be p r i m a r i l y an i n t r o d u c t i o n t o p r o f e s s i o n a l p r e p a r a t i o n r a t h e r than p r o f e s s i o n a l Bessent, & M c I n t y r e , p r e p a r a t i o n as such" ( H a r r i s , 1969, p. 3 ) . Y a r r i n g t o n (1974) w rot e , " P r e s e r v i c e programs f o r t h e p r e p ar a ­ t i o n o f community c o l l e g e t e a c h e r s have been g r o s s l y inadequate" (p. 28). P r e s e r v i c e p r e p a r a t i o n has not provided community c o l l e g e e ducators w i t h t h e comprehensive community c o l l e g e phi losophy. addition, In many community c o l l e g e f a c u l t y members were not i n i t i a l l y prepared f o r employment w i t h i n t h e unique e nvi ronme nt o f t h e community college. O'Banion (1972) concluded, "With very few e x c e p t i o n s , pr e­ s e r v i c e programs f o r t h e p r e p a r a t i o n of c o m m u n i t y - j u n i o r c o l l e g e s t a f f are grossly inadequate" (p. 84). According t o Y a r r i n g t o n (1974), The mast er 's degree i n a s u b j e c t m a t t e r f i e l d o f t e n means course s p e c i a l i z a t i o n t h a t i s too narrow and no i n s t r u c t i o n i n comr r: ! r i f / c o l l e g e educati on or i n t e a ch i n g methodology. Yet t h e m ast er of e duca ti on degree has been c r i t i c i z e d because i t f a i l s t o o f f e r s u f f i c i e n t p r e p a r a t i o n in t he s u b j e c t m a t t e r f i e l d , (p. 2 9) Many f a c u l t y members who a r e e x c e l l e n t c o n t e n t s p e c i a l i s t s m i ght be i n a d e q u a t e l y prepared or l a c k minimum t e a c h i n g s k i l l s r e q u i r e d f o r success in t h e classroom. Decreased F a c u l t y M o b i l i t y The r a p id growth i n community c o l l e g e e n r o l l m e n t s s t a b i l i z e d i n t h e m i d - t o l a t e 1970s, and t h e e duc at io na l j o b ma rke t became oversup­ p lie d with p o te n tia l instructors. Because of l i m i t e d s t a f f t u r n o v e r 5 and no-growth f a c u l t i e s , employment m o b i l i t y f o r t h e community c o l l e g e t e a c h e r became a phenomenon o f t h e past. New f a c u l t y p rov ide "new blood," b r i n g i n g f re sh p e r s p e c t i v e s and i n f u s i n g new ideas i n t o i n s t i ­ tutions. staffs, I n a b i l i t y t o add new young f a c u l t y t o community c o l l e g e t i g h t or d e c l i n i n g j o b ma rkets, low s t a f f t u r n o v e r , and reduced f a c u l t y m o b i l i t y r e q u i r e t h a t i n n o v a t i o n s be made w i t h c u r r e n t f u l l ­ t i m e s t a f f r a t h e r than through employing new f a c u l t y . emphasizes t h e need f o r i n s t r u c t i o n a l Thi s s i t u a t i o n improvement through i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i ng. I n 1976, S el d i n w r o t e , Above a l l , t h e f a c u l t y development programs a re l i n k e d today t o t h e t i g h t j o b ma rke t f o r p r o f e ss or s . Facing sharp drops in fundi ng and s t u d e n t e n r o l l m e n t , c o l l e g e s s i mp l y cannot a f f o r d t o h i r e new f a c u l t y t o i n f u s e f r e s h i d e a s , i n n o v a t i v e l e a d e r s h i p , and new t e a c h i n g techni ques . As t h e pr essur e mounted, t h e c o l l e g e s i n t r o ­ duced programs aimed a t sharpening t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l s k i l l s of e x i s t i n g f a c u l t i e s , (p. 10) Likewise, S u l l i v a n (1983) concluded, "Many i n s t i t u t i o n s a b r u p t l y found t h a t t hey could no l o ng e r a f f o r d t o h i r e new f a c u l t y members t o i n f u s e new i deas, p r ov ide l e a d e r s h i p p o t e n t i a l , t e a c h i n g t e chni ques " or introduce innovative ( p. 2 1 ) . Techn ol ogi ca l Advances in S o c i e t y and in Education The r api d advances made in a t e c h n o l o g i c a l s o c i e t y c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e obsolescence o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l and e d u c a t i o n a l social and t e c h n o l o g i c a l s u b j e c t - m a t t e r knowledge. practices. Both changes i n f l u e n c e t e a c h i n g methods and Development of a technol ogy o f i n s t r u c t i o n , i n c l u d i n g both hardware and s o f t w a r e , has r e c e n t l y a c c e l e r a t e d . Many 6 f a c u l t y members a re unaware o f new i n s t r u c t i o n a l t e c h n o l o g i e s , c u r r i c u ­ lum developments, changes i n f a c i l i t i e s and equi pment , and such new t e a c h i n g t e c h n o l o g i e s as a u d i o - v i s u a l tu to ria l, use o f v i d e o di scs ( B e r g q u i s t & P h i l l i p s , c o g n i t i v e mapping, and 1975; O'Banion, 1978). S t a f f - d e v e l o p m e n t programs m i ght hel p community c o l l e g e f a c u l t y a c q u i r e new i deas, t e c h n o l o g i e s , s kills, and t e a c h e r - l e a r n i n g s t y l e s w h i l e upgrading s u b j e c t m a t t e r i n t h e i r t e a c h i n g . Because of r a p i d l y changing developments i n t ec hnol ogy, s t u d e n t c l i e n t e l e , matter, it and s u b j e c t is i m p e r a t i v e t h a t f a c u l t y have c o n t i n u i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o l e a r n about and adopt i n n o v a t i o n s in t h e i r classrooms. I n c r e a s i n g Use o f P a r t - T i m e F a c u l t y As growth in community c o l l e g e s t u d e n t e n r o l l m e n t s slowed in t h e mi d- 197 0s, t h e number of p a r t - t i m e o r a d j u n c t f a c u l t y i nc re ase d r api d l y . The r a p id growth in a d j u n c t f a c u l t y a t t w o - y e a r i n s t i t u t i o n s sug­ gest s t h a t those i n s t r u c t o r s a r e becoming an i n c r e a s i n g l y s i g n i f i ­ c a n t p a r t o f t h e t e a c h i n g e f f o r t a t thos e schools. F u rt he r mo r e, a r evi ew o f t h e AACJC D i r e c t o r y o f 1977 w i l l q u i c k l y r ev ea l t h a t a t a s i g n i f i c a n t number o f i n s t i t u t i o n s , a d j u n c t f a c u l t y compr ise 40 t o 50% o f t h e s t a f f . (Hammons, Wa l la ce , & Wa tt s, 1978, p. 38) " P a r t - t i m e f a c u l t y now outnumber f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y in t w o - y e a r i n s t i t u ­ tions. greater, In e i g h t s t a t e s ( i n c l u d i n g M i c h ig an ) , p a rt-tim e to f u l l - t i m e faculty (Haddad & Dickens, 1978, p. 22). t h e r a t i o i s 2 t o 1 or in 2 - y e a r p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n s " The 1984 Community, T e c h n i c a l , and J u n i o r C o l l e g e D i r e c t o r y d i s c l o s e d t h a t 25 o f Mi chi gan' s 29 p u b l i c community c o l l e g e s employ more p a r t - t i m e than f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y . 7 H i r i n g o f p a r t - t i m e f a c u l t y has i nc re ase d because t h i s a l l o w s more s t a f f f l e x i b i l i t y * and p a r t - t i m e f a c u l t y a r e o f t e n consi der ed t o be s u b j e c t - m a t t e r s p e c i a l i s t s and t o have more rel ev anc y or a p p l i c a ­ b ility . S p e c i f i c economic i n c e n t i v e s f o r employing p a r t - t i m e community c o l l e g e f a c u l t y a r e t h a t t he s e i n d i v i d u a l s work f o r nominal h o ur l y pay, a r e h i r e d on s h o r t - t e r m c o n t r a c t s , benefits, r e c e i v e v er y few i f any f r i n g e and t h e r e f o r e a r e l e s s c o s t l y than f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y . P a r t - t i m e f a c u l t y o f t e n hold f u l l - t i m e j ob s el se wher e and have had l e s s t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e , training, l i m i t e d or no p r e s e r v i c e and i n s e r v i c e less preparation tim e, and l es s c o n t a c t t i m e w i t h s tudents. Many of t he s e i n d i v i d u a l s have business a n d / o r i n d u s t r i a l r a t h e r than e d u c a t i o n a l backgrounds o r t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e (Haddad & Dickens, Hammons, S m i t h - W a l l a c e , ■& W a tt s , 1978; 1978). Changing S tude nt C l i e n t e l e A final diversity f a c t o r a f f e c t i n g community c o l l e g e f a c u l t y i s t he o f t h e community c o l l e g e s t u d e n t body. Responding t o t h e growi ng d i v e r s i t y o f l e a r n e r needs i s indeed a c h a l l e n g e t o community college fa c u lty . During t h e 1970s, t h e median s t u d e n t age and t h e number of p a r t - t i m e s t u d e n t s i nc re a se d , c r e a t i n g a major s h i f t in t he make-up o f t h e s t u de n t body. " P a r t -ti m e adults represent the gre a te s t number o f l e a r n e r s i n t h e community c o l l e g e s , enrollm ent" (Hamilton, groups, women, 1979, p. 58) . senior c i t i z e n s , c o mpr is i ng 64% o f t he Nontraditional s tudents di sadvantaged s t ude nt s , (minority and t h e unem­ ployed) c o n s t i t u t e a n ot he r segment of community c o l l e g e l e a r n e r s . 8 Two ma jor c h a l l e n g e s c o n f r o n t community c o l l e g e i n s t r u c t o r s : how t o deal w i t h d i v e r s i t y o f s t u d e n t backgrounds and a b i l i t i e s and how t o o r g a n i z e s u b j e c t m a t t e r t o cope w i t h t h i s d i v e r s i t y . o t h e r than t h e t r a d i t i o n a l Students from c o l l e g e p o p u l a t i o n , many from l o w- incom e backgrounds and w i t h 1e s s - t h a n - a v e r a g e a b i l i t y , e duca ti on through t he community c o l l e g e . a re e n t e r i n g h i g h e r "Wi th new c l i e n t e l e comes t h e pr ess ur e f o r f a c u l t y t o become competent in a broader v a r i e t y of t e a c h ­ i n g s t y l e s and me thods " ( G a f f , 1 9 7 8 , p. 2 1 ) . Open admissi ons, equal-opportunity p o lic ie s , programs, and o t h e r f e d e r a l b ility fin a n c ia l-a id government mandates t o i n c r e a s e a c c e s s i ­ t o h i g h e r e duca ti on have enabled a broader spectrum o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n t o a t t e n d community c o l l e g e s . s t ud e n t s , e t h n i c and m i n o r i t y s t u de n ts , As a r e s u l t , di sadvantaged h i g h - r i s k s t ude nt s, low a c h i e v e r s , m a r g i n a l l y prepared s t ud e n t s , and s e n i o r c i t i z e n s a r e becoming t y p i c a l l e a r n e r s i n t h e community c o l l e g e . The commitment t o serve underprepared l e a r n e r s w h i l e m a i n t a i n i n g a r e p u t a t i o n o f academic excellence is a v i t a l lander, well 1980). c h a l l e n g e t o community c o l l e g e f a c u l t y ( F r i e d - I n s e r v i c e e d u ca t i on , be t h e most l o g i c a l based on needs assessment, v e h i c l e t o pr ov ide t h e knowledge and methods t h a t can hel p f a c u l t y respond t o t h e i n c r e a s i n g d i v e r s i t y backgrounds, m otivatio n, may problems, learning styles, o f needs, and range o f a b i l i ­ t i e s of community c o l l e g e s t ude nt s i n t h e 1980s (Brimm & T o l l e t t , S chu ltz, 1974; 1977). N a t i o n a l l y and in Mi chi gan, an open-admi ssi ons p o l i c y , p u b l i c community c o l l e g e s adhere t o a d m i t t i n g v i r t u a l l y anyone who wishes t o 9 enroll. With an equal o p p o r t u n i t y and open-admi ssi ons pol icy# t h e p u b l i c community c o l l e g e has accepted t h e t a s k o f p r o v i d i n g a meaning­ ful e duca ti on t o an i n c r e a s i n g l y heterogeneous group of s tudents. The m u l t i f a c e t e d p u b l i c community c o l l e g e , t h e u n t r a d i t i o n a l c o l l e g e of t he people, has adopted a m is si o n broad in scope, a philosophy o f educati on for a l l — a ll clas se s. a b ilitie s , Friedlander a ll ages, (1980) a ll interests, and a l l s o ci a l w r ot e , One outcome of t h i s admissi on p o l i c y i s , t h a t f a c u l t y members are o f t e n charged w i t h p r o v i d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n t h a t i s a p p r o p r i a t e and meaningful t o a group of s t ude nt s t h a t v a r i e s c o n s i d e r a b l y in terms o f backgrounds, e d u c a t i o n a l g oa l s, a b i l i t i e s , and a t t i t u d e s towards l e a r n i n g , ( p. 27) Need f o r t h e Study According t o O’Banion (19 72 ), a promi ne nt r e s e ar c he r i n s t a f f development, The q u a l i t y of e du ca t io n in t h e c o m m u n i t y - j u n i o r c o l l e g e depends p r i m a r i l y on t h e q u a l i t y o f t h e s t a f f . C o m mu ni t y - j u ni o r c o l l e g e s can e n r o l l i n c r e a s i n g numbers of s t ude nt s ; they can develop a v a r i e t y o f e d uc a t i o n a l programs; they can house t hese s t ude nt s and programs i n a t t r a c t i v e , modern f a c i l i t i e s ; but a l l the s e w i l l a v a i l l i t t l e i f t h e i r s t a f f s a r e not h i g h l y competent and w e l l prepared f o r t h e unique ta sks assigned them by t h i s new v ent ur e in American e d u c a t i o n , (p. v) In t h e pa st decade, community c o l l e g e s have exper ienced both a growth i n e n r o l l m e n t and a broadening d i v e r s i t y of students. college fa c u lt y are experiencing u nc ertainty , o f inadequacy i n a t t e m p t i n g t o f u l f i l l frustration, Community and f e e l i n g s t h e d i v e r s e needs of students. I n c r e a s i n g l y l a r g e r segments of t h e p o p ul a t i o n from d i s p a r a t e o r i g i n s and economic l e v e l s a r e e n t e r i n g community c o l l e g e s . wr ot e , "Changes in c l i e n t e l e , e d u ca t io na l settings, As Gaf f (1975) learning styles, 10 and i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods r e q u i r e many f a c u l t y members t o a l t e r t h e i r usual t e a c h i n g p r a c t i c e s and adopt new r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h students" ( p. 2 ) . The development o f a technol ogy of i n s t r u c t i o n , hardware and s o f t w a r e , has r e c e n t l y a c c e l e r a t e d . i n c l u d i n g both "Recent t e c h n o l o g i c a l advancements have sharpened t h e awareness o f t h e need f o r e duc at io na l i n n o v a t i o n s t h a t c o n t r i b u t e t o t e a c hi n g " (Roueche & H e rr sc he r, p. 1). 1973, Y e t "most f a c u l t y a re unaware o f the s e developments and t h e i r potential f o r improved i n s t r u c t i o n " (Hammons e t a l . , 1978, p. 4 ) . According t o C l axt on ( 1 9 7 6 ) , Another o f t h e i m p o r t a n t f o r c es o f change in t h e community c o l l e g e i s t h e i n c r e a s i n g r e a l i z a t i o n t h a t t r a d i t i o n a l means o f t e a ch i n g and t h e t r a d i t i o n a l c o l l e g e s t r u c t u r e w i l l not meet t h e needs of s t ude nt s o f t h e community c o l l e g e , (pp. 5 - 6 ) U n i v e r s i t i e s have f a i l e d t o p re par e te ac he r s f o r community c o l l e g e i n s t r u c t i o n through t r a d i t i o n a l p r e p a r a t i o n programs. O'Banion (1972) asserted: With very few e x c e p t i o n s , p r e s e r v i c e programs f o r t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f c o m m u n i t y - j u n i o r c o l l e g e s t a f f a re g r o s s l y i nadequate. The d i s c i p l i n e s in t h e u n i v e r s i t y a re i n f l e x i b l e ; t h e c o l l e g e s of e duca ti on a r e unsure and u n pr a ct i ce d . A v a i l a b l e i n s t r u c t o r s a re e i t h e r d i s c i p l i n e o r i e n t e d , namely s u b j e c t m a t t e r s p e c i a l i s t s or s e c o n d a r y - o r i e n t e d , c o l l e g e o f educati on gr aduates. Neither is prepared t o i n s t r u c t a t t h e c o m m un i ty - ju ni or c o l l e g e , (p. 84) Wi th t h e focus o f much gra duat e t r a i n i n g f o r p o t e n t i a l community c o l l e g e t e a c h e r s on devel opi ng s u b j e c t m a t t e r , inadequacy o f p r e s e r v i c e t e a c h e r - t r a i n i n g programs, i n c r e a s i n g l y d i f f i c u l t demands on t e a c h e r s , with the and w i t h t h e few people would deny t he need f o r c o n t i n u i n g e du ca t io n t o hel p f a c u l t y members r e c o ns i d er traditional conceptions. Cl axt on (1976) concluded, "Because of t h e 11 d i f f e r e n t kind o f s t u d e n t body t h a t i s i n c o l l e g e today, needed f o r successful past" (p. 12) the s k i l l s t e a c h i n g a re q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from t hos e in t he As McClain (1977) s t a t e d , ment has been documented, e d uc a t i o n a l community. w r i t t e n about, "The need f o r s t a f f develop­ and g e n e r a l l y accepted by t h e What i s not r esol ved i s f i n d i n g s u i t a b l e mech­ anisms f o r meeting t h e needs" (p. 9). Research on i n s e r v i c e educati on i s not d e f i n i t i v e , but t h e f o l l o w i n g g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s about e f f e c t i v e p r a c t i c e s have r e c e i v e d broad suppor t: 1. 