University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Geology In The Junior College

(USC Thesis Other)

Geology In The Junior College

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received 69-13,076 ROTH, Eldon Sherwood, 1929- GEOLOGY IN THE JUNIOR COLLEGE. University of Southern California, PhJJ., 1969 Education, general Geology University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan GEOLOGY IN THE JUNIOR COLLEGE by Eldon Sherwood Roth A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Education) August 1968 UNIVERSITY O F SOU TH ERN CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE SC H O O L UNIVERSITY PARK LO S A NGELES, C A LIFO R N IA 9 0 0 0 7 This dissertation, written by .......... JEldea.Ske.rwo.o.d.R.Q.tli.......... under the direction of his Dissertation C o m mittee, and a p p ro v e d by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by The G ra d u ate School, in partial fulfillment of require ments for the degree of D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y DISSERTATION COMMITTEE ' Chairman TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES..................................... iv LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS............................ vi Chapter I. THE PROBLEM............................... 1 Background of the Study Statement of the Purpose Questions to be Answered Definitions of Terms Scope of the Study Basic Assumptions Hypotheses to be Tested General Procedures Organization of the Remainder of the Study Summary II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 13 The Statistics of Geological Education The Status of Geological Education The Geology Curriculum _ The Geology Teacher Teaching Methods in Geology Geology in the Junior College The Junior College Summary III. THE PROCEDURES........................... 50 Preparing the Questionnaire Securing an Endorsement Revising the Questionnaire The Preliminary Survey Mailing the Questionnaire Interviews with Geology Departments Granting Graduate Degrees The Findings ii Chapter Page Preparing a Summary Summary IV. THE FINDINGS....................................58 Schools Offering Geology The Curriculum Student Enrollment Future of the Program Facilities Used for Instruction Instructional Equipment The Faculty Teaching and Curricular Innovations Summary V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.......................137 Summary Conclusions Discussion and Proposals Recommendations BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................................171 APPENDICES Appendix A. Survey Instruments .................. 183 Appendix B. Directory of Junior College Geology Departments ............. 195 Appendix C. List of Abbreviations................ 228 iii LIST OP TABLES Table Page 1. Outline of Undergraduate Training in Geology........................................ 29 2. Several Suggested Lower Division Curricula . . 31 3- Additional Data Concerning Mineralogy, Petrology, Paleontology, and Field Geology........................................ 66 4. Proposed New Courses in the Junior Colleges of the United States.........................91 5. Number and Distribution of Selected Items of Equipment......................................97 6. Distribution and Quantity of Maps Used in Student S e t s ................................. 98 7. Number and Size of Student Laboratory Collections and the Percentage of the Replying Schools Which Offer the Indicated Course, Utilizing Such Collections...................................103 8. Quantity and Variety of Aerial Photographs Sets in the Junior Colleges of the United States ............................... 10k 9. Other Important Items of Equipment Mentioned by Reporting Schools ...................... 106 10. Ratios of Laboratory Hours to Lecture Hours Used in Computing Teacher Loads ........... 113 11. Other Courses Taught by Geology Faculty . . . 115 12. Fields Other Than Geological Science in Which Junior College Geology Teachers Have Earned Their Highest Degree ......... 120 iv Table Page 13. Scientific and Professional Organizations with Which Junior College Faculty Members are Affiliated ...................... 126 14. Median Annual Salaries of Full-Time Employed Civilian Earth Scientists .......... 129 1 5. Percentages of Replying Schools Experiment ing with Selected New Teaching Techniques.....................................132 1 6. Lower Division Geology Programs at Senior Institutions in Southern California .... 153 17. Minimum Standard List of Equipment for the Lower Division Geology Program .... 164 v LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1. Distribution of Junior Colleges in the United States and in the Six Study Regions ................................... Pocket 2. Number and Distribution of Junior Colleges in the United States Offering Geology . . Pocket 3. Percentage of Junior Colleges in the U.S. Offering Geology, and Percentage Returning Questionnaire ................. 60 4. Schools Offering a Survey Course in Geology................................... 62 5. Replying Schools Offering Physical Geology . 64 6. Replying Schools Offering Historical Geology................................... 65 7. Replying Schools Offering Mineralogy, Petrology, Paleontology, ancT Field Geology................................... 67 8. Other Courses of a Geologic Nature Taught in the Junior College.................... 69 9. Length of Time Geology Curriculum Has Been in Existence............................. 71 10. Percentages of Replying Schools Whose Numbers of Course Offerings has Increased, Decreased, or Remained the Same Since Inception............... 