2. 3. I t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t t h a t t h e t e a ch e rs who w i l l be c l i e n t s o f t h e program a r e i nv ol ve d i n t h e pl anni ng s ta g es . Program o b j e c t i v e s which are very s p e c i f i c tend t o be r e a l i z e d more o f t e n than t hos e which a re br oa dl y s t a t e d ; f o r example, s p e c i f i c t e a c h i n g performances a re outcomes more o f t e n than are changes in t e a c h e r s ’ a t t i t u d e s . E v a l u a t i o n should i n c l u d e measures of both t e a c h e r growth and e f f e c t s on p u p i l s ; hence s y s t e m a t i c e v a l u a t i o n o f i n s e r v i c e e du c a t i o n . ( H i t e & Howey, 1977, p. 14) The p r ese nt study was undertaken t o address t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l needs o f community c o l l e g e f a c u l t y and t o i n v e s t i g a t e f a c u l t y percep­ t i o n s concerning whether t hos e needs could be met through i n s e r v i c e education. Purpose o f t h e Study The purpose o f t h i s p e r c e p t i o n s of c r i t i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n was t o i d e n t i f y and a n al y ze instructional community c o l l e g e a cc ount ing, through a needs assessment. needs o f Mi chi gan p u b l i c d a t a - p r o c e s s i n g , and economics f a c u l t y I n a d d i t i o n , t h e study was designed t o a n a l y z e f a c u l t y p e r c e p t i o n s about whether pe rce ive d i n s t r u c t i o n a l needs 12 mi ght be met through i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g . F a c u l t y p re f e r e n c e s f o r i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g and f a c t o r s c o n t r i b u t i n g t o p a r t i c i p a t i o n in i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g were a l s o i n v e s t i g a t e d . The f i n d i n g s of t h e study mi ght p rov ide h e l p f u l inform ation to persons r e s p o n s i b l e f o r pl anni ng and e s t a b l i s h i n g i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g programs. I n s e r v i c e programs based on the se f i n d i n g s could r e f l e c t t h e expressed needs and p r e f e r en c e s o f t hos e t o be served. The r e s u l t s of t h e study* s e r v i ng as t h e basi s f o r i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g * m i g ht a l l e v i a t e instructional needs o f account ing, d a t a - p r o c e s s i n g , and economics instructors. The f i n d i n g s m ight a l s o be o f val ue t o a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and f a c u lt y in evaluating in s tr u c t io n a l programs and in e s t a b l i s h i n g faculty hiring policies. Statement o f t h e Problem The problem addressed i n t h e study was t o d e t e r m i n e and a n al y z e f a c u l t y p e r c e p t i o n s of i n s t r u c t i o n a l needs, t h e e x t e n t t o which t he s e needs m i g h t be met through i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g , contribute to p a rticip a tio n and f a c t o r s l i k e l y t o i n inser 'vi ce t r a i n i n g . F a c u l t y surveyed were f u l l - t i m e Mi chi gan p u b l i c community c o l l e g e a cc ounti ng, pr oc es si ng, data- and economics i n s t r u c t o r s . Research Questions The f o l l o w i n g research quest ions were posed t o gui de t h e c o l l e c t i o n of data in t h e study and were addressed through t h e needs assessment. 13 1. What do a cc ount ing, d a t a - p r o c e s s i n g , and economics f a c u l t y i n Michi gan p u b l i c community c o l l e g e s i d e n t i f y as c r i t i c a l needs in seven areas of i n s t r u c t i o n ? 2. To what e x t e n t does gender a f f e c t t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f per cei ved i n s t r u c t i o n a l 3. To what e x t e n t does age a f f e c t t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f per cei ved i n s t r u c t i o n a l 4. needs and p r e f e r e n c e s f o r i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g ? needs and p r e f e r e n c e s f o r i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g ? To what e x t e n t does t e a c h i n g d i s c i p l i n e a f f e c t t he i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of pe rce ive d i n s t r u c t i o n a l needs and p r e f e r en c e s f o r inservice training? 5. To what e x t e n t does years o f community c o l l e g e t e a c h i n g e xp e ri en c e a f f e c t t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of p e r ce i v e d i n s t r u c t i o n a l needs and p r e f e r en c es f o r i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g ? 6. To what e x t e n t does years of h i g h e r educa ti on a f f e c t t h e id e n tific a tio n of instructional needs and p r e f e r e n c e s f o r i n s e r v i c e t r a i ni ng? 7. To what e x t e n t does pr evi ous f u l l - t i m e employment in business or i n d u s t r y a f f e c t t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l needs and p re f er en c es f o r i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g ? 8. To what e x t e n t does c o m p l e t i o n o r noncompletion o f formal teacher t r a i n i n g a f f e c t the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f in s tr u c t io n a l needs and pr e fe r en c es f o r i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g ? 9. To what e x t e n t does f a c u l t y p a r t i c i p a t i o n in i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g w i t h i n t h e past f i v e years a f f e c t t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f instructional needs and p r e f e r e n c e s f o r i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g ? 14 10. To what e x t e n t does s tudent-body headcount a f f e c t t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of i n s tr u c t i o n a l needs and p r e f e r en c es f o r i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i ng? 11. To what e x t e n t do p u b l i c community c o l l e g e accounting* d a t a - pr o c es s in g * and economics f a c u l t y p e r c e i v e t h a t i n s t r u c t i o n a l needs can be met through i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g ? 12. accounti ng, What a r e t h e p r e f e r en c es of p u b l i c community c o l l e g e data-processing, t r a i n i n g i n t er ms o f t i m e , and economics f a c u l t y f o r i n s e r v i c e f i n a n c i a l arr angements, and c r e d i t arrangements? Hypotheses The f o l l o w i n g hypotheses, s t a t e d in t h e i r n u l l for m, were f o rmul at ed t o t e s t t h e data c o l l e c t e d in t h i s study: Hypothesis 1 : There a r e no d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of per ce ive d i n s t r u c t i o n a l needs in t h e seven c l u s t e r s of i n s t r u c t i o n . Hypothesis 2 : There a r e no d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of per ce ive d i n s t r u c t i o n a l needs in regard t o gender o f t e a c h e r s . Hypothesis 3 : There a r e no d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of pe rce ive d i n s t r u c t i o n a l needs in regard t o age of t e a c h e r s . Hypothesis 4 : There a r e no d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f pe rce ive d i n s t r u c t i o n a l needs i n regard t o t e a ch i ng d i s c i p l i n e . Hypothesis 5 : There a r e no d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of pe rce ive d i n s t r u c t i o n a l needs i n regard t o years o f community c o l l e g e t e a c h i n g e xp e ri en c e. Hypothesis 6 : There a r e no d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of pe rce ive d i n s t r u c t i o n a l needs in r egard t o years o f h i g h e r educa­ tion. Hypothesis 7 : There a r e no d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of pe rce ive d i n s t r u c t i o n a l needs in regard t o pr evi ous f u l l - t i m e employment in business o r i n d u s t r y . 15 Hypothesis 8 : There a r e no d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of per ce ive d i n s t r u c t i o n a l needs i n r egar d t o c om pl et io n o r noncomple­ t i o n o f formal t e a c h e r t r a i n i n g . Hypothesis 9 : There a r e no d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of per ce ive d i n s t r u c t i o n a l needs in r egar d t o p a r t i c i p a t i o n in i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g w i t h i n t h e pa st f i v e y e a r s . Hypothesis 10: There a re no d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f per ce ive d i n s t r u c t i o n a l needs in r egard t o student-body headcount. Hypothesis 11: There a r e no d i f f e r e n c e s i n f a c u l t y p e r c e p t i o n s about whether i n s t r u c t i o n a l needs can be met through i n s e r v i c e t r a i ni ng. Hypothesis 12: There a r e no d i f f e r e n c e s i n p r e f e r en c es f o r i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g in regard t o gender o f t e a c h e r s . Hypothesis 13: There a r e no d i f f e r e n c e s i n p re f e r e n c e s f o r i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g i n regard t o age o f t e a c h e r s . Hypothesis 14; There ins erv ice t r a i n i n g in a r e no d i f f e r e n c e s in p re f e r e n c e s f o r r egard t o t e a c h i n g d i s c i p l i n e . Hypothesis 15: There ins erv ice t r a i n i n g in exp e ri en c e. a r e no d i f f e r e n c e s i n p re f e r e n c e s f o r regard t o y e a r s o f community c o l l e g e t e a c h i n g Hypothesis 16: There a r e no d i f f e r e n c e s i n p r e f e r en c es f o r i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g i n regard t o y e a r s o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n . Hypothesis 17: There a r e no d i f f e r e n c e s i n p r e f e r en c es f o r i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g i n regard t o pr e vi ous f u l l - t i m e employment in business or i n d u s t r y . Hypothesis 18: There a r e no d i f f e r e n c e s i n p r e f e r en c es f o r i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g i n regard t o c o m p l e t i o n or noncompletion of formal t e a c h e r t r a i n i n g . Hypothesis 19: There a r e no d i f f e r e n c e s i n p r e f e r en c e s f o r I n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g i n regard t o p a r t i c i p a t i o n in i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g w i t h i n t h e pa st f i v e y e a r s . Hypothesis 2 0 : There a r e no d i f f e r e n c e s i n p r e f e r en c e s f o r i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g i n regard t o s tu de n t- bo d y headcount. Hypothesis 2 1 : There a r e no d i f f e r e n c e s i n f a c t o r s c o n t r i b u t i n g t o p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n I n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g r e g ar d i n g t h e ni ne independent variables. 16 D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms The f o l l o w i n g t e r ms a r e d e f i n e d i n t h e c o n t e x t i n which th e y a r e used i n t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n . Community c o l l e g e : A p u b l i c t w o - y e a r postsecondary i n s t i t u t i o n e s t a b l i s h e d under t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f Act 331 o f t h e P u b l i c Acts o f 1966 o f t h e Mi chi gan L e g i s l a t u r e . F a c u l t y deve lopme nt : modify t h e a t t i t u d e s , skills, "An i n s t i t u t i o n a l process which seeks t o and be ha vi or o f f a c u l t y members towar d g r e a t e r competence and e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n meet ing s t u d e n t needs, t h e i r own needs, and t h e needs o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n " In s e r v ic e education: (Francis, 1975, p. 7 2 0 ) . "Any planned program o f l e a r n i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s a f f o r d e d s t a f f members o f s chools, c o l l e g e s , or o t h e r e d uc a t i o n a l individual agenci es f o r purposes of i mprovi ng t h e performance of t h e i n a l r e a d y assigned p o s i t i o n s " Instructional needs: (Harris, Needed s k i l l s , 1980, p. 2 1 ) . underst andings, and competencies r e l a t e d t o t h e process o f t e a c h i n g or t o t he p r e s e n t a t i o n of in s tr u c t io n a l content, Needs assessment: as opposed t o m a t e r i a l needs. "S ys t em at ic procedure f o r d e t e r m i n i n g t h e di screpancy between e x i s t i n g and d e si r e d l e v e l s o f a t t a i n m e n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o s p e c i f i c e d u c a t i o n a l goal s" Pe rc e iv e d needs: (Ahmann, 1979, Teaching s k i l l s p. 1). and competencies s ub j ec ­ t i v e l y and c o nsc ious ly recogni ze d by community c o l l e g e f a c u l t y . D e l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e Study F a c u l t y i n t w o - y e a r p r i v a t e Michi gan community c o l l e g e s were not surveyed because t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n s a r e not included in t h e 17 s t a t e w i d e a r t i c u l a t i o n agreement w i t h t h e Mi chi gan A s s o c i a t i o n of C o l l e g i a t e R e g i s t r a r s and Admission O f f i c e r s (MACRAO). The MACRAO Agreement e s t a b l i s h e s t h e framework f o r t r a n s f e r e q u i v a l e n c i e s of c r e d i t s from Mi chi gan' s 29 p u b l i c community c o l l e g e s t o 31 f o u r - y e a r c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s . the in s tr u c t io n a l Likewise# no a t t e m p t was made t o a s c e r t a i n p e r c e pt i o ns o f p a r t - t i m e p u b l i c community c o l l e g e f a c u l t y # community c o l l e g e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , community c o l l e g e students# or f o u r - y e a r c o l l e g e or u n i v e r s i t y f a c u l t y . The m a j o r i t y of I n s t r u c ­ t o r s i n Mi chi gan p u b l i c community c o l l e g e s a r e p a r t - t i m e f a c u l t y . However# t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l needs o f p a r t - t i m e f a c u l t y members were not surveyed in t h i s study because t he s e persons o f t e n have f u l l - t i m e employment a n d /o r academic o b l i g a t i o n s in a d d i t i o n t o t h e i r community c o lle g e teaching responsibilities. L i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e Study Only s u b j e c t i v e , pe rc ei ve d i n s t r u c t i o n a l needs o f Mi chi gan p u b l i c community c o l l e g e f u l l - t i m e accounting# da ta -pr oc es si ng# economics f a c u l t y were surveyed. Instructional p er ce ive d as o f December 1 98 3/ Januar y 1984. instructional and needs were those The survey comprised 36 competencies i n seven c l u s t e r s o f i n s t r u c t i o n . Re sul ts were i n f l u e n c e d by t h e accuracy and t r u t h f u l n e s s of responses t o t h e survey i n s t r u m e n t and by t h e respondents' pe r ce pt ions of i n s t r u c t i o n a l needs. Fi ndi ngs a re g e n e r a l i z a b l e onl y t o t h e p op ul a t i o n and t h e geogr aphi ca l a rea i nc lude d i n t h e s tudy . 18 Basic Assumptions The w r i t e r made t h e f o l l o w i n g assumptions in conducti ng t he research: 1. The s u b j e c t i v e needs-assessment method o f r esearch would be adequate f o r c a r r y i n g out t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 2. C ritical pe rc ei ve d i n s t r u c t i o n a l needs can be i d e n t i f i e d through a needs-assessment q u e s t i o n n a i r e . 3. I n conducti ng t h e t e a c h e r needs assessment* emphasis was placed on process o r t e a c h i n g methodology r a t h e r than on t h e c o n t e n t or subject m atter of the th r e e teaching d i s c i p l i n e s . 