72 11. Student Enrollments Year 1961-1962 ........ 76 12. Student Enrollments Year 196 2-1963 ........ 77 13- Student Enrollments Year 1963-1964 ........ 78 vi Figure Page 14. Student Enrollments Year 1964-1965 ............ 79 15. Student Enrollments Year 1965-1966 ............ 80 16. Student Enrollments Year 1966-1967 ............ 81 17- Student Enrollments Year 1967-1968 ........... 82 18. Future Enrollment Trends ...................... 87 19- Adequacy of Facilities and Projected Improvements ............................... 88 20. Future Curriculum Expansion .................. 90 21. Rooms Used for Geology......................... 93 22. Rooms Used for Geology......................... 94 23* Map Libraries in the Junior Colleges of the United States ............................... 100 24. Geology Museum or Reference Collections in the Junior Colleges...........................101 25- Geology Faculties at Replying Junior Colleges........................................ 108 2 6. Teaching Loads and Overloads Expressed as Contact Hours for Full Time Junior College Faculty Members Teaching Geology........................................ 110 2 7. Teaching Loads Expressed as Contact Hours for Part Time Junior College Faculty Members Teaching Geology .................. Ill 28. Degrees Held by Junior College Geology Faculty........................................ 118 29- Recency of Highest Degree Held by Junior College Faculty Members .................... 119 30. Number of Hours of Geology Courses Taken by Junior College Faculty Members Whose Highest Degree is Not in Geology . . . . . 121 vii Figure Page 31- Attendance at N.S.F. or N.D.E.A. Institutes . 123 32. Salaries Paid to Full Time Junior College Geology Faculty Members (9-10 mo. Basis) . 131 33- Replying Schools Classified as to Adequacy of Program................................ 159 viii CHAPTER T THE PROBLSE As an aid to the development of the subject of this study, the status of geological education in the junior colleges of the United States, the following sec tions are included in this chapter: (1) Background of the Study, (2) Statement of the Purpose, (3) Questions to be Answered, (4) Definition of Terms, (5) Scope of the Study, (6) Basic Assumptions, (7) General Procedures, (8) Organization of the Remainder of the Study, and (9) Summary. Background of the Study Historically, all industries which are exclusively concerned with the extraction of mineral wealth are subject to tremendous surges of activity or "booms1 ’, and, con versely they suffer from periodic slumps. Professions which provide service to such industries tend to undergo like periods of great opportunity and popularity followed by periods when opportunity is low or nonexistent. In the years immediately before the Korean War and continuing through the early 1950's, oil production was carried on at a feverish pace. As the demand for oil lessened following 1 the end of hostilities, the large reserves of petroleum available were considered by most oil companies to be sufficient. Consequently the exploration (geology) staffs of most companies were either frozen at then existent levels or frequently were reduced (26, 40) . Since the petroleum industry employed approximately 60 per cent of all professional geologists this was a tremendous setback for the entire profession. Many geologists, including those of long experience, were suddenly without jobs. This condition was soon reflected by a large scale reduc tion in the number of undergraduate geology majors and a great increase in graduate students in virtually all of the graduate schools of the country (44, 45, 47, 48, 49)• Many of the geology departments dropped from 5° or more bachelors degrees each year to 5 or 6 (6l). The graduate schools were enlarged both by new graduates unable to find employment and young geologists released by retrenching oil companies. By i960 the end of the backlog of trained personnel could be foreseen and the profession as a whole began to worry about a future supply of geologists (14, 15, 6l). Surveys were made by the American Geological Institute and by at least two of its member societies, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists and the Geological Society of America, to determine the number of students in the various classes in an attempt to predict the supply of geologists for the immediate future. The student population surveys have been repeated each year since their inception and the condition and size of the degree-granting departments of geology are well known (44, 45, 13j 14, 15, 16). If all undergraduate students attended the degree-granting institutions first, there would be no question as to our knowledge concerning the future of geology. However, in the past few years the world of higher education witnessed a tremendous increase in the number o_f junior or community colleges operating and an even greater increase in the number of undergraduate students attending them. Since the decision as to what career a student should follow is usually made in his first two years of college, the quality of a student's first contact with geology becomes a matter of primary concern to the entire profession. Even in the largest universities the beginning geology courses serve a recruiting function for the major. If the courses are stimulating, many students will develop an interest in geology. At present almost nothing is known concerning geology in the junior colleges of the United States. Because all sciences including geology are rapidly changing in the quantity and quality of their information and practice and because it was suspected that the quality of education and training might have suffered during the boom days in the attempt for quantity, the required curricula in the major colleges and universities were studied (4l). In these curricular surveys an attempt was made to determine what should make up the geology curricu lum. Today there is a standing body., the Council on Education in the Geological Sciences, which studies the problem and makes recommendations to the senior colleges. Studies concerning geology curricula, however, can never be exclusively concerned with geology as a profes sion. For many years prior to the crisis of the late fifties and early sixties the majority of students enrolled in the beginning geology courses were not geology majors. They were taking the course to fulfill the physical science part of the general education requirements of the school. This preponderance of non-majors has been even more marked since the advent of the great "depression." Geology attracted these general education students for two reasons. First, the beginning course tends to be less mathematical than chemistry or physics, a situation which attracts many social science and liberal arts students, and, secondly, the courses are, if well taught, fascinating to the average student who observes the subject matter all around him (4l). It is because of the latter relationship that geology is one of the best science courses for general education. Scientific method and procedures can be taught as well in geology as in other sciences, but the subject matter often can be made more vivid. Relatively little has been said about this function of geology. There is no information available as to the numbers of students taking geology for this reason or whether the general education function suffered the same decline as the professional preparation function. Statement of the Purpose Because of the absence of knowledge concerning geology in the junior colleges of the United States and considering the present condition of the profession as a whole it is critically important to obtain as complete information as possible concerning this vital, fast grow ing part of higher education. Further, it is important for junior college personnel to have a clearer conception of their contribution to each phase of knowledge in order to improve and enlarge upon this contribution. Therefore the current study is designed to determine the present condition of geological education in the junior college and to ascertain what should be the status and extent of geological education in the lower division. Questions to be Answered The following questions are pertinent to this study: 1. How many junior colleges offer geology? 2. What is the extent of the geology curriculum in the junior college? 3- What is the optimum lower division geology program? 4. What has been the extent of junior college geological education in the past? 5- How many students enroll in geology in the junior college? 6. What trends can be discerned for the future'-of junior college geological education? 7- How well-housed are junior college geology departments? 8. What are desirable standards for housing lower division geology programs? 9- How well-equipped are junior college geology departments? 10. What should be the desirable standards for equipping lower division geology programs? 11. How large is the junior college geology faculty? 12. What is the general level and recency of training of junior college geology faculty? 13- What is the minimum standard of training for teachers of geology in the lower division? 14. Is there a need for updating the education of junior college geology teachers concerning innovations and new techniques? 15- What are the opportunities and inducements for becoming and remaining a geology instructor on the junior T college level? l6. What, if any., curricular and/or teaching innovations are being made in the junior college geology program? Definition of Terms Geological is the term used to refer to courses normally taught in the department of geology as well as other related "earth science" courses. Physical Geology is concerned with earth materials and processes which shape and alter the earth. Historical Geology utilizes the processes consider ed by physical geology but is primarily concerned with the history of the earth, the evolution of the earth, and the evolution of life on the earth. Mineralogy is the study of the distinctive natur ally occuring chemical compounds which form the earth's crust and its economic deposits. Normally it also includes extensive work with crystallography, the study of crystals. Petrology, involves further study of minerals in the aggregate, as rocks. The genesis, structure, and dis tribution of rocks involve the majority of the time devoted to the subject. Paleontology or the science which deals with the life of past geologic periods Is based on the study of fossils and is a subsequent topic in the historical devel opment of the earth. Field Geology involves knowledge gained from all the previously defined studies synthesized and applied to problems in the field. It includes the practical use of such knowledge in the natural habitat of the geologist. Junior College for the purpose of this study refers to any two year, less than baccalaureate granting institu tion listed in the 1967 Directory of the American Associa tion of Junior Colleges (5)• Some of these institutions include branches of senior colleges and some are technical schools. Other definitions will be introduced throughout the study at the time the terms are first used. Scope of the Study The scope of the study is delimited to the following: 1. All junior colleges in the United States listed in the 1967 Directory of the American Association of Junior Colleges and in operation during the 1967-68 school year. 2. The geology department chairman, if such a department exists, or the instructor in charge of geological education at each school offering geology were the only respondents. The scope of the study was limited by the following factors: 1. Because there were no previous studies, the validity of the study depends upon research procedures, particularly upon the cooperation of respondents. 