4. Community c o l l e g e i n s t r u c t o r s * r a t h e r than community c o l l e g e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s o r f a c u l t y members in f o u r - y e a r i n s t i t u t i o n s , a r e most c l o s e l y i n v o l v e d w i t h community c o l l e g e s tudents and s u b j e c t matter. 5. The f i n d i n g s o f an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f c r i t i c a l instructional needs in Mi chi gan' s 29 p u b l i c community c o l l e g e s could p rov ide meaning­ fu l i n f o r m a t i o n t o i n d i v i d u a l s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r pl anni ng community c o l ­ l e g e programs and courses. Or g a ni z a t i o n, o f . t he_.St ud.y Thi s d i s s e r t a t i o n i s or ga n iz ed i n t o f i v e chapt er s. Chapter I con ta i ne d an i n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e problem, t h e need f o r and purpose of t h e study* a s t a t e m e n t o f t h e r esear ch q ue st i ons and hypotheses, n i t i o n s o f key t e r m s , o f t h e resear ch. and d e l i m i t a t i o n s , lim itations, defi­ and assumptions 19 Chapter I I i s a r e vi e w o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e o r r t o p i c s p e r t i n e n t t o the c urrent in v e s tig a tio n . Examined f i r s t a r e w r i t i n g s on needs assessment* e s p e c i a l l y as i t e xpl or ed a r e d e f i n i t i o n s * r e l a t e s t o t h e community c o l l e g e . purposes* Also and h i s t o r y of i n s e r v i c e educati on. The r esearch procedures f o l l o w e d i n t h i s study a r e d e t a i l e d in Chapter I I I . The p op u l a t i o n * instrumentation, and d a t a - c o l l e c t i o n and d a t a - a n a l y s i s t ec hni ques a r e discussed. Chapter IV c o n t a i n s an a n a l y s i s o f t h e data c o l l e c t e d f o r t h i s study. The summary and c o ncl us ions of t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n a r e found in Chapter V* along w i t h recommendations f o r f u r t h e r r es ea r ch. CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The l i t e r a t u r e p e r t i n e n t t o t h e resear ch problem i s re vi ewed in t h i s c h apt er . W r i t i n g s and r esearch s t u d i e s a re c i t e d w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o t h e problem under i n v e s t i g a t i o n . follows: The c h a p t e r i s o r g a ni z ed as needs assessment— d e f i n i t i o n , needs-assessment s t u d i e s , purposes, community c o l l e g e and r e l a t i o n s h i p t o i n s e r v i c e e d u ca t io n; i n s e r v i c e e d u ca t i on — d e f i n i t i o n , purposes, historical need f o r i n s e r v i c e e duca ti on in community c o l l e g e s . concludes w i t h an o v e r a l l background, and The c h a p t e r summary. Needs Assessment D e f i n i t i o n o f Needs Assessment According t o t h e Encyclopedia o f Education E v a l u a t i o n , needs assessment i s " t h e process by which one i d e n t i f i e s needs and decides upon p r i o r i t i e s among them" (Anderson, 1975, p. 254). A more s p e c i f i c d e f i n i t i o n o f needs assessment was a ls o given i n t h e E n c y c l o pe di a : " E v a l u a t i o n o f d i s c r e p a n c i e s between t h e e x i s t i n g s i t u a t i o n and t h e de si r ed s t a t e o f a f f a i r s a ls o goes by t h e name o f needs assessment and f r e q u e n t l y pr ov ides t h e s t i m u l u s f o r development o f new or improved e d uc a t i o n a l or t r a i n i n g programs. (Anderson, 1975, p. 128) Engl ish and Kaufman (1975) i d e n t i f i e d needs assessment as 20 21 t h e f or mal process f o r i d e n t i f y i n g outcome r e s u l t s and d e si r ed r e s u l t s , p l a c i n g t hose and s e l e c t i n g t h e gaps of h i g h e s t p r i o r i t y t h en, an outcome gap a n a l y s i s plus p l a c i n g needs, (p. 6 4) Needs assessment i s an e m p i r i c a l gaps between c u r r e n t "gaps" in p r i o r i t y o r d e r f o r c l o su re . I t is, o f p r i o r i t i e s among t h e process or t o o l used t o d e te r mi ne s u b j e c t i v e v a l u e judgments about t h e measurable discr epancy between d e si r e d or a c c e p t a b l e performance (what ought t o be) and c u r r e n t o r observed performance (what i s ) . i d e n t i f i e s v a l i d and usef ul A useful needs assessment needs and de te rmi ne s t he u t i l i t y o f those needs, from which measurable b e hav ior al o b j e c t i v e s can be d e ri ve d (Kaufman, 1977). Needs assessment i s an approach t o i n s t i t u t i o n a l pl anni ng whereby s y s t e m a t i c t ec hni ques a r e used t o g a t h e r i n p u t concerni ng problems, s k i l l s , o b j e c t i v e s , outcomes, and competencies. A need has been descr ibed as a c o n d i t i o n in which t h e r e i s a di screpancy between an a c c e p t a b l e s t a t e of a f f a i r s condition. 1950. and an observed The concept o f need as a "gap" was f i r s t used by T y l e r in He w rote : S t u d i e s o f t h e l e a r n e r suggest e duca ti ona l o b j e c t i v e s onl y when t he i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e l e a r n e r i s compared w i t h some d e s i r a b l e s ta ndar ds , some c oncepti on of a cc e pt a bl e norms, so t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e p r ese nt c o n d i t i o n o f t h e l e a r n e r and t h e a c c e p t a b l e norm can be i d e n t i f i e d . Thi s d i f f e r e n c e or gap i s what i s g e n e r a l l y r e f e r r e d t o as a need. (pp. 5 - 6 ) For purposes of t h e p r e s e n t study, needs assessment i s t h e c o l l e c t i o n o f data r e l e v a n t t o an a n a l y s i s o f d i s c r e p a n c i e s between c u r r e n t pr ac­ t i c e and some d e si r ed s t a t e , c o l l e g e f a c u l t y members. as s u b j e c t i v e l y per ce ive d by community 22 Purposes o f Needs Assessment The major purpose o f a needs assessment i s t o g a t h e r t h e data necessary t o s et p r i o r i t i e s f o r i mprovi ng i n s t r u c t i o n . Such an assessment can i d e n t i f y d i s c r e p a n c i e s between p r e s e n t and d e si r e d p r a c t i c e s , s t r e n g t h s , and t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l i mprovements necessary t o upgrade t h e q u a l i t y o f i n s t r u c t i o n . A needs assessment can i d e n t i f y t h e problems and concerns of t e a c h e r s , , as w e l l needs. as address basi c quest ions r e g a r d i n g e d uc a t i o n a l A needs assessment based on f a c u l t y p e r c e p t i o n s can be used t o i d e n t i f y and q u a n t i f y measurable o b j e c t i v e s , t he r e b y h e l p i n g instructional or c u r r i c u l u m pl anner s s e l e c t t o p i c s f o r i n s e r v i c e - t r a i n i n g programs. Through needs assessment, a s e t of procedures [ 1 s ] developed in which a r e s p o n s i b l e and r e p r e s e n t a t i v e body c a r e f u l l y r e vi e ws a v a r i e t y o f r e l e v a n t i n f o r ­ mation and s e l e c t s p r i o r i t i e s t h a t r e p r e s e n t informed p r o f e s s i o n a l judgments about t h e b e st use o f l i m i t e d r e so ur c es ’ f o r i mprovement in i n s t r u c t i o n . ( H a r r i s , 1980, p. 134) The purpose o f needs assessment i s t o g a t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n about c u r r e n t p r a c t i c e s and t o begin t h e process of s t r e n g t h e n i n g e x i s t i n g s k i l l s devel opi ng new s k i l l s , and knowledge, and a b i l i t i e s where d i s c r e p a n c i e s exi s t . The l i t e r a t u r e r e v e al e d a strong r e l a t i o n s h i p between needs assessment and i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g . that instructional W r i t e r s c o n s i s t e n t l y recommended improvement, based on needs assessment, should be c a r r i e d out through i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g (Claxton, 1976; G a r r i s o n , 1 97 5 ) . 23 I n a s u b j e c t i v e needs a ss e ss me n t a q u e s t i o n n a i r e may be used t o o bt a i n respondents' o p i n i o n s about t h e i mpor ta nce o f goal s or t h e seri ousness of e d uc a t i o n a l needs. Thi s e m p i r i c a l f a c u l t y t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o assess s t r e n g t h s , improvement in t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l q u e n t l y used and v a l u a b l e t o o l tional improvement. process a f f o r d s weaknesses, and areas f o r performance. Surveys a re a f r e ­ f o r d e t e r m i n i n g a t t i t u d e s about i n s t r u c ­ "Many author s acknowledge t h a t needs assessment is essential to i n s tr u c t i o n a l improvement, and surveys and q u e s t i o n n a i r e s a r e f r e q u e n t l y c i t e d as a p p r o p r i a t e assessment methods" (Hammons e t al.» 1978, p. 26). Hence d e s i r e d and needed t r a i n i n g can be i d e n t i f i e d through needs assessments. The f i n d i n g s of a needs assessment a re a c o m p i l a t i o n o f i d e n t i ­ f i e d needs, p r i o r i t i z e d t o p r ov i de i n f o r m a t i o n f o r i n s t r u c t i o n a l ners. T o p - p r i o r i t y items, questionnaire, improvement. ranked h i g h e s t in importance on t he should be accorded top p r i o r i t y for instructional According t o Engl ish and Kaufman (1975), "needs s t a t e ­ ments a re l i s t e d w i t h o u t r e f e r e n c e as t o t h e cause or reason. needs assessment w i l l ind ica te th a t differences e x is t, e x p l a i n why t h e r e a re such d i f f e r e n c e s " (p. inservice tra in in g , The but i t w i l l not 39). The l i t e r a t u r e s t r e s s e d t h a t t h e go a ls , pl anning o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l plan­ organization, and improvement, t o be c a r r i e d out through must be based on a needs assessment. " I t is s t r o n g l y recommended t h a t t h e p r o s p e c t i v e p a r t i c i p a n t s , f o r whom a c t i v i t i e s a re i ntended, be a p a r t of t h e pl a n ni n g , and conducting process" (Al -Ghamdi , 1982, p. 164). the organization, Research on 24 instructional improvement has i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e most successful p r a c t i c e s are those in whose pl anning t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s have been directly 1978). i nv ol ve d (Wa t te nb ar g er & C a r p e n t e r , 1975; Hammons e t a ! . , Community c o l l e g e f a c u l t y must be r ep r es e nt ed in d e c i s i o n making about i n s t r u c t i o n a l improvement. .E ffective instructional- improvement programs must be designed around s e l f - p e r c e i v e d needs of t h e i n s t r u c t o r s themsel ves. According t o t h e l i t e r a t u r e , p r e r e q u i s i t e t o i n s e r v i c e e duca ti on. c ritic a l needs assessment i s consi der ed a "Needs assessment i s t h e f i r s t step in i d e n t i f y i n g problems t o be addressed duri ng i n s e r v i c e training" (Rubin & Hansen, 1980, p. 105). Therefore, a needs assess­ ment t h a t is responsive t o t e a c h e r i n pu t appears t o be t he f i r s t step in i n s t r u c t i o n a l i mprovement t o be c a r r i e d o u t through i n s e r v i c e t r a i n ­ ing. Needs assessment "can d e t e r m i n e p r i o r i t i e s f o r a program through i d e n t i f y i n g goal s and d e t e r m i n i n g t h e i m por ta nce o f each goal " (Kowle, 1982, p. 8 ) . Several a u t h o r i t i e s s t r e ss e d t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between i n s e r v i c e e du ca t io n and f a c u l t y needs. G a rr i so n ( 1 97 5) s t a t e d , A l l i n s e r v i c e programs should be f a c u l t y o r i g i n a t e d and f a c u l t y developed and t o w ha tev er e x t e n t p o s s i b l e , f a c u l t y a d m i n i s t e r e d . I n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g should grow out of s e l f - p e r c e i v e d p r o f e s s i o n a l needs o f t e a c h e r s and groups o f t e a c h e r s , ( p. 18) Schultz (1973) concurred: " F a c u l t y should be i n v o lv e d i n t h e pl anning. The b e n e f i t s o f doing t h i s a r e t w o f o l d . F a c u l t y ideas a r e needed, and t h e i r i n vol ve ment in t h e pl anni ng c o n t r i b u t e s t o commitment t o t h e program" ( p. 2 4 ) . 25 The p r i m a r y focus of needs assessment i s t o g a t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n concerning t e a c h e r s ' pe rc ei ve d needs and problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . M ic hi gan, In no s t a t e w i d e needs assessments or org a ni z ed i n s e r v i c e programs e x i s t . Community c o l l e g e f a c u l t y i n t h e f i e l d s o f a ccounti ng, data pr oc es si ng, and economics have not a r t i c u l a t e d t h e i r p e r c e pt i o ns o f needed competencies w i t h p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s , departments a t f o u r - y e a r i n s t i t u t i o n s , subject-matter o r t h e Mi chi gan Department of Hi gher Educati on t o di scuss t o p i c s of concern t o community c o l l e g e faculty. No s t a t e w i d e needs assessments or i n s e r v i c e programs e x i s t in M ic h ig an , p r i m a r i l y because o f t h e d e c e n t r a l i z e d n a t u r e o f t h e s t a t e ’ s 29 community c o l l e g e s . T h e r e f o r e , t h e p r e s e n t needs assessment was undertaken t o p r o v i d e a sense of d i r e c t i o n t o community c o l l e g e instructional p l anner s. Needs Assessment in Community C ol l e g es A v a r i e t y o f needs-assessment i n s t r u m e n t s were di scovered through t h e r e vi e w o f l i t e r a t u r e . More than 30 community c o l l e g e needs-assessment surveys have been conducted r e l a t i n g t o i n s t r u c t i o n a l needs. The f o l l o w i n g c oncl us ions were drawn from a r evi ew o f th e se survey i n s t r u m e n t s : 1. Community c o l l e g e needs-assessment surveys focused, in v a r y i n g degr ees, on i n s t r u c t i o n a l 2. needs. Needs-assessment i n s t r u m e n t s e x i s t f o r both f u l l - t i m e and p a r t - t i m e community c o l l e g e f a c u l t y . 26 3. Community c o l l e g e f a c u l t y i n s t r u c t i o n a l - n e e d s - a s s e s s m e n t devi ces e x i s t on t h e n a t i o n a l * 4. regional, state, and l o c a l levels. Very few community c o l l e g e needs assessments have been conducted in a p a r t i c u l a r s u b j e c t - m a t t e r a r e a . R e l a t i o n s h i p o f Needs Assessment to Inservice Training Exper ts in t he a r ea o f community c o l l e g e i n s t r u c t i o n have concluded t h a t i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g appears t o be t h e approach most o f t e n ta ken t o remedy assessed i n s t r u c t i o n a l 1975; C l a x t o n , 1976). I n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g was o v e r wh e l mi ng l y recom­ mended as t h e l o g i c a l than con fe renc es, sabbaticals, vehicle for instructional conve nt ions , travel, needs ( Wat t enba rge r & C a r p en te r, gr aduat e courses, improvement, rather professional r e adi ng, v i s i t a t i o n s , , or work e xper ience. A number o f a uthor s c l o s e l y r e l a t e d needs assessment w i t h inservice tr a in in g (Schultz, 1978; Brimm & T o l l e t t , 1974). Although i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g i s consi der ed a p o s s i b l e outcome o f needs assess­ ment, ins erv ice t r a i n i n g or professional development was s t r o n g l y sup­ por ted as t h e l o g i c a l out gr owt h o f needs assessment. The w r i t e r s assumed t h a t i n s e r v i c e - t r a i n i n g / f a c u l t y - d e v e l c p m e n t programs are t h e natural re s u lt of fa c ulty id e n tific a tio n of deficiencies, professional c ritic a l needs. problems, and As t h e f a c u l t y member i s consi dered t h e most f a c t o r in an e f f e c t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n a l - i m p r o v e m e n t program, pl anni ng meaningful i n s e r v i c e educati on should be or ga ni zed and i m p l e ­ mented w i t h t h e a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n of t hose who a re t o b e n e f i t from such t r a i n i n g . 27 The purpose of i n s e r v i c e e duca ti on i s t o improve i n s t r u c t i o n a l skills, based on t h e needs o f t e a c h e r s , t o enhance s t u d e n t l e a r n i n g . The l i t e r a t u r e suggested t h a t one way f a c u l t y members can l e a r n how t o improve t h e i r t e a c h i n g i s by p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n i n s e r v i c e e duca ti on (Cohen & Brawer, 1977; G a f f , 1975). The amount o f l i t e r a t u r e c oncerni ng community c o l l e g e needs assessment and i n s e r v i c e e du ca ti o n i s e x t e n s i v e and has increased d ur ing t h e p a st 15 years. ongoing p r o f e s s i o n a l of c r u c i a l and w i l l growth o f t e a c h e r s , based on needs assessment, is importance as community c o l l e g e f a c u l t y have been t e a ch i n g c o n ti n u e t o te ach i n a f l e x i b l e envi ronment. For y e a r s, most community c o l l e g e s have undertaken methods t o encourage t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l cals, W r i t e r s have b a s i c a l l y concluded t h a t t h e c onf er enc es, development o f f a c u l t y , and a t te nda nce a t p r o f e s s i o n a l including sabbati­ meetings. Such a c t i v i t i e s have not n e c e s s a r i l y been based on needs assessments. According t o O'Banion ( 1 97 8) , "Except in a few community c o l l e g e s , . . . [needs assessments] a r e not t r a n s l a t e d purposeful s t a f f development program" (p. 7). f a c u l t y development, into a w ell-defined P rim arily in t h e 1970s, based on t h e s u b j e c t i v e needs of t e a c h e r s , expanded t o i n c l u d e p r o f e s s i o n a l - g r o w t h t r a i n i n g . Y ar ge r w r o te , Although t h e i dea o f t e a c h e r i n v ol v em en t i n pl anning i n s e r v i c e i s not new, i t i s a l s o c l e a r l y not t h e p r i m ar y approach c u r r e n t l y being used i n schools. The survey f i n d i n g s t h a t d i s c r e p a n c i e s o f t e n e x i s t between what te ac he r s p e r c e i v e as needed i n s e r v i c e and what c o n t e n t or t o p i c areas a re being provided i s a r e f l e c t i o n o f a s e r i o u s l a c k of s u b s t a n t i v e t e a c h e r i nv o lv e me nt in pl anni ng and i mp l e me n t a t i o n , (p. v) 28 The 1973 American A s s o c i a t i o n of J u n i o r C ol l eges (AAJC) Assembly was concerned w i t h programs, development. i ssues, and progress o f s t a f f The AAJC Assembly urged t h a t s t a f f development be t h e community and j u n i o r c o l l e g e ' s f i r s t - r a n k concern, in stitu tio n a l p r i o r i t y and commitment. giving i t t o t a l The AAJC Assembly went on t o s t r e s s t h e need f o r more surveys t o i d e n t i f y t h e common needs of community c o l l e g e s t a f f so t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s can be used t o make r e a l i s t i c fundi ng d e c i s i o n s and t a n g i b l e plans f o r t h e f u t u r e . The group concurred t h a t t h e g r e a t e s t resource of t h e c o l l e g e i s i t s O'Banion (1973) s t r e s s e d t h e l a s t p o i n t by s t a t i n g , "The q u a l i t y staff. of e duca ti on in t h e community c o l l e g e depends p r i m a r i l y on t h e q u a l i t y of staff" ( p. 2 8 ) . I n summary,, needs assessment uses s y s t e m a t i c t e chni ques t o gather input f o r educational planning. The data obt ai ne d from an assessment based on t e a c h e r - d e f i n e d needs can pr ov ide t h e basi s f o r pl anning programs t h a t a t t e m p t t o meet thos e needs. T h e o r e t i c a l ly , the needs assessment pr ovi des feedback and a means of a r t i c u l a t i n g gaps between what i s and what should be. I n s e r v i c e Education t D e f i n i t i o n o f I n s e r v i c e Education According t o t h e l i t e r a t u r e , t h e ter m " i n s e r v i c e e ducati on" i s synonymous w i t h f a c u l t y development, p r o f e s s i o n a l development, and s t a f f development. lite ra tu re . of The f o u r t erms a re used i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y in t h e Hass (1957) provi ded an e a r l y and broad c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n i n s e r v i c e e duca ti on: " I n s e r v i c e e duca ti on i nc lu de s a l l activ itie s 29 engaged i n by p r o f e s s i o n a l personnel duri ng t h e i r s e r v i c e and designed t o c o n t r i b u t e t o i mprovement on t h e j o b" (p. 13). More r e ce n t l y # E d e l f e l t and Johnson (1975) d e fi ne d i n s e r v i c e e duca ti on more s p e c i f i ­ c a l l y as "any p r o f e s s i o n a l development t h a t a t e a c h e r undertakes s i n g l y or w i t h o t h e r te ac he r s a f t e r r e c e i v i n g i n i t i a l and a f t e r begi nning appears a p p r o p r i a t e professional teaching c e r t i f i c a t i o n p r a c t i c e " (p. 5). A definition that f o r t h e c u r r e n t study was gi ven by Orrange and Van Ryn ( 1 9 7 5 ) : I n s e r v i c e e duca ti on i s t h a t p o r t i o n o f p r o f e s s i o n a l development t h a t should be p u b l i c l y supported and i n c l ud e s a program of s y s t e ­ m a t i c a l l y designed a c t i v i t i e s planned t o i n c r e a s e t h e competencies — knowledge, s k i l l s , and a t t i t u d e s — needed by school personnel in t h e performance of t h e i r assigned r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , (p. 47) F r a n c i s (19 75 ) o f f e r e d y e t a n o th e r d e f i n i t i o n s u i t a b l e f o r t h i s study: F a c u l t y development may be descr ibed as an i n s t i t u t i o n a l process which seeks t o modify t h e a t t i t u d e s , s k i l l s , and be ha vi or of f a c u l t y members t owa rd g r e a t e r competence and e f f e c t i v e n e s s in meet ing s t u d e n t needs, t h e i r own needs, and t h e needs o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n , ( p. 720) Improved t e a c h i n g competencies and p r o f e s s i o n a l growth appear t o be t h e two most i m p o r t a n t goal s o f i n s e r v i c e e duca ti on. Common e le me n ts of t h e d e f i n i t i o n s of i n s e r v i c e e duca ti on a r e t h a t i t i s a process of change, through planned a c t i v i t i e s or programs, needs assessment, facu lty, t o modi fy a t t i t u d e s , t o improve i n s t r u c t i o n a l skills, based on and be havi or s of performance. Purposes o f I n s e r v i c e Education The pr imar y purpose of i n s e r v i c e e duca ti on i s t o improve teaching. Based on t h e assumption t h a t i n s e r v i c e e duca ti on i s i ntended 30 t o enhance t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l e x p e r t i s e of p r a c t i t i o n e r s # t h e general a c t i v i t i e s or f u n c t i o n s o f i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g a r e di scussed i n t h i s s e c t i on . Rubin (1978) s t a t e d t h a t t h e t h r e e gener al f u n c t i o n s of i n s e r v i c e educati on a r e " t h e e xt ens ion o f knowledge# particularly subject matter, a c q u i s i t i o n of t e a c h i n g t e c h ni qu es , and a shaping of a t t i t u d e s and p u r p o s e " ( p . 3 3 ) . B e r gq ui s t and P h i l l i p s (1975) advocated t h e f o l l o w i n g t h r e e components o f f a c u l t y development: i n process), tional personal "instructional development (change development (change in a t t i t u d e ) , development (change i n s t r u c t u r e ) " (p. 183). and o r g a n i z a ­ Within the f i r s t c a t e g o r y , t h e authors i nc lu de d such p r a c t i c e s as c u r r i c u l u m devel op­ ment, t e a c h i n g d i a g no si s , and t r a i n i n g . Personal i n v o l v e s a c t i v i t i e s t o promote f a c u l t y gr owth, s k i l l s t r a i n i n g and c a r e e r c ounsel ing. development g e n e r a l l y such as i n t e r p e r s o n a l - Organizational development seeks t o improve t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l envi r onme nt f o r t e a c h i n g and d e c i s i o n making and i n c l u d e s a c t i v i t i e s trators. zational Team b u i l d i n g and managerial f o r both f a c u l t y and a d m i n i s ­ development a r e p a r t of o r g a n i ­ development. B e r g q u i s t and P h i l l i p s s t a t e d t h a t th e se t h r e e a c t i v i t i e s a r e developmental i n n a t u r e and should p r ov i de f o r p r o g r e s s i v e enhancement o f t echni que mastery and g r e a t e r f u l f i l l m e n t as a t e a c h e r . Meaningful and continuous i n s e r v i c e e duca ti on programs focus on i mprovement o f classroom performance and p r o v i s i o n of knowledge and t o o l s t h a t enabl e f a c u l t y t o plan f o r and i mpl ement i n s t r u c t i o n a l responsi ve t o v a r i o u s l e a r n i n g , c o n t e n t , approaches t h a t a re and e nvi r onme nt al s t y l e s and 31 t h a t introduce innovative c u r r ic u la . "successful s io n a l role, According t o F r a n c i s (1975), programs change t h e way f a c u l t y f e e l about t h e i r p r o f e s ­ i n c r e a s e t h e i r knowledge and s k i l l s in thos e r o l e s , and a l t e r t h e way t hey c a r r y them i n t o p r a c t i c e " (p. 720). H i s t o r i c a l Background o f I n s e r v i c e Education I n s e r v i c e e d uc at ion has been o f g r e a t concern t o educator s f o r some t i m e because t hey r e c o g n i z e t h e i mpor ta nce o f t e a c h e r s ' p r o f e s ­ si o na l growth and t h e e f f e c t of such growth on s t ude nt s (Brimm & To llett, 1974). Substantial changes i n t h e purposes and programs of i n s e r v i c e educati on have occurred i n t h e t w e n t i e t h c en t u r y . s i s has evolved from a r em ed ia l about 1930, programs o f i n s e r v i c e e d u ca t io n, through t e a c h e r s ' i n s t i t u t e s , defects. purpose t o a developmental The empha­ one. Until which were conducted were d i r e c t e d towa rd c o r r e c t i n g t e a c h e r s ' According t o K i l p a t r i c k ( 1967), Whi l e t h e o r i g i n a l purpose o f i n - s e r v i c e e duca ti on was t h e e l i m i n a t i o n o f d e f i c i e n c i e s in t e a c h e r s ' p r e - s e r v i c e p r e p a r a t i o n , i t has been s uppl ant ed by o t h e r purposes, such as f u l f i l l i n g t h e needs of t e a ch e r s t o keep a b r e a s t o f t h e l a t e s t developments i n t h e s t a t e of t h e a r t and i n t h e i r s p e c i a l i z e d f i e l d s , ( p. 1) Corey wr ote, The modern c oncepti on of i n - s e r v i c e e d u ca t io n, w i t h i t s heavy emphasis upon c o - o p e r a t i v e p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g , i s in c o n s i d e r a b l e degree a r e s u l t o f changes i n our ideas about human m o t i v a t i o n and t h e way l e a r n i n g occurs w i t h i n an i n s t i t u t i o n a l s e t t i n g , ( p . 2) S t a f f development in t h e e a r l y 1960s was d i r e c t e d towar d p r e s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g and t o w a rd a s s i m i l a t i n g and o r i e n t i n g l a r g e numbers o f new personnel. "Rapid expansion, a t e a c h e r s h o rt a ge , and employment 32 m o b i l i t y undercut t h e need f o r o ' n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g " ( W a l l a c e , p. 1). 1975, In 1968, G l e a z e r w rot e , Many j u n i o r c o l l e g e s . . . a re faced w i t h t h e i m p e r a t i v e needs t o develop o r i e n t a t i o n programs f o r f a c u l t y ; and complex i n s e r v i c e programs f o r t h e i n d u c t i o n of i n e xp e ri en c ed t e a ch e rs i n t o t h e s k i l l s o f i n s t r u c t i o n and t h e c o m m u n i t y - o r i e n t e d n a t u r e o f a m a j o r i t y of our i n s t i t u t i o n s , ( p. 7) In t h e 1960s, community c o l l e g e s focused on i n c r e a s i n g numbers of s tu d e n t s , faculty, buildings, t h e l a t e 1960s and e a r l y programs, and new c o l l e g e s . However, by 1970s, t h e e n r o l l m e n t boom s t a b i l i z e d , t h e community c o l l e g e j o b m a r ke t became g l u t t e d , and employment m o b i l i t y s l o w e d down. W r o t e S u l l i v a n ( 1 9 8 3 ) , "The 1 9 7 0 ' s can . . . be a c c u ­ r a t e l y descr ibed as a f a c u l t y development boom per iod. But r e c e n t e v i d e n c e s u g g e s t s . . . t h a t t h i s boom i s now o v e r " (p. 2 1 ) . Because o f t h e r a p i d growth in e n r o l l m e n t s and t h e shor tage of community c o l l e g e f a c u l t y , s t a f f development or i n s e r v i c e programs were o f r e l a t i v e l y low p r i o r i t y u n t i l about 1970. As expansion s t a b i l i z e d and as t h e f e e l i n g emerged t h a t u n i v e r s i t i e s were not p r o v i d i n g ade­ q ua t e p r e s e r v i c e programs f o r community c o l l e g e f a c u l t y , strong concern f o r i n s e r v i c e educa ti on began t o s u r f ac e. P r i o r t o t h e 1970's, f a c u l t y development was of l i t t l e concern t o e i t h e r c o l l e g e and u n i v e r s i t y f a c u l t i e s or t o t h e i r a d m i n i s t r a ­ tions. A survey of l i t e r a t u r e in t h a t pe ri od would have t ur ned up a l i m i t e d number o f a r t i c l e s on t h e t o p i c . Times have changed, however, and i n t h e l a s t ten years f a c u l t y development has become t h e focus o f a growi ng number o f research pr oposals, p r o j e c t s , a r t i c l e s , and books. ( S t o r d a h l , 1 9 8 1 , p. 7) Cohen and Brawer (1977) w r o te , As a concept, f a c u l t y development has r ec ei ve d much a t t e n t i o n in t h e u n i v e r s i t i e s as w e l l as i n t h e t w o - y e a r c o l l e g e s . Focus i n t he 1970's, hence, has emphasized t h e need f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l r e fr es h me n t and upgradi ng, ( p . 6 6) 33 B e r g q u i s t and P h i l l i p s ( 1 97 5) commented, F a c ul t y development has become an i n c r e a s i n g l y promi ne nt concept f o r a growing number o f f a c u l t y and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in American c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s . I n s t i t u t i o n s o f h i g h e r e duca ti on f ace t h e harsh r e a l i t i e s o f decreased f un di n g, s t e a d y - s t a t e or d e c l i n i n g e n r o l l m e n t , and d e c l i n i n g f a c u l t y m o b i l i t y , t o g e t h e r w i t h demands f o r a c c o u n t a b i l i t y v oi ced by s t u d e n t s , p a rent s, and s t a t e and federal o f f i c i a l s . Confronted w i t h th e se c o n d i t i o n s , f a c u l t y must c ons ide r t h e pr ospect of s i g n i f i c a n t r e e v a l u a t i o n of personal and p r o f e s s i o n a l a t t i t u d e s towar d classroom i n s t r u c t i o n and s t u d e n t t e a c h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s , ( p. 178) B e r g q u i s t , an a u t h o r i t y on s t a f f development in h i g h e r educa­ tion, r e p o rt e d t h a t i n t h e e a r l y 1970s, o nl y 40 t o 50 campuses had f a c u l t y - d e v e l o p m e n t programs; (S ullivan, 1983). by 1975, t h a t number had r i s e n t o 200 Centr a compl eted a study f o r t h e Educ ati ona l T e st i n g S e r v i c e in November 1976 and r e p o r t ed on s t a f f - d e v e l o p m e n t programs in 326 t w o - y e a r c o l l e g e s . F o r t y - n i n e p e r ce n t o f t h e c o l l e g e s had some u n i t or person r e s p o n s i b l e f o r s t a f f development o r ' i n s t r u c t i o n a l improvement. I n a 1977 s tudy , Centr a found t h a t 1,004 of t h e 2,600 i n s t i t u t i o n s of h i g h e r e du ca t io n he surveyed r e p o r t e d having organi zed fa culty-development a c t i v i t i e s (1 978 ), (S ullivan, 1983). " s t a f f development programs a r e s t i l l According t o O'Banion very new in community c o l l e g e s , and p a t t e r n s o f how t hey should be or ga ni zed have not y e t emerged w i t h any agreement" (p. 11). I n t e r e s t i n and t h e p r o v i s i o n o f i n s e r v i c e programs f o r community c o l l e g e f a c u l t y have been i n c r e a s i n g i n t h e 1980s, p riority and high has been gi ven t o i n s e r v i c e r a t h e r than p r e s e r v i c e programs (Roueche & Baker, ( 1980) concluded, 1983; Watt s & Hammons, 1980). Watt s and Hammons 34 A p a r t i a l e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e c u r r e n t acceptance of s t a f f develop­ ment i s i t s u n d e r l y i n g assumption t h a t improvements i n t h e p r o f e s ­ s io n al and personal l i v e s o f s t a f f w i l l l ea d t o more e f f e c t i v e and e f f i c i e n t o p e r a t i o n o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s i n which th e y work. Past d e f i c i e n c i e s i n p r e - s e r v i c e p r e p a r a t i o n and gross n e g l e c t of i n s e r v i c e e d u ca t i on , coupled w i t h t h e pressures o f a " s t e a d y - s t a t e " e nvi ronment and new demands f o r a c c o u n t a b i l i t y , have a l s o c o n t r i b ­ uted t o p r o v i d i n g an unus ua ll y r e c e p t i v e e nvi ronme nt f o r s t a f f development by t r u s t e e s , a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , and f a c u l t y , (p. 1) Because e n r o l l m e n t s have s t a b i l i z e d i n t h e 1970s and 1980s, q u a l i t y has now assumed a r o l e of c r u c i a l r a r y community c o l l e g e movement. importance i n t h e contempo­ Q u a l i t y i n t h e community c o l l e g e means t h e competence and commitment t o a chi ev e t h e goa ls of t h i s unique i n s t i t u t i o n of higher le a rn in g — p r i m a r i l y providing p o s i ti v e learning e x pe ri en ce s f o r s t u de n ts and being r esponsi ve t o community needs. The community c o l l e g e movement i s coming o f age. As p a r t o f t h e m a t u r a t i o n process, t he s e s p ec i al i n s t i t u t i o n s o f h i g h e r l e a r n i n g a r e i n c r e a s i n g l y s h i f t i n g emphasis from growth t o q u a l i t y . This s h i f t demands a reassessment of purpose and a commitment t o serve underprepared l e a r n e r s w h i l e m a i n t a i n i n g academic e x c e l l e n c e . (Roueche & Baker , 1982, p. v i i ) Too l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n was paid t o f a c u l t y development thr ou gh o ut t h e 1960s because o f t h e enchantment w i t h i ncreased e n r o l l m e n t s . The s h i f t from growth t o q u a l i t y demands a commitment t o serve l e a r n e r s w h i l e s t r i v i n g f o r academic e x c e l l e n c e . The c h a l l e n g e f a c i n g community c o l l e g e f a c u l t y i s c l e a r l y t h e q u a l i t y o f and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y f o r instruction. " F a c u l t y members a re an i n s t i t u t i o n ' s most v a l u a b l e resource and they need c a r e and maintenance" (Houston & P a nk r at z, 1980, p. 55). As noted i n t h e 1973 r e p o r t of t h e Assembly of t h e American A s s o ci a t i o n of Community and J u n i o r C o ll e ge s ( i n Y a r r i n g t o n , 1 97 4 ), 35 The s t a f f of a c o l l e g e i s i t s s i n g l e g r e a t e s t resource. In economic t e r m s, t h e s t a f f i s t h e c o l l e g e ' s most s i g n i f i c a n t and l a r g e s t c a p i t a l i nv es t me n t. I n the s e t er ms alone, we a f f i r m t h a t i t i s onl y good sense t h a t t h e i n v e s t m e n t should be helped t o a p p r e c i a t e i n v a l u e and not be a l l o w e d t o wear i t s e l f out or s l i d e i n t o obsolescence by i n a t t e n t i o n or n e g l e c t , (p. 40) Since t h e 1970s, t h e number of a r t i c l e s , papers, and r esearch s t u d i e s on i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g f o r community c o l l e g e f a c u l t y has inc re ase d n o t i c e a b l y . C ol l eges (AAJC) According t o t h e American A s s o c i a t i o n o f J u n i o r ("Community C o l l e g e F a c u l t y Development," 1 9 7 3 ) , C o l l e g e l e a d e r s have come t o r e a l i z e t h a t whether or not a f a c u l t y has r ece ive d p r e s e r v i c e e du ca t io n, some form o f o r i e n t a t i o n t o a campus and conti nued p r o f e s s i o n a l r e f r e s h m e n t and i mprovement i s necessary. I n - s e r v i c e programs have r e s u l t e d from f a c u l t y r equest and from t h e r e a l i z a t i o n by c o l l e g e l e a d e r s t h a t i n - s e r v i c e educa­ t i o n m ight c o n t r i b u t e t o improvement of i n s t r u c t i o n , (p. 14) The AAJC has a l s o emphasized i n s e r v i c e in i t s I n an AAJC-sponsored study, programs and conferences. G ar r is on (1967) r ep or te d on f a c u l t y a t t i ­ tudes a f t e r conducting i n f o r m a l i n t e r v i e w s w i t h more than 650 j u n i o r - college instructors. He found t h a t " f a c u l t y were k eenl y aware o f t h e i r need f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l up -g r ad i ng and r e f r es h me n t " (p. 14). luminary Many author s have acknowledged t h a t needs assessment, surveys or q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , instruction i s an e s s e n t i a l (Hammons e t a l . , 1978; such as f i r s t step in i mprovi ng Wa tt enba rge r & C a rp e n t e r , 1975). The major purpose o f needs assessment i s t o g a t h e r t h e data necessary t o s et p r i o r i t i e s f o r i mpr ovi ng i n s t r u c t i o n . ments in t h e l i t e r a t u r e was i n s t r u m e n t a l Reviewing needs assess­ in f o r m u l a t i n g t h e pr ese nt needs assessment f o r Mi chi gan community c o l l e g e f a c u l t y . Numerous author s s t a t e d t h a t i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g or s t a f f development should be 36 t h e outcome of needs assessment ( C l a x t o n , 1976; S c h u l t z , 1977). Few o t h e r a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r d e a l i n g w i t h t h e problems or weaknesses o f community c o l l e g e f a c u l t y * recommended. as r e v e a l e d by t h e needs assessment, were CHAPTER I I I RESEARCH PROCEDURES I n t r o d u c t i on The ma jor purpose o f t h i s study was t o i d e n t i f y and a n a l y z e t h e p er ce ive d i n s t r u c t i o n a l a ccounti ng, needs o f Mi chi gan p u b l i c community c o l l e g e data-processing, c e iv ed i n s t r u c t i o n a l questionnaire. and economics f a c u l t y members. The per­ needs were i d e n t i f i e d through a needs-assessment In a d d itio n , t h e study was designed t o a n al y ze f a c u l t y p e r c e p t i o n s about whether pe rc ei ve d i n s t r u c t i o n a l through i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g . needs m i g h t be met F a c u l t y p r e f e r en c es f o r i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g and f a c t o r s c o n t r i b u t i n g t o p a r t i c i p a t i o n in i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g were also in v e s t i g a t e d . The procedures used t o accomplish t h e purposes of t h e study a re de scr ibed i n t h i s c h a p t e r . of the questionnaire, of data, Discussed a re t h e p o p u l a t i o n , i n s t r u m e n t v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y , and s t a t i s t i c a l development collection a nal yses o f t h e data. P o pul at ion Mi chi gan has 29 p u b l i c community c o l l e g e s . study , fore, a c e n t r a l l y located f i l e At t h e t i m e o f t h i s o f f a c u l t y data di d not e x i s t . There­ t h e names of c u r r e n t l y employed i n s t r u c t o r s had t o be c o l l e c t e d from each community c o l l e g e . The names o f a ccounti ng, d a t a - p r o c e s s i n g , 37 38 and economics f a c u l t y were secured in two ways. First, the researcher o bt a ine d t h e 1982-1984 and 1983-1984 c a t al o gu e s o f 21 o f t h e 29 p u b l i c two-year in s titu tio n s , listin g s . and from th e se c at a l o g u e s he secured f a c u l t y Names o f a cc ou nt in g, d a t a - p r o c e s s i n g , and economics f a c u l t y i n t h e remai ni ng e i g h t community c o l l e g e s were o bt ai ne d through t e l e ­ phone c ont a ct s w i t h t he s e i n s t i t u t i o n s . The t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n o f 182 community c o l l e g e a ccounti ng, data- pr ocessi ng, and economics f a c u l t y was consi dered s mal l enough t h a t t h e e n t i r e group could be surveyed. sidered p o te n tia l Since t h e t o t a l respondents f o r t h e m a i l e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e , t h e survey was consi dered a census r a t h e r than a sample. t i o n o f t he study p o p u l a t i o n and respondents, subject matter. p o p u l a t i o n were con­ Thi s p o p u l a t i o n , Tabl e 1 shows a t a b u l a ­ by community c o l l e g e and s p e c i a l i s t s i n a ccounti ng, data pro­ c es s in g , and economics, was s e l e c t e d because o f f e a s i b i l i t y of c o st and location. The w r i t e r assumed t h a t l e s s bi as would occur i f f a c u l t y members from t h r e e d i s c i p l i n e s were surveyed. Instrumentation The r e s e a r c h e r developed an i n s t r u m e n t r e l a t e d t o t h e concerns o f community c o l l e g e t e a c h e r s in general and designed t o i d e n t i f y instructional competencies consi dered e s s e n t i a l pr ocessi ng, and economics t e ac h e r s . t o account ing, d a t a - The q u e s t i o n n a i r e was const r uct ed t o o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n c oncerni ng respondents' demographic background, per ce ive d i n s t r u c t i o n a l needs, through i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g , whether pe rc ei ve d needs could be met preferences f o r in s e rv ic e t r a i n i n g arrangements, and t h e e x t e n t t o which demographic v a r i a b l e s were T ab le 1 . — S tu d y p o p u l a t i o n and r e s p o n d e n t s , by co m m u n it y c o l l e g e and s u b j e c t - m a t t e r a r e a Account i ng Community College P opulation Alpena Community College Bay de Noc Community College Delta Col lege Glen Oaks Community College Gogebic Community College Grand Rapids Jun io r College Henry Ford Community College Highland Park College Jackson J u n io r College Kalamazoo V a lle y Community College Kellogg Community College K ir t l a n d Community College Lake Michigan College Lansing Community College Macomb Community College Mid-Michigan Community College Monroe County Community College Montcalm Community College Mott Community College Muskegon Community College North Central Community College Northwestern Michigan College Oakland Community College S ch o o lcra ft College Southwestern Michigan College St. C l a i r County Community College Washtenaw Community College Wayne County Community College West Shore Community College Totals 1 1 6 i 1 5 2 2 3 3 2 1 1 A k 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 k 3 1 1 2 It 1 6A (N = 182) Data Process ing Respondents 1 1 5 1 1 3 2 2 1 k 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 39 (6 U ) P opulation 1 1 k 1 2 2 A It 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 5 it 1 1 5 5 1 62 Respondents 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 it 1 1 1 1 3^ (55%) Economi cs Population 1 1 3 1 1 2 5 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 I 2 1 3 1 9 2 1 1 2 3 1 56 Respondents 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 30 (53%) 40 re la te d to perceptions of i n s tr u c t io n a l needs and p re f e r e n c e s f o r i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g arrangements. No s t a t e w i d e community c o l l e g e needs-assessment i n s t r u m e n t e x i s t e d when t h i s study was i n i t i a t e d . adapted 34 needs-assessment s ur veys, literature, The r e s e a r c h e r r e v i s e d and di scovered through t h e r evi ew of i n c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e i n s t r u m e n t used i n t h i s study. r e v i e w i n g the s e 34 i n s t r u m e n t s , After a l l o f which d e a l t s p e c i f i c a l l y , w i t h community c o l l e g e f a c u l t y compet enci es, t h e r e s e a r c h e r c l a s s i f i e d instructional needs i n t o seven c l u s t e r s t h a t c l o s e l y resembled t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s used i n t h e r e vi ew ed surveys. Instructional needs a n d / or competencies were c a t e g o r i z e d i n t o t h e f o l l o w i n g seven c l u s t e r s : Evaluation: Instructional g r a d i n g , measurement, t e s t desi gn. technology: audio-visuals, instruction, multi-media a c t iv i t i e s , computer-assisted programmed i n s t r u c t i o n , s e l f - p a c e d instruction. Learni ng t h e o r y : cies, i ng, di agnosi ng l e a r n i n g problems and d e f i c i e n ­ applying learning p r i n c ip l e s to i n s tr u c t i o n , t e a c h i n g and l e a r n i n g process. P lanni ng and i m p l e me n ti n g i n s t r u c t i o n : objectives; i m p l e me n t i ng c l o s u r e , instructional psychology o f l e a r n ­ behavioral/course feedback, and sequencing; s e l e c t i n g a c tiv itie s . Relationships with students: classroom management, communi­ c a t i o n s , group dynamics, h u m a n - r e l a t i o n s t e c h n i q u e s , m o t i v a t i n g s t u ­ dents. 41 Subject m a tte r : m aterials, d e t e r m i n i n g c o n t e n t , devel opi ng resource keeping a b r e a s t o f s u b j e c t m a t t e r . Teaching s t r a t e g i e s ; a dopti ng a l t e r n a t i v e instructional t e ch n i q u e s , improvi ng l e c t u r e methods, i n c r e a s i n g r e p e r t o i r e o f t e a c h ­ i ng methods. The data c on ta i ne d in the se seven c a t e g o r i e s should r e p r e s e n t contemporary i n f o r m a t i o n because 32 o f t h e 34 revi ewed needs-assessment surveys r— cn c CD O — cn c O l4-1 CO Grading on a c o n t r a c t b a s i s . 2% 9 'a 6 6% 23% hi hex 18 17% 8 8% N 16. Diagnosing student reading and w r i t i n g def i c i enc i e s . N ^0 13 13% 30 29% 36 35% 20 19% h hX 17. Diagnosing student mathematics d e f i c i e n c i e s . N % 12 2h MX 23% hh hyx 19 18% h hX N % 10 10% 28 27% h3 h8% 13 13% 3 3% 18. Understanding e duca ti ona l o b j e c t i v e s o f and devel opi ng the c u r r ic u l u m o f your d i s c i p l i n e . 122 13. CD Cl) s_ cn < CD 0) !_ CD CD C/1 Tabl e A 1 . - - C o n t i n u e d . - (U .— 0) 0 c t cr. O ru i— (/) 4-> •— CO 0 Left Blan >- — I tern < Q 32 31% 51 9 2 50% 9% 2% N 37 3b 25 5 2 X 'O 36°^ 331 2b% 5% 2% N 21 52 3 20% 50% 23 22% 4 °/ '0 4% 3% N 1b b2 35 8 4 °/ '0 \b% bn 3b% 8% 4% N 5 26 4 5% 25% b3 b2% 25 °/ '0 2 4% 4% Diagnosing l e a r n i n g problems o f disadvantaged students. N 8 36 31 23 5 °/ '0 8% 35 % 30% 22% 5% Coping w i t h problems r e l a t i n g t o student a t t i t u d e s , i n d i f f e r e n c e , and a t t e nd a nc e. N 15 28 40 17 3 °/ 'O 15% 27% 39% 17% 3% Sequencing a c t i v i t i e s i nstruct i o n ) . b b% 21 64 8 6 °/ 'O 20% 62% 8% 6% N 8 21 57 12 5 °/ '0 8% 20% 55% 12% 5% P rovi di ng (ste p-by-step immediate feedback. N D i sagree 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. Summarizing i n s t r u c t i o n a l units. 4 h% 21 20% 63 61% 9 9% 6 6% U t i l i z i n g multi-media a c t i v i t i e s i n s t r u c t ion. to improve N °/ 'O 12 12% 55 53% 22 21% 7 7% 7 7% Developing more c r e a t i v e l e c t u r e s . N 17 °/ 'O MX 46 45% 30 29% 4 4% 6 6% Using s t u d e n t / p e e r t u t o r i a l assistance. N 10 °/ 'O ]0X 28 27% 47 46% 11 11% 7 7% N 9 9% 29 28% 49 48% 9 9% 7 7% Implementing c l o s u r e : to e s t a b l i s h a l i n k between f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l and the new. °/ '0 Using q u e s t i o ni n g procedures to promote c la ss d i sc u s s i o n . N 16 °/ 'O 16% 35 34% 41 40% 5 5% 6 6% T r a i n i n g in human r e l a t i o n s techniques (group dynami cs). N °/ 'O 11 11% 34 33% 39 38% 13 13% 6 6% 16 16% 53 51% 25 24% 2 2% 7 7% 7 26 25% 53 51% 9 9% 8 8% Improving techniques o f teachi ng p r e s e n t a t i o n . N °/ 'O 36. Left Blank Agree N °/ 'O Strongly Agree 28. S t r o ng l y Di sagree Tabl e A l . — Continued. Developing s e n s i t i v i t y to needs and f e e l i n g s of others. N % 'Q 1% Second Cho i ce I Thi rd Cho i ce Left 1Blank (N = 1 03 ) . Fi r s t Cho ice Table A 2 ; — P ref er enc e o f sponsor f o r i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g 35 34% 29 28% 25 24% 14 14% °/ 'Q 22 2\% 29 28% 41 4o% 11 1 1% N 3k C M 'o 33% o — O sz Ll_ O One-day regi onal seminar One- to t h r e e - d a y seminar One-week r e s i d e n t i a l workshop One- to two-week r e s i d e n t i a l workshop T? c o o a) 0) o — o si 00 o i ' J t Mithipnn September 6, 1983 Dear Fellow Professor: Three weeks ago you received an "alert" letter indicating that a pilot study would be sent, to you. The enclosed pilot study seeks information concerning accounting, data processing, and economics education in the 29 Michigan public community colleges. The final questionnaire will serve os a Ph.D. dissertation in Business Education at Michigan State University. Major purposes of the study are: 1. To compile a fact-finding status study; 2. To determine the perceived instructional needs of Michigan public community college accounting, data processing, and economics faculty through a needs assessment questionnaire; and 3. To correlate demographic variables associated with needs perception. The findings, reflecting your professional concerns, could serve as an empirical base for inservicc training, such as workshops or seminars. The findings might provide implications for prcservicc programs, recruit­ ing and staffing policies, and evaluation of existing programs. This pilot study questionnaire should take no more than 20 minutes to complete. You may be assured of complete confidentiality. The pilot study will be validated by a panel of experts to provide information concerning content, layout, clarity of questions, feedback on interpreta­ tion of questions, and recommendations for improvement for the state-wide questionnaire to be mailed about November 1, 1983. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, conard G. Peterson Associate Professor, Economics Lansing Community College (517) 483-1606 46901 1k l PART A: D E M O C R A P H IC DATA IN S T R U C T O R IN F O R M A T IO N : I n o r d e r to p r o p e r l y e v a l u a t e y o u r r e s p o n s o s , It Is n e c e s s a r y to c o l le c t I n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g y o u r b a c k g r o u n d , y o u r p r o f e s s i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e , a n d I n f o r m a t i o n co n cern in g y o u r In s titu tio n . P l ea se c o m p l e t e all q u e s t i o n s t h a t a p p l y to y o u b y p l a c i n g a c h e c k o r [ X ] In t h e a p p r o p r i a t e b o x o r l in o . P l e a s e fil l In It e m s 1 a n d 2. 1. NAME OF F A C U LTY 2. DEPARTMENT 3. C endcr: 1 ) M ale 8. Age: ( ) Under 1 ) 30 to 90 y e a r s 1 ) I ) 26 to 30 y e a r s 1 ! 91 to 95 y e a r s 1 ] 56 to 60 y e a r s [ ) 31 to 35 y e a r s 1 ) 96 to 50 y e a r s [ > 5. F ac u lty S tatu s: MEMBER I ) P a rt-tim e ) O ther 7. C o m m u n ity Co llege T e a c h in g 9. ] Fem ale 25 y e a r s | M ajo r T e a c h in g Your I ] Over 60 y e a r s F a c u lty Member D iscip lin e : _ | ) Accounting | D ata Processing ( ] Ec on om ic s (In c lu d e both fu ll- and I ] 0-3 years [ 1 8 -1 1 years ( ] 16-19 yea rs | ) *1-7 y e a r s | ) 12-19 y e a rs ( ) Over H i g h e s t D e g r e e is h e l d E x p e rie n c e : | p a rt-tim e exp e rie n c e ): 20 y e a r s in w h i c h D i s c i p l i n e ? 1 1A c c o u n t i n g | ] E c on om ic s [ ) Soc ial S c ie n c e ( ) B u sin ess ( ) Ed ucation ( ] O ther ( ] D ata Y e ars of A tten d in g Processing H ig h e r Ed u catio n : [ ) k to 5 y e a r s | | 0 to 9 y e a r s I ] 6 to 7 y e a r s I ] Em ploym ent P re v io u s Fu ll-T im e 11. H a v e y o u C o m p lete d a Form al T e a c h e r T r a i n i n g Program ? for c e r tific a tio n , or a s u p e rv is e d teaching in te rn s h ip , p ra c tic u m .) [ ] Yes in B u s i n e s s / I n d u s t r y ? I I J Over 12 y e a r s 10 to 11 y e a r s 10. 12 . 51 to 55 y e a r s [ ) F u l l - t i m e F a c u l t y Mc-muc-i 6. 8. (O ptional) | ) Yes I | No (P ro g ra m would Inclu de s tu d e n t teaching teaching a s s is ta n ts h ip o r leaching ) No H o v e y o u A t t e n d e d a n I r i s o r v i c e T r a i n i n g o r P r o f e s s i o n a l D e v e l o p m e n t P r o g r a m In th e Pa s t F i v e Y e a r s c o n c e r n in g y o u r T c a c h in y Discipline? ( T r a i n i n g m ay i n c l u d e B w o r k s h o p in m edi a • e l e c t i o n o r a s e m i n a r In s t u d e n t e v a l u a t i o n . ) | 1 Yes | ) No (Q ue stion 12 c o n t i n u e d on n e x t p a g e ) 143 12. (c o n tin u e d ) I f y o u r a n s w e r is Y e s , p le a s e p l a c e a n ( X ) in t h e a p p r o p r i a t e b o x o r b o x e s c o n c e r n i n g y o u r M OST R E C E N T inservice tra in in g ex p e rie n c e s : E X P E R IE N C E YES U n iv e rs ity sponsored? I I Professional A ssociation I Summer W orkshop? I I IN S T IT U T IO N IN F O R M A T IO N ; Ite m s 2, 3 a n d a. 1. NAME OF 2. Size of S t u d e n t YOUR Dody Headcount ]0 to 2 , 3 0 0 | ]2 , 5 0 1 to 5, 000 | ]5 , 0 0 1 to 7 , 5 0 0 ) I YES I ) | | I ] I 1 1 ) I I 2 NO I 1 1 ] I 1 I I I I I 1 in th e I I I te m | 101 to 200 | ] 201 In s titu tio n to 300 (In c lu d e ■ Pre s e n tly ]0 to 100 ( | in E X P E R IE N C E 1 and p l a c e an I I |X | 1 1 1 ] in t h e a p p r o p r i a t e b o x in I N S T I T U T I O N : ___________________________________________________________________________________ Num ber of S tude nts Is Y o u r invo lved t o pi cs ? P l e a s e fil l I | H. I U n iv e rs ity C re d it g ranted? Su b jec t M a tte r fa c u lty s e l e c t io n o f t r a i n i n g 3. sponsored? 1 NO two both fu ll- and p a rt-lim e I I 7.501 | | 10 , 0 0 1 En ro lled to 10,000 | | ) 1 2, 50 1 to 12. 500 | | Over in C o u r s e s in y o u r T e a c h i n g to '100 | ) 301 ] 001 to 500 I | | 1 501 to 000 | ] Over | N u n -U rb an | ] G0I to C o lle g e? as of S e p t e m b e r to 1 5 , 0 0 0 1 5, 00 1 D i s c i p l in e ? | C o n s i d e r e d an U r b a n o r N o n - U r b a n ] U rban en ro llm en t 700 701 to 000 001 1 9U 3) . PART B: NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND IN S E R V IC E T R A IN IN G ^D IR E C T IO N S : E a c h o f th e f o l l o w i n g 36 s t a t e m e n t s r e p r e s e n t s a t e a c h i n g s k i l l o r c o m p e t e n c y e f f e c t i v e f o r c o m m u n i t y c o l le g e t e a c h i n g . B e s i d e e a c h s t a t e m e n t c h e c k o n e of t h e f o u r p o s i t i o n s r e f l e c t i n g t h e d e g r e e o f p e r c e i v e d n e e d s e n d w h e t h e r t h e p e r c e i v e d n e e d s c o u l d b e met t h r o u g h I n s e r v l c c t r a i n i n g a n d y o u r p r e f e r e n c e s f o r t h e a r r a n g e m e n t s o r d e l i v e r y mod el f o r I n s c r v l c e t r a i n i n g . T h e f o u r c h o ic e s fo r d e g re e o f p e rc e iv e d need a re : STRONGLY AC RF .E (A) AGREE: If you fee l t h a t t he s t a t e m e n t Is I m p o r t a n t to y o u In t e r m s o f n e e d p e r c e p t i o n , p l a c e on | X ) In t h e b o x u n d e r t h o l e t t e r ( A ) In C o lu m n I . (D) DIS A G R E E : If you feel t h a t t he s t a t e m e n t Is u n i m | x > r t a n l to y o u In t e r m s o f n e e d p e r c e p t i o n , p l a c e a n ( X ) In t h e b o x u n d e r t h e l e t t e r ( D ) In C o l u m n I . (SA) STRONCLY (SD) COLUMN I f y o u foel t h a t y o u d e f i n i t e l y p e r c e i v e a n e e d In t h i s s t a t e m e n t , p l a c e a n | X ) In t h e b o x u n d e r t h e l e t t e r s ( S A ) In C o lu m n I . DISA G R EE : I f y o u a r e c e r t a i n t h a t no p e r c e p t i o n o f n e e d Is e v i d e n t In t h e s t a t e m e n t , p l a c e a n | X ] In t h e b o x u n d e r th e l e t t e r s ( S D ) In Colum n I. COLUMN I I fe el t h e n e e d c o u l d b e m et t h r o u g h in s c rv lc e tra in in g I h a v e a n e e d In this area A. P L A N N IN C 1. Form ulating te rm s . I 1 2. O rg a n iz in g I 1 3. S e lectin g I ) 'I. P re p a rin g 5. D e velopin g SA I ) SD II IN S T R U C T IO N YES of in s tru c tio n a l ob jectiv es In s tru c tio n a ro u n d course in stru ctio n al activitie s w ritten in m e a s u r a b l e o b je c tiv e s . ands trate g ic s . u n its of In s tru c tio n . IM PLEM EN T INC IN S T R U C T IO N : 0. S e qu e n c in g activitie s 7. P ro v id in g 0. S u m m a rizin g 0. U tiliz in g m u lti-m e d ia a c tiv itie s (s te p -b y-s tep Instru ctio n ) . Im m e d ia t e f e e d b a c k . In stru ctio n al u n its . to i m p r o v e i n s t r u c t i o n . 10. D e v e lo p in g more c r e a t i v e 11. U s in g 12 . Im p lem en tin g c lo su re: to e s t a b l i s h a l i n k b e t w e e n fam iliar m aterial and the new . COMMENTS: s tu d e n t/p e e r 11 I ) [ ) I 1 le ss on p l a n s . COMMENTS: B. I NO lec tu re s . tu to ria l a ss istance . 1^5 (SA ) = Strongly A g re e; C O LUMN (A ) - A g re e, (D ) = D isag ree; (S D ) = S tro n g ly D isag ree I C O L U M N have a need hi s a r e a I feel the need c o u l d be m et t h r o u g h inservice tra in in g in SD SA II YES IN S T R U C T IO N : NO C. E V A LU A TIN G 13. I d e n t if y in g and u tiliz in g p r in c ip le s of test c o n s tru c tio n . I It) . C o n s t r u c t i n g v a l i d a n d r e l i a b l e t e s t it e m s . I 15. G r a d i n g on a c o n t r a c t b a s i s . 1C. D i.iyn u sii.g s tu d e n t re a d in g and w r i t i n g d e fic ie n c ie s . 17. U iagn osiriy s t u d e n t m athem atics d e fic ie n c ie s . COMMENTS: D. SUBJECT M ATTER (C O N T E N T ): | ) I ) ( ) 1) 18 . U n d e r s t a n d i n g ed u catio n a l o b je c tiv e s o f a n d d e v e lo p in g the c u r r ic u lu m of y o u r d iscip lin e. | 1 I 1 I J I ) I I [ ) 19 . D e t e r m i n i n g c o n t e n t to b e t a u g h t . [ ) I 1 I I ( 1 11 M 20. K e e p in g a b r e a s t in y o u r su b je c t m a t t e r . 11 11 1) [ ) 1 ) 1 ) 21. D e v e lo p in g reso u rc e m aterials for y o u r co u rs e s . 1 1 I 1 COMMENTS: E. IN S T R U C T IO N A L MANAGEMENT: I J 11 I I 1) 22. M otivating and rein fo rc in g studen ts. I 1 I 1 I I 11 11 11 23. E l i m i n a t i n g i n a p p r o p r i a t e s t u d e n t c la s s r o o m b e h a v i o r s . 1 ) I ) 1 1 1 J I ) 11 29 . D ia g n o s in g learn in g problem s o f d is a d v a n ta g e d s tu d e n ts . I ) 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 25 . C o p i n g w i t h p r o b l e m s r e l a t i n g to s t u d e n t a t t i t u d e s , in d iffe re n c e , and attendance. I 1 I 1 COMMENTS: F. * ’1 ] C O M M U N IC A T IO N S : | ] I 1 11 2 6 . U s i n g q u e s t i o n i n g p r o c e d u r e s t o p r o m o t e c l as s d i s c u s s i o n . [ ) I ) I 1 I I I 1 I 1 27 . T r a i n i n g In h u m a n r e l a t i o n s t e c h n i q u e s ( g r o u p d y n a m i c s ) . [ ) 11 I I I I I J I ) 28. Im p ro v in g te c h n iq u e s uf te a c h in g p r e s e n ta tio n . I 1 I I I 1 I I I ) 29. D e v e l o p i n g s e n s i t i v i t y to n e e d s a n d f e e l i n g s o f o t h e r s . [ ) I | I I COMMENTS: _______ 146 (S A ) = Stro n g ly A g re e; COLUMN (A ) = A g ree; (D ) = D isag re e; (SD ) = Strongly Disag re e I C O LU M N II I fe el t h e n e e d c o u l d b e m et t h r o u g h Inservlcc tra in in g h a v e a n e e d In s area SD C. IN S T R U C T IO N A L S T R A T E C IE S : 30. U n d e r s t a n d in g of the th e o r y an d te c h n iq u e s of a u d io -tu to ria l, self-p a c e d , program m ed in stru ctio n . | 31. Increasing r e p e r t o i re o( teaching m ethods. i 32 . O b servin g a d e m o n s tra tio n of new 33. U n d e r s t a n d in g of the th e o ry an d a p p licatio n of m in iand m ic r o -c o m p u te r ass isted in s t r u c ti o n . | 3*i. O b s e r v i n g , d i a g n o s i n g , a n d c r i t i q u e of a v i d e o - t a p e o f p e e r l e a c h i n g on a m i c r o - t e a c h i n g e x e r c i s e . 1 35 . E x p e r i e n c i n g a s u r v e y o f p s y c h o l o g y of l e a r n i n g (X and Y fa c to r, M c G re g o r, e t c . ) . I 3G. E s ta b lis h in g a s tu d y skills YES instru ctio n al te c h n o lo g y . theories laboratory. NO I | COMMENTS: PART 1. C: Y o u r P r e fe re n c e for arrangem ents: IN S E R V IC E T R A IN IN G In s e rv ic e T r a in in g : PREFERENCE (Please AND ATTENDANCE rank order your preference for in servico tra in in g (1) = F i r s t cho ice, ( 2 ) * S e c o n d c h o ic e ( 3 ) = T h i r d c h o ic e ( k ) * F o u r t h c h o ic e ! ] a. O ne-day I ) b. O ne-w eek c. U n iv e rs ity ) d. P rofess iona l A s sociation | | I 2. Fac to rs c o n tr ib u tin g YES regional sem inar resid en tia l w o rksh op sponsored to y o u r sponsored Insorvice T r a in in g atte ndanc e: (Place |X | in a p p r o p r i a t e b o x ) . NO a. b. C. d. e. f. g. S c h e d u l e d d u r i n g su m m er Scheduled d u r in g e ve n in g h o u rs . S c heduled d u r in g weekends U n iv e rs ity credit g ran ted In s o rv ic e t r a in i n g c r e d it g r a n t e d by y o u r R e l e a s e d tim e b y y o u r e m p l o y e r E x p e n s e s re im b u r s e d by e m p lo y e r in s titu tio n 1*7 anst ncj U o m m u n i 419 N. CAPITOl AVI., %Ol 40C10 lANSlNG, MICHIGAN 4*901 * « r v i n f lh a • I M c th ig o n September 8, 1983 Dear Dr. Rubin: Am currently a Ph.D candidate in Business Education at Michigan State University and will ooon conduct a pilot study in the 29 Michigan public community colleges. Purpose of the study: To determine the perceiveu instructional needs of accounting, data processing, and economics faculty, and to correlate vurious demographic variables associated with needs per­ ception. The findings could serve as an empirical base for inservice training, such as workshops or seminars. The findings might well provide implications for preeervice programs, recruiting and staffing policies, and evaluation of existing programs. While undertaking the review of literature, your name frequently appears under the descriptor inservice training and/or staff (faculty) development. Would you consider evaluating or refereeing the 36-item needs assessment questionnaire after its pilot testing7 If your answer is yes; 1 will pro­ vide .information concerning the eight taxonomy models used to establish the teacher proficiencies on the needs assessment. I fully understand how we are all pressed for time. Thank you. *54 n r r r o l \f . Leonard C. Peterson Associate Professor, Economics If your answer is no; 148 JC a using C o m m u n i t y College 419 n . o m e n a vp. , i o x 40010 U N S I N G , MICHIGAN 41901 S trv .n p I h f H v o rl • f M ic h . p o * November 21, 1983 Dear Fellow Professor: , The enclosed questionnaire seeks information concerning accounting, deta processing, and economics education in the 29 Michigan public community colleges. The results of the questionnaire will be analyzed as a Ph.D. dissertation in Business Education at Michigan State University. Public community colleges have been the fastest growing institutions in higher education in Michigan. However, no descriptive or analytical study exists concerning accounting, data processing, and economics instruction in our state's public two-year colleges. Major purposes of the study: 1. 2. 3. To compile a fact-finding status study, To determine the perceived instructional needs of Michigan public community college accounting, data processing, and economics faculty through a needs assessment questionnaire, and, To correlate various demographic variables with needs perception. The findings, ical base for might provide policies, and reflecting your professional concerns, could serve as an empir­ inservice training such as workshops or seminars. The findings implications for preservice programs, recruiting and staffing evaluation of existing programs. The questionnaire should take no more than 20 minutes to complete. You may be assured of complete confidentiality. This questionnaire has been pilottested and validated by a panel of experts. Your participation in this study is deeply appreciated and should be helpful in providing the necessary information and direction for inservice education. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Leonard G, Peterson Associate Professor, F.conomics Lansing Community College (517) 483-1606 Enclosure Please check here if you wish a copy of the resulting tabulation. I U )ks PART I: D E M O G R A P H IC DATA IN S T R U C T O R IN F O R M A T IO N : I n o r d e r lo p r o p e r l y e v a l u a t e y o u r r e s p o n s o s , II i t n e c e s s a r y to c o l l o c l i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d in g y o u r b a c k g r o u n d , y o u r p ro fessio n al e x p e rie n c e , and in fo rm ation c o n c e rn in g y o u r in s titu tio n . Ple as e co m p l e t e ati ( ( u e t l i o n a t h a t a p p l y lo y o u b y p l a c i n g a c h e c k ( / J or ( X | in tho a p p r o p r i a t e b o x o r l i n e . P l e a s e (ill in I terns 1 a n d 2. I. NAML 2. DEPARTMENT J. Lender: ‘i . Age: 5, UP Fac ulty FACULTY MLM13EK , (O ptional) | Status: | M a le I I Fem al e | | Under | | I I 20 lo JO y e a r s 25 y e a r s I | Ml 1 ] 31 to 35 y e a r s 1 | MO lo 50 y e a r s | ] F u ll-nine I I P a rt-tim e 31/ lo MO y e a r s lo M5 y e a r s | I 51 [ I lo 55 y e a r s 50 lo 00 y e a r s 1 | Over GO y e a r s F a c u liy Member F a c u lty Member 1 1 O lh c r 0. M o|or T ea ch in g 7. C o m m un ity Discipline : ( | A ccounting College T ca cFung E x p e r ie n c e : II, In W hich D i s c ip lin e is ) Do Y o u ( 0 ) B A /B S | part-tim e 0-11 yoars M- 7 y e a r s | | Following 1 ) D ata ( lc) 9. P h .D . Y e a rs of A lto n d in g H ighe r B u sin ess 10-19 y e a rs 1 I Over 20 y e a r s | | Ec on om ic s 1 I Soc ial S c ie n c e | ) Ed ucation I | O lh o r ( | Ec on om ic s I | Soc ial S c io nc o I ] E d ucation 1 I O lh o r | Ec ono m ic s 1 | Social S c io nc o I I D ata [ ) Accounting | | ) Bu sin ess 1 ) E d u catio n I | D ata Processing 1 ) O the r Processing E d u catio n : 1 9 | ] P rev io u s F u ll-T im e Em ploym ent It Y E S , years? how m a n y 1 ) 17-15 y e a rs Processing ) A ccounting | 1U. ( E c on om ic s Degrees? | A ccounting 1 | e x p e rie n c e ): and | 1 1 B u sin ess (b ) M A /M S /M D A ( | th e both Processing years H o ld (In c lu d e | D ata full - 1 ) 0 - 3 1 | | to 5 yoars G to 7 y e a r s in B u s i n e s s / I n d u s t r y ! | ) Less th a n 1 | 3 years 7 lo 5 y e a r s | ) 1 | YES i | 8 to 9 y e a r s 1 1 10 lo II years | ] NO I 0 to 9 y e a r s 1 1 Over 10 y e a r s | Over 12 y o a r s 150 II. H a v e y o u c o m p l e t e d a F o r m al T e a c h e r T r a i n i n g P r o g r a m w h i c h w o u l d i n c l u d e s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g ( or c e rtific a tio n , a s u p e rv is e d lea c h in g in te rn s h ip , teaching a s s is ta n ts h ip . or teach in g p ra c tic u m ! 1 I 12. NO VES H a v e y o u A t t e n d e d an I n s e r v i c e r e l a t e d to y o u r t e a c h i n g ! YES T ra in in g or Professional D e v e l o p m e n t f’ r o g r j m in th e p a s t five yea rs NO I f y o u r a n s w e r Is Y E S . p l e a s e p l a c e on [ X | in the a p p r o p r i a t e RECENT inservice tra in in g e x p e rie n c e s : b o x or b o x e s c o n c e r n i n g EXPERIENCE I YES C om m unity C o llege Professional U n iv e rs ity two MOST EXPERIENCE 2 NO YES NO sponsored A ssociation C re d it your sponsored! g ran ted ’ Summer W o rk s h o p ! S u b j e c t M a t t e r f a c u l t y i n v o l v e d in th e s e l e c t i o n of t r a i n i n g t o p i c s ! IN S T IT U T IO N IN F O R M A T IO N : 1. NA M E OF Y O U R 2. Si ze o f S t u d e n t B o d y 3. P l e a s e fil l in H e m 1 a n d p l a c e an I X 1 in the a p p r o p r ia t e box in I t e m s 2, and IN S T IT U T IO N ; Headcount (in c lu d e b o th f u l l - a n d p a r t - t i m e e n r o l l m e n t as o f Fa ll I I 0 to 2 , 5 0 0 | I | 2,501 to ( I | 5,001 to 7 , 5 0 0 Nu m ber of S tu d e n ts P r e s e n tly | | 0 to | | 5,000 E n ro lle d 100 7,501 to 1 0 , 0 0 0 | 1 12,501 | 1 0, 00 1 to 1 2 , 5 0 0 I | Over I 001 to 700 in C o u r s e s in y o u r T e a c h i n g D iscip lin e’ I 301 to 900 I | 101 to 200 I I 901 to 500 I I ] 201 1 I 501 to O00 I 300 to 1,5,000 15 ,0 01 * I lo 1983) | 701 to BOO | Over 801 3. 151 PART II: NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND IN S E R V IC E TR A IN IN C D I R E C T I O N S : E a c h o f t he f o ll o w in g 36 s t a t e m e n t s r e p r e s e n t s a t e a c h i n g sk i ll o r c o m p e t e n c y e f f e c t i v e f or c o m m u n i t y co lle g e t e a c h i n g . B e s i d e ua ch s t a t e m e n t c h e c k on e o f t h e f o u r p o s it io n s r e l a t i n g to t h e a e g r e o of p e r c e i v e d n e e d s a n d w h e t h e r t he p e r c e i v e d n c o d s c o u ld b e m et t h r o u g h i n s o r v i c e t r a i n i n g . T h e f o u r c h o ic es f or d e g r e e o f p e r c e i v e d n ee d (SA) STRONGLY ACREE: I f y o u feel t h a t y o u p e r c e i v e a ’s t r u n g , p r o f e s s i o n a l n e e d in t h i s s t a t e m e n t a n d w o u l d r a n k it f i r s t p r i o r i t y , p l a c e an ( X j in th e b o x u n d e r t h e l e t t e r s ( S A ) in C o l u m n I . (A) ACREE: I f y o u fe ci t h a t th e s t a t e m e n t r e f l e c t s a se c o n d p r i o r i t y n e e d in i m p o r t a n c e to y o u , p l a c e a n | X ) in th e bo x u n d e r the l e t t e r ( A ) in C o l u m n I . (D) DISA G R EE : I f y o u feel t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t is i m p o r t a n t ' b u t a b o u t w h i c h y o u a r e s u f f i c i e n t l y c u r r e n t , p l a c e a n t X J in the b o x u n d e r the l e t t e r ( U ) in C o lu m n I . (SD) STRO NG LY D ISA G R EE : I f y o u fe ci t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t is no t i m p o r t a n t n o r a p e r s o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to y o u r j o b , p l a c e an ( X j in t he b o x u n d e r (he l e t t e r s ( S D ) in C o l u m n I . COLUMN 1 COLUMN SA 2 I feel t h e n e e d c o u l d b e met t h r o u g h inservice tra in in g I h a v e a n e e d in t h is a r e a ’ SD YES A. P L A N N IN C IN S T R U C T IO N • 1. F orm ulating i n s t r u c t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s in m e a s u r a b l e 3. O rg a n iz in g ins tru c tio n 3. S e lectin g terms. a ro u n d course objectives. in s tru c tio n a l a c tiv itie s ands tra te g ie s . 4. P re p a rin g 5. D e velo p in g u n its of in s tru c tio n . w ritten le s s o n p l a n s . B, IN S T R U C T IO N A L 6. U n d e r s t a n d i n g o f th e t h e o r y a n d t e c h n i q u e s ol a u d i o - l u l u r i a l . s e lf-p a c e d , program m ed in s tru c tio n . 7. Increasing 8. O b s e r v i n g a d e m o n s t r a t i o n of ne w 9. U n d e r s t a n d i n g o f th e t h e o r y a n d a p p l i c a t i o n of i m m - a n d m i c r o ­ c o m p u ter ass isted in s t r u c t i o n . COMMENTS: S T R A T E G IE S : r e p e r t o i r e o f leach in g methods. instru ctiu n .il techno log y. 10. O b s e r v i n g a n d d i a g n u s i n y a v i d e o - t a p e of p e e r m ic ro -te a c h in g exe rc is e . 11 . E x p e r i e n c i n g a s u r v e y of p s y c h o l o g y of l e a r n i n g ( P w y e l , B lo om , M o y e r . S k i n n e r , e t c . ) 12. E s ta b lis h in g a s tu d y s k i ll s l a b o r a t o r y . t e a c h i n g on a theories NO 152 (SA) = STRONGLY COLUMN AGREE: (A) = A C R F .E : ID ) - D lS A C R L t: (SD) - STRONGLY D IS A G K b t COLUMN 1 I h o v e a n e e d In this ar cs insci vice training SD SA 7 I feel the ne ed co u ld be met t h r o u g h C. E V A L U A T IN G IN S T R U C T IO N . 13. Id en tifyin g j n d 1M. Co nstru cting IS. C r a d m g on a c o n t r a c t b a s is . YCS u t i l i z i n g p r i n c i p l e s ul volid end reliable lest NO te st c o n s t r u e l i u n . ite m s. TG. D iagn osin g studen t reading and w ritin g 17. D iag n o sin g s t u d e n t m a t h e m a t ic s clef it »enc ies . deficien cie s. D. SUDJECT COMMENTS: | ) MATTER (C O N T E N T ): ( ) ( j ( ) 18. U n d e r s t a n d i n g c d j c o t i o n j l o bjectiv es of andd e v e lo p in g c u r r ic u lu m of y o u r discip lin e. ( | ( | | ) ( j 19. D e te rm in in g content 1 | | ( ) | J 20. K e e p i n g a b r e a s t in y u u r s u b j e c t m a t t e r . | | | | | J { J 21. D e v e l o p i n g r e s o u r c e m .t l e r ia l s ) th e to be t j u g h t . for y o u r courses. I ) I I ( J I J [ | | ]• I I | I COMMENTS: IN S T R U C T IO N A L M A N A C E M E N T ; II M I I II II 1I II II II II M otivating and re tn fu rc in y s tu d en ts. I I E lim inatin g inappropriate I I I I D iagn osin g l e a r n i n g p r o b l e m s of d i s a d v a n t a g e d I I I I C o pin g w ith problem s r e la tin g and atte n d an c e. studen t cl uss ruo m b e h a v i o r s . students. to s t u d e n t a t t i t u d e s , indifference, COMMENTS: | | F. IM P L E M E N T IN G IN S T R U C T IO N : 36. Sequencing a ctivitie s Is lc p -b y -s te p [ ] 37. P ro v id in g | ) 30. Su m m arizing 1 ] 39, U tilizin g m ulti-m ed ia a ctivitie s in stru ctio n ). imm ed ia te f e e d b a c k . instru ctio n al u n its . | | 30. D e v e l o p i n g m or e c r e a t i v e | | 31. U s ing | ] 33 . Im p le m e n t i r / g c l o s u r e : m a t e r i a l a n d the n e w . s tu d en t/p eer to i m p r o v e instru ction. lectu res. tu to rial assistance. to e s t a b l i s h a l i n k b e t w e e n f am ili ar [ [ | | | I I I [ I I I I I I I 153 '..A) » S T R O N C L Y :o l u m n A C R E E ;' (A) |D ) = ACREE; = D ISA G R EE : (SD ) s. S T R O N C L Y 1 C O L U M N C O M M U N IC A T IO N S : 1 1 1 1 JJ. U 1 1 1 1 1 I 34. 7 ruinin tj 1 1 1 1 1 1 30. I rn pr uv infj 1 1 30. U u v c l u p in c j b e n s n U v i l y 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 quu iliu n in Q m ik j YES pruuuUut'u:* in h u r n j n rc lu liu n * l u c h n i q u u b uf lu p r u l n u l u Ll.iss Uiui u v - i u n . l u c h nt qu u :* (c jr u u p U y n u i ii iu s ) . l u u c l m u j q r u t .u t i U i li u M . lu nuu Jb u n J l u u l in y i . ul ulhci PART Preference in T e r m * of T i m e (l| (2) i I J a. O n e-d ay I J b. One | | t . i III; IN S E R V IC E fur - F i r s t c h o ic e * S e c o n d c h o ic e Yo ur Preference sem inar seminar 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 pi) PREFERENCE (Please r a n k AND' A T TEN DA NCE ui d e r yuur preference) ; - T h u d cho ic e ^ F ou rili c h o ic e w orkshop to two w e e k , r e s i d e n t i a l w o r k s h o p (1) (2) lor Inservice T ra in in g : * F i r s t c h o ic e = S e c o n d c h o ic e ( | a. Com m unity C o lleye I ) b. U n ive rs ity sponsored I i C. P rofessional A ssociation '* (J) regional in T e r m s of S p o n s o r Factors c o n tr ib u t in g T ru m in g : • to t h r e e - d a y O ne * w e e k r e s i d e n t i a l ] , d . One In s e rv ic e T R A IN IN G to y o u r (3) NO ( ( j J = T h ird sponsored a. atte ndanc e; Scheduled (P l a c e |X J in a p p r o p r i a t e i b. Scheduled d u r in g e v e n in g hours | | c. Scheduled d u r in g weekends 1 ) d. U n iv e rs ity | | e. Inservice ( | 1 ] (. R e le a s e d | | | j (J | I < || | J j b o*). d u r i n g sum me r | | I p reference); cho ic e « [ j your sponsored In s e rv ic e T r a in in g Y_LS (Please r a n k o r d e r credit grunted tra in in g c red it time b y granted by yuur y o u r em ployer g. E x p e n s e s re im b u rs e d by h. C red it employer t o w a r d p ro m o t io n a n d / o r tenure in s titu tio n NO 1 1 COMMENTS; Your th ro u g h inse rv ic e tra in in g C. D 1 C o uld be met SD A 2 I feu I i h e h e e d h o v e a n e e d In nis a r e a .A DiSA CR EE 15*4 ( i n s t n j ( -onwutiu <19 N. CAP1T01 AYE., 60X <0010 I AN SIN G , MICH IGAN <8901 S«fv>np N* 0'l gl M>cKiyon January 3, 1984 Dear Fallow Professor: Last month you received a qucstionnaivc which sought information concerning accounting, data processing, and economics education in the 29 Michigan community colleges. The purposes of the study: to compile a fact-finding status study, to determine perceived instructional needs, and to correlate demographic variables with perceived needs. The findings could serve as an empirical base for in-service training sucli as workshops or seminars. The returns have been gratifying (45% return rate) and the information revealing. Would you please complete and return the questionnaire? The questionnaire was sent to a fairly small number of community college faculty (182 in all). Hence, j.t is important that your opinions be included in the study if the results accurately represent the perceptions of accounting, data processing,, and economics faculty in Michigan. If you did not receive the questionnaire or if it has been mislaid, please let me know and I will send another questionnaire. Thank you for your time. rincercly, Leonard G. Peterson BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Ahmann, J . S t a n l e y . Needs Assessment f o r Prpgram Pl anni ng i n Voca­ t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n . Columbus, Ohio: N a t i o n a l Council f o r Research i n V o c a t i o n a l E d uc at ion, 1979. Al-Ghamdi, Abdulrahim M. "The P r o f e s s i o n a l Development of I n - S e r v i c e Teachers in Saudi A r a b i a : A Study o f t h e P r a c t i c e and Needs." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Mi chi gan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1982. Anderson, S c a r v i a B. e t a l . Encycl opedi a o f San F r a nci sc o: Jossey-Bass P u b l i s h e r s , Educ at iona l E v a l u a t i o n . 1975. A tk ins on, Karen A. "Mi chi gan F u l l - and P a r t - T i m e V o c a t i o n a l I n s t r u c ­ t o r s ’ P er c e p t i o n s Toward T h e i r P r o f e s s i o n a l Development R e l a t i v e t o T h e i r Occupati onal Role as P u b l i c Two-Year C o l l e g e I n s t r u c ­ tors." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Mi chi gan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1981. B e r g q u i s t , W i l l i a m H . , and P h i l l i p s , Steven R. "Components o f an E f f e c t i v e F a c u l t y Development Program." Journal o f Hi ghe r Educ a t i o n 46 ( M a r c h / A p r i l 1 97 5 ): 178, 183. Brimm, Jack L . , and T o l l e t t , Dani el M. "How Do Teachers Feel About I n - S e r v i c e Educati on?" E duc at iona l Leader shi p: Research Supple­ ment 31 (March 1 9 7 4 ) : 521. C e n t r a , John A. " F a c u l t y Development i n Hi ghe r E d u c a t i o n . " C o l l e g e Record 80 (September 1 97 8 ) : 189. Teachers C l a x t o n , Char les S. Community C o l l e g e S t a f f Development. A t l a n t a : Southern Regional Educati on Board, 1976. (ED 126 971) Cohen, A r th u r M . , and Brawer, F l or e nc e B. The Two-Year Col l e g e I n s t r u c ­ t o r Today. New York: Praeger P u b l i s h e r s , 1977. "Community C o l l e g e F a c u l t y Devel opment. " Los Angeles: U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , ERIC C l e ar i nghous e f o r J u n i o r C o l l e g e s , 1973. (ED 081 411) Corey, Stephen M. "Introduction." I n I n - S e r v i c e Education f o r Teach­ e r s , S u p e r v i s o r s , and A d m i n i s t r a t o r s . F i f t y - S i x t h Yearbook of t h e Na t i o n a l S o c i e t y f o r t h e Study of Educ at ion, P a r t I . Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago P ress, 1957. 156 157 Eaton, J u d i t h S. "Judging Community C o l l e g e s . " C o l l e g e Journal 58 (September 1 98 2 ) : 16. Community and J uni or E d e l f e l t , Roy A . , and Johnson, Margo, eds. R e -Thi nk ing I n - S e r v i c e E du c a t i o n . Washington, D . C . : N a t i o n a l Education A s s o c i a t i o n , 1975. E n g l i s h , Fenwick W . , and Kaufman, Roger A. Needs Assessment: A Focus f o r Cur ri cul um Development. Washington, D . C . : Association for S up er vi si on and Cur r ic ul um Development, 1975. F r a n c i s , John B. "How Do We Get There From Here?" The Journal Hi ghe r Education 46 (November/December 197 5) : 720. of F r i e d l a n d e r , Jack. Sci ence Education in Two-Year C o l l e g e s : Economics. Los Angeles: Ce nt er f o r t h e Study of Community C o l l e g e s , U n i v e r ­ s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , August 1980. G a f f , J e r r y G. Toward F a c u l t y Renewal. I n c . , 1975. Gaff, San F r a nc is c o: Jossey-Bass, Sally S., e t a l . P r o f e s s i o n a l Development: A Guide t o Resources. New R o c h e l l e , N . Y . : Change Magazine P ress, 1978. G a r r i s o n , Roger H. J u n i o r C o l l e g e F a c u l t y : Issues and Problems. Washington, D . C . : American A s s o c i a t i o n o f J u n i o r C o l l e g e s , 1967. (ED 012 177) _________ . "A Mini-Manual on I n - S e r v i c e . " Journal 45 ( J u n e / J u l y 1 97 5 ) : 18. Community and J u n i o r C ol l e g e G l e a z e r , Edmund J . " F a c u l t y Development P r o j e c t . " Journal 38 ( A p r i l 1 9 6 8 ) : 7 . Junior College Haddad, M a r g a r e t , and Di ckens, Mary Ann. "Competencies f o r P a r t - T i m e F a c u l t y : The F i r s t J o b . " Community .and J u n i o r C o l l e g e Journal 40 (November 1 9 7 8 ) : 22. H a m i l t o n , B e t t e E. " A d u l t P a r t - T i m e Students and t h e Hi gher Education Act." Change 2 (May-June 1 97 9 ): 5 8. Hammons, Jim; S m it h - W al 1ace, T e r r y H . ; and Wa tt s, Gordon. Staff Development in t h e Community C o l l e g e : A Handbook. Los Angeles: ERIC Cl ear inghous e f o r J u n i o r C o l l e g e s , U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , June 1978. (ED 154 887) H a r r i s , Ben M. Improving S t a f f Performance Through I n - S e r v i c e Edu­ cation. Boston: A l l y n & Bacon, 1980. 158 _________ ; Bessent, Wai land; and M c I n t y r e , Kenneth E. In-Service Educati on: A Guide t o B e t t e r P r a c t i c e . Englewood C l i f f s , N . J . : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c . , 1969. Hass, C. Glen. " I n - S e r v i c e Educati on Toda y. " I n I n - S e r v i c e Education f o r Teacher s, S u p e r v i s o r s , and A d m i n i s t r a t o r s . F i f t y - S i x t h Year ­ book o f t h e N a t i o n a l S o c i e t y f o r t h e Study of Educ at ion, P a r t I . Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P ress, 1957. Hite, H e r b e r t , and Howey, Kenneth R. "P lanni ng I n s e r v i c e Teacher Educati on: Promisi ng A l t e r n a t i v e s . " The American A s s o ci a t i o n o f C ol l eges f o r Teacher Educati on (May 1 97 7 ) : 14. Houston, W. Ro be r t, and P a n k r a t z , Roger, eds. S t a f f Development and E ducati onal Change. Reston, V a . : A s s o c i a t i o n of Teacher Edu­ c a t o r s , 1980. I s a a c , Stephen, and M i c h a e l , W i l l i a m B. Handbook in Research and Evaluation. San Di ego, C a l i f . : E d i t s P u b l i s h i n g , 1971. Kaufman, Roger A. "A P o s s i b l e Taxonomy o f Needs Assessment." t i o n a l Technology 17 (November 1 9 7 7 ) : 6 1. Educa­ K i l p . a t r i c k , Gordon. I n - S e r v i c e Education With Recommendations Conc e r ni n g I t s I mpl eme nt at ion in American J u n i o r Col l e g e s . El Camino, C a l i f . : El Camino C o l l e g e , 1968. (ED 020 721) Kowle, Carol P . , e t a l . P r obl em- Sol vi ng P r o ce s s : A P l a n n e r ' s Hand­ book f o r Program I mprovement. Columbus: The N a t i o n a l Ce nt er f o r Research in V o c a t i o n a l E d u ca ti o n, The Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , January 1982. M a g a r r e l , Jack " E n r o l l m e n t La st F a l l : Up 2 . 3 P e t . " H i gher E d u c a t i o n , J u l y 14, 1982, p. 10. The C h r o n i c l e of Mc Cl ain, R o s e l l a . "The C r e a t i o n o f a Plan f o r a S t a t e wi d e Consortium f o r D e l i v e r i n g S t a f f Development A c t i v i t i e s t o Community C ol l e g e Personnel." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Memphis S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1977. Mi chi gan, Department o f E d u ca ti o n, Hi ghe r Educati on Management S e r v i c e . " F a l l E n ro l lm en t 1983, Hi g he r Educati on General I n f o r m a t i o n Survey ( H EG I S ) . " Lansing: Michigan Department o f E d uc at ion, December 1, 1983. N i e l s e n , Robert M . , and P o l i s h o o k , I r w i n H. "The Community Col l eges and C u r r e n t P e r s p e c t i v e s . " The C h r o n i c l e o f H ig he r E d u c a t i o n , January 2 0 , 1982, p. 6. 159 1984 Community. T e c h n i c a l . and J u n i o r Col l ege Pi r e c t o r y . Washington, D.C.: American A s s o c i a t i o n o f Community and J u n i o r C o l l e g e s , 1984. O 'Bani on, T e r r y . O r g an i z i n g S t a f f Development Programs That Work. Washington, D . C . : American A s s o c i a t i o n of Community and J u n i o r C o l l e g e s , 1978. (ED 164 023) _________ . " P a t t e r n s o f S t a f f Devel opment. " n i t y C o l l e g e s , No. 1 ( S p r i n g 1 97 8 ): 9 , New Pi r e c t i ons f o r Commu­ 10, 2 8. _________ . Teachers f o r Tomorrow. P r es s, 1972. The U n i v e r s i t y of Ari zona Tucson: Orrange, P a t r i c i a A . , and Van Ryn, Mi ke. "Agency Roles and Responsi­ b i l i t i e s in In -S e rv ic e Education." In Re-thinking In -S e rv ic e E d u c a t i o n -. Washington, D.C. : N a t i o n a l Education A s s o c i a t i o n , 1975. Roueche, John E . , and Ba ker , George A. Beacons f o r Change. A u s t i n , Texas: The American C o l l e g e T e s t i n g Program, N a t i o n a l Ce nt er f o r t h e Advancement of Educ ati ona l P r a c t i c e s , 1983. Roueche, John E . , and H e r r s c h e r , A c count ab i1 i t v . P al o A l t o , 1978. Barton R. Toward I n s t r u c t i o n a l C a lif.: Westinghouse Learni ng Press, Rubin, Li nda , and Hansen, John H. Assessing Needs and P r i o r i t i z i n g Goals I d S t a f f Development and M u cjL ti.Q ii.al Change. Reston, V a . : A s s o c i a t i o n o f Teacher E ducators, 1980. Rubin, Louis J . , ed. The I n - s e r v i c e Education o f Te ac he r s. Mass.: A l l y n & Bacon, I n c . , 1978. Boston, S c h u l t z , R. E. "A H i s t o r i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e o f Community C o l l e g e Teachers and T e a c h i n g . " In Proceedi ngs: Conference on t h e Community/ Junior C o lle g e . Knoxville: U n i v e r s i t y o f Tennessee, C o ll e ge o f Educ at ion, 1977. (ED 188 702) _________ . "Lower Tur nover C r e at e s S t a f f Development Probl ems. " n i t y C o l l e g e Review 1 ( A p r i l 1 97 8 ): 2 4. Seldin, Peter. 1 97 6 ): 10. "Fostering Faculty T a l e n t . " Commu­ Change 8 (September Smith, A l b e r t B. ,$.ta.f.f Development G o als and P r a c t i c e s I n U.S. Commu­ n ity Colleges. L e xi n gt o n, K y . : AACJC N a t i o n a l Council f o r S t a f f Program and O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Development (NCS-P0D), January 1980. 160 S t o r d a h l , Bar bara. F a c u l t y Development: A Survey n f t h e L i t e r a t u r e . Washington, D . C . : The George Washington U n i v e r s i t y , ERIC C l e a r ­ inghouse on Hi ghe r Educ at ion, March 1981. S u l l i v a n , LeRoy L. " F a c u l t y Devel opme nt .. .A Movement on t h e B r i n k . " The C ol l e g e Board Review, No. 127 (S p ri n g 1 98 3 ): 21. T y l e r , Ralph W. "Basic P r i n c i p l e s o f Curr iculum and I n s t r u c t i o n . " S yl l a b u s f o r Education 305. Chicago, 1 1 1 . : U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago Pr ess, 1950. W a l l ac e , T e rr y H. "The L i t e r a t u r e o f S t a f f Development: Emphasis and Shortcomi ngs. " I n Proceedi ngs: The Conference on Questions and Issues i n Pl anni ng Community C o l l e g e S t a f f D evelo pment Prog r ams. U n i v e r s i t y Park: The Pennsyl vani a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , Center f o r t h e Study o f Hi ghe r Educ ati on, June 1795. (ED 111 462) W a tt e nb a rg e r, James L . , and C a r p e n t e r , Robert S. " F a c u l t y Develop­ ment: L e t Teachers Take t h e I n i t i a t i v e . " Community C o l l e g e Review (June 1 9 7 5 ) : 2 5. Watt s, Gordon E . , and Hammons, James D. S t a f f Development: A Time f o r A p p r a i s a l . Des Moines, Iowa: N a t i o n a l Conf er ence, AACJC (NCSPOD), November 16, 1980. Y a r ge r , Sam J. I n s e r v i c e Teacher E d u c a t i o n . Booksend L a b o r a t o r y , 1980. Pal o A l t o , C a l i f . : Y a r r i n g t o n , Roger, ed. New S t a f f f o r New Students: Educ ati ona l Oppor­ tu n itie s for A l l . Washington, D . C . : American A s s o c i a t i o n of Community and J u n i o r C o l l e g e s , 1974. (ED 089 803) 161 BIBLIOGRAPHY: NEEDS ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS F u l l - T i m e Community C o l l e g e F a c u l t y Nati onwi de Ce nt ra , John A. F a c u l t y Qe.YO_lopms-n± P r a c t i ces i n U.S. C o l l eges m d U niversities. P r o j e c t Report 7 6 - 3 0 . P r i n c e t o n , N.J.: E duc at iona l T e s t i n g S e r v i c e , 1976. (ED 141 382 ) Inservice Training lo r Two-Year Col l ege Faculty and .S in fli A Survey o f Junior and Community College Administrators. Washington, D.C.: American A s s o c i a t i o n of J u n i o r C o l l e g e s , 1969. (ED 034 519) O'Banion, T e r r y . Teachers f o r T o mo rr o w. .. S ta f f Development in t h e Communi ty-Juni or C o l l e g e . Tucson: The U n i v e r s i t y of Ar iz ona Press, 1972. Smi th, A l b e r t B. " S t a f f Development Goals and P r a c t i c e s i n U.S. Community Col l eges ." Community/Junior C o ll e ge Research Q u a r t e r l y 5 (1981). Y a r r i n g t o n , Roger, ed. New S t a f f f o r New Students; Educ ati ona l Oppor­ t u n i t i e s fo r A ll. Washington, D.C.: American A s s o c i a t i o n o f Community and J u n i o r C o l l e g e s , 1974. (ED 089 803) Reg i onal C la xt o n, C ha r le s S. Community C o l l e g e S t a f f Development. A t l a n t a , G a . : Southern Regional Educati on Board, 1976. (ED 126 971) Hammons, James 0., and S m i t h - W a l l a c e , T e r r y H. An Assessment o f Community. .Co.lle.ge .St.ft.f-f Development .Needs in ± h e N o r t h e a s t e r n United States. U n i v e r s i t y Park: Pennsyl vani a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , t h e Study o f Hi gher Educ at ion, May 1976. (ED 128 058) Ce nt er f o r Hunt er , W a l t e r E., and Beyen, Eduard. "Administrators Versus Teach­ e r s : T h e i r Per ce iv ed D i f f e r e n c e s and S i m i l a r i t i e s Regarding S t a f f Development Needs W i t h i n Two-Year C ol l eges ." Communi tv /Ju ni or C o l l e g e Research Q u a r t e r l y 3 ( A p r i l - J u n e 1979). (ED 201 783) State Boothe, Tommy M. "Needs Assessment f o r P r o f e s s i o n a l S t a f f Development in Alabama's P u b l i c Juni or /Communit y C ol l eges ." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Auburn U n i v e r s i t y , 1981. 162 E l l e r b e , James H. " F a c u l t y Development P r a c t i c e s in North C a r o l i n a Technical I n s t i t u t e s and Community Co l le g es . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , North C a r o l i n a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y a t R a l e i g h , 1980. F a l k , Char les F. "A Study o f I n s e r v i c e Education and S u p e rv i s i on Needs o f Community C o l l e g e Business I n s t r u c t o r s i n t h e S t a t e o f I l l i n o i s . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , N or th er n I l l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y , 1975. (ED 130 710) Hyslop, David J. "A Study o f I n s e r v i c e Educati on a t S e l e ct e d C a l i f o r ­ n i a Community C o ll e ge s i n R e l a t i o n t o I n s t i t u t i o n a l Needs and Posture." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Mi chi gan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1974. Lambrecht, J u d i t h J., and McLean, Gary N. "Content and Methodology, Background and Per ce iv ed Competencies of Data Processi ng Teachers in Mi nnesota and Wisconsin." Research i n Education (March 1978). (ED 145 802) McQueen, Ruth M. "The I mpac t of S t a f f Development Programs on P u b l i c Community C ol l e g e Teachers in Texas." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , North Texas S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1980. Novak, Cha rl es R., and Barnes, Barbara K. " F l o r i d a and I l l i n o i s ' Views on S t a f f Development." New Pi r e c t i on s f o r Community C o l l e g e s , No. 19 (Autumn 1 9 7 7 ) . P ar k er , Paul W., and P a r k e r , P a t r i c k W. "Kansas Community C ol l e g e s : Assessing S t a f f Development Needs." Research i n Education ( J u l y 1979). (ED 167 211) Preus, Paul K., and W i l l i a m s , Douglas F. Personalized Faculty Development: R a t i o n a l e , Ap p l i c a t i o n and E v a l u a t i o n . Bear Creek, Cesco Press, 1979. (ED 172 700) Ala.: S t a f f Development: A P r o f i l e jQi Local I n s t i t u t i o n a l E f f o r t . Ra lei gh: North C a r o l i n a S t a t e Department of Community C o l l e g e s , December 1975. (ED 139 465) Wa tt enba rge r, James L., and C a r p e n t e r , Robert S. " F a c u l t y Development: L e t Teachers Take t h e I n i t i a t i v e , " Community C o l l e g e Review 3 (June 1795). Individual Bolden, O t i s L. " P r o f e s s i o n a l , P er sona l, and S t a f f Development Report o f St. Louis Community C o l l e g e a t F o r e s t Park, August 1976." St. Louis Community C o l l e g e . F o r e s t P ar k, Mo.: August 1976. (ED 129 349) 163 Cato> Jimmy E. "Designing a S t a f f Development C u r r i c u l u m f o r Community C o l l e g e Personnel a t C ol l e g e of Alameda." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Nova U n i v e r s i t y , 1977. (ED 168 650) . Cooper, John D., and Smolen, Diane. " P r o fe ss i o na l Development Plan, Lansing Community C o l l e g e , 1977-1978." Lansing Community C o l l e g e. Lansing, M i c h . : September 1977. (ED 145 920) F i t z g e r a l d , Richard F. "An E v a l u a t i o n of a F a c u l t y Planned I n s t r u c ­ t i o n a l Development Program a t F l o r i d a Keys Community C ol l e g e. " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Nova U n i v e r s i t y , 1980. McDannold, Thomas A. "The Development, I m p l e m e n t a t i o n , and E v a l u a t i o n o f a F a c u l t y Development Program a t Ventura C o l l e g e , Ventura, C a l i f o r ­ ni a." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Nova U n i v e r s i t y , 1979. P a r t - T i m e Community C o l l e g e F a c u l t y Nationwi de Goetsch, David L. "Study t o De t er mi n e I n - S e r v i c e Education Needs o f P a r t - T i m e V o ca t io na l F a c u l t y and an I n - s e r v i c e Program t o Meet Those Needs." N i c e v i l l e , F l a . : Okal oosa- Walt on J u n i o r C o l l e g e , March 1978. (ED 199 394) Haddad, M a r g a r e t , and Di ckens, Mary E l l e n . "Competencies f o r P a r t - T i m e F a c u l t y : The F i r s t Step." Community and J u n i o r C o l l e g e Journal 49 (November 1 9 7 8 ) . Regional Bl ack, Lynda K. "An I n s t r u c t i o n a l Needs A na l ys i s o f P a r t - T i m e Commu­ n ity College Faculty." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , A ri zona S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1979. Sta te Fent, James E. " P r o f e s s i o n a l Development f o r Adj unct F a c u l t y in Mi chi gan Community Co l le g es . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Walden U n i v e r s i t y , A p r i l 1979. (ED 172 855) K o z o l l , Cha rl es E. " S t a f f and O r g a n i z a t i o n Development. An A na l ys i s o f T h e i r I n t e r a c t i o n in a Community C o l l e g e S e t t i n g and R e s u l t i n g Changes." San Antonio, Texas: A d u l t Education Research Conference, A p r i l 1978. (ED 152 989) 164 Parsons, Michael H. " P a r t - T i m e F a c u l t y : A S t a t e w i d e Model f o r Develop­ ment." Mount L a u r e l , N.J.: N o r t h e a s t Region Conference o f t h e N a ti o na l Council f o r S t a f f , Program, and O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Development, November 17, 1978. (ED 161 484) S ch u lt z , Raymond E., and Roed, W i l l i a m J. "Report on I n s e r v i c e Needs o f Community C o l l e g e P a r t - T i m e Occupati onal I n s t r u c t o r s . " Tucson: U n i v e r s i t y o f A r i z o n a , C o l l e g e of Educ at ion, May 1978. (ED 156 290) Smith, Richard R. "Developmental Needs o f Community C o l l e g e Adj unct F a c u l t y . " Communi tv /Ju ni or Col l eg e Resea r c h Q u a r t e r l y 2 (Oc tobe rDecember 1 9 7 7 ) . (EJ 172 282 ) Local Justice, P a t r i c i a . "A Comprehensive Plan f o r I n s t i t u t i o n a l S t a f f Development. F i n a l P r o j e c t Report. " Gresham, Oregon: Mount Hood Community C o l l e g e , June 1976. (ED 126 983) P e r s i n g e r , Garnet R. " P r o f e s s i o n a l Development f o r P a r t - T i m e F a c u l t y . " Council f o r N o r t h - C e n t r a l Community and J u n i o r C o l l e g e s , A p r i l 1977. (ED 168 664) Needs Assessment Handbooks or Guidebooks B e r g q u i s t , W i l l i a m H., and P h i l l i p s , Steven R. A Handbook f o r F a c u l t y Development. Washington, D.C.: The Council f o r t h e Advancement of Small C o l l e g e s , 1975. Gaff, In c ., J e r r y G. 1975. Toward F a c u l t y Renewal. San F r a nci sc o: Jossey-Bass, Hammons, Jim; S mit h-Wal l a c e , T e r r y H.; and Watt s, Gordon. S taff Development i n t h e Community C o l l e g e : A Handbook. Los Angeles: ERIC Cl ear inghouse f o r J u n i o r C o l l e g e s , U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , June 1978. (ED 154 887) P et er son, Gary E., ed. S t a f f Development: M in i Models f o r C o l l e g e Implementation. C up e r t i n o , C a l i f . : DeAnza C o l l e g e , June 1975. (ED 112 958) Raines, Max. F a c u l t y Development I n v e n t o r y . Sta te U n iv e r s ity , n.d. East Lansing: l eaching ±n ±he Community Co ll ege; An Or ie nta tio n . Media Systems C o r p . , 1981. New York: Mi chi gan HBJ