2. In the area of curriculum the ideal lower division program in geology depends upon value judgments. Basic Assumptions 1. A questionnaire that will provide meaningful information can be designed. 2. A sufficient number of responses to this questionnaire will be received to give a representative picture of junior college geological education. Hypotheses to be Tested 1. The number of students taking geology in the junior colleges is extensive and increasing. 2. The proportion of students who plan to become geology majors has not increased materially. 3- Most junior college geology departments per ceive their role to be general education rather than pre-professional training. General Procedures A very short questionnaire, asking only if 10 geology was or was not offered, was prepared and printed on a double business reply post card. This questionnaire was sent to all junior colleges listed in the American Association of Junior Colleges Directory for which suffic ient information concerning their geological offerings was not available. Colleges answering in the affirmative were then sent an extensive questionnaire on the status of junior college geology. The status questionnaire was developed with the aid of a jury of junior college instructors and the staff of the American Geological Institute. After revision, the questionnaire was printed and mailed as noted above. As an aid in securing the cooperation of the respondents, an endorsement for the study by the American Geological Institute was obtained. After the questionnaires were returned, the find ings were analyzed by means of data processing techniques. In addition to the questionnaire, an interview survey of colleges and universities in southern California which offer at least a master's degree in geology was conducted to ascertain what these departments considered to be the optimum lower division geology program. Similar interviews were conducted In the larger junior college geology departments. These ideal programs were then compared with the findings of the questionnaire. Recommendations and conclusions completed the report. 11 Organization of the Remainder of the Study Chapter II summarizes the related literature. Chapter III describes In detail the procedures used in the study. Chapter IV contains the findings. Chapter V summarizes the study and presents conclusions and recom mendations. A bibliography and three appendices follow Chapter V. Summary This chapter introduced the problem of the study. The profession of geology has experienced many periods of great expansion followed by subsequent periods of depres sion; it is currently emerging from one such cycle. In the past only the baccalaureate degree granting institu tions were concerned with the training of geologists, but the rapid increase in the importance of the community college in undergraduate education has made it necessary to consider these institutions in any evaluation of a program. There have been no previous studies of geologi cal education in the junior college. The problem then is to determine the optimum lower division program in geology and to ascertain how much of, and how frequently, this program is being carried out by the junior colleges of the United States. After discussion of the purpose and problem of the study, hypotheses to be tested were presented, along with questions to be answered. Various technical terms were 12 defined and the scope of the study was described. Pro cedures for the study were briefly reviewed and the sponsor ship of the American Geological Institute was noted. The organization of the remainder of the study concluded the main body of the chapter. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Chapter I described the problem of this study: the need to find the current status of the geology program in the junior college and to determine what the ideal pro gram at this level should be. The purpose of this chapter is to review the professional literature relating to the problem. There has been little recent research concerned with the curriculum in higher education (3 6) and no pre vious work on the topic of this study: therefore, the majority of the helpful literature is from periodical articles. Even in these articles the subject has not been specifically limited to the junior college.; rather the authors were concerned either with the overall spectrum of geological education or with some part of the bacca laureate program. Because of this fact the articles apply to the current problem only by inference. The review of the literature is organized as follows: (l) The Statistics of Geological Education, (2) The Status of Geological Education, (3) The Geology Curriculum, (4) The Geology Teacher, (5) Teaching Methods in Geology, (6) Geology in the Junior College, (7) The Junior College. 13 14 The Statistics of Geological Education An understanding of the trends and ways in which the numbers of geologists employed and in training have varied over the past ten to fifteen years is necessary to lay the foundation upon which this study is based. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists, one of the largest of the professional geological associations, was the first to concern itself with geological education when in 1949 it published the first Directory of Geoscience Departments in the Colleges and Universities of the United States and Canada (46). The American Geological Institute soon took over this project and published two editions in 1952, one in 1953., one in 1955., and one in 1957* The latest was published in 1962 (46). Junior colleges or those schools not offering at least a B. A. in geology have never been listed in the Directory. Soon after the Directory was published the AGI started its annual census of the major colleges and universities to determine the supply of geologists. The first census was published as a special report in 1955-56 (45) • For two years, 1955-56 and 1956-57., the number of geology enrollees was increasing but later first the enrollment of juniors began to decline (1957-1958), then that of the seniors (13, 45, 68). The report for 1961 (14, 44) shows the depressed situation continuing with the supply of undergraduate geology students still 15 decreasing and in 1962 (1 5) there were too few under graduate students to accept all of the graduate fellow ships and industry positions available. In 1963 (l6) the trend continued; hut there was a leveling off of the drop in junior class enrollments, and in the 1964 report (47) the AGI could relate that geology graduates were again in demand. The report for 1965 (^8) showed the enrollments to be still low but the 1967 report (49) gives indication that conditions are improving. According to this last report^ enrollment was rising and; in addition; industry was beginning to recruit vigorously again. As with the Directory; the student enrollment census did not survey the junior colleges. The AGI started (1 9 6 8) to canvass the junior colleges and will make them a regular part of future surveys (Letter from Mrs. Bonnie Henderson of AGI). Why the numbers of geologists should have decreased so drastically is described in several articles but is best summed up in the words of B. Warren Beebe; "As a matter of fact; it might be said that we have been too successful. Consider the vast underground stockpiles of mineral and energy resources that we have located in the past fifty years. We have actually worked ourselves out of work" (20). In reality a second problem existed. The schools during the 1 9 5 0's expanded tremendously and were graduating large numbers of geologists (59)• At the time the demand existed but the schools and the profession as a whole had failed to keep in mind the history of industries which exploit natural resources. When supply finally caught up with demand and the reserves of petroleum became sufficient for immediate needs the companies ceased to employ new people for their exploration staffs. In fact, many began to reduce the size of their staffs (2 6, 40). Such restricted opportunity was bound to effect students and it probably will be many years before the discipline of geology again has an attractive power. It is certain that the days when a bachelors degree was sufficient for initial employment are essentially gone. The master's degree is usually required. This fact when coupled with the cautious attitude of faculties will doubtless keep the supply of geologists more in agreement with demand in the future. The demand for professional geologists is increasing (3 1) and will continue to improve in the future (47, 48, 49)• The Status of Geological Education The critical state of the profession as a whole and the training institutions in particular has led the profession into a period of ernest and widespread soul- searching. Virtually every part of the educational program from the curriculum to teachers, and from the individual course to the teaching techniques has been the subject of 17 intense scrutiny and considerable experimentation. In this section the overall situation as described by various authors is explored. One of the best general statements concerning the status of geological education in the United States today was made by Monnett (6l). Monnett said the status is "deplorable" but he then went on to suggest that in reality scientists in other fields have had the same employment conditions as those faced by geologists for many years. Biologists, chemists, and physicists, to mention only a few, were required to obtain at least a master's degree for initial employment but these profes sions, instead of suffering enrollment drops, have been been gaining in numbers. To be properly educated the young geologist today needs so many different courses and subjects that it is impossible to be properly educated in only four years (6l:24). Another comment by Monnett per tains particularly to the topic of this paper. He noted that for the beginning courses the most dynamic teachers must be chosen, the kind that will "sell" the uncommitted student on the romance and excitement of geology. A final observation by Monnett was that the quality of the geology student has been declining because of the vast amount of unfavorable publicity related by geologists and by others acquainted with geology about the discipline. Only a concerted effort by the profession as a whole can correct this negative "image.” A more important article on undergraduate geologi cal education was published in 19^3 (^1)- Its author reported on a study made by the Geological Education Orientation Study (GEO-Study) under the auspices of the American Geological Institute. The GEO-Study divided the United States into six regions and sent teams from each into areas not adjacent to their own to ascertain the status of geological education. The team members were guided by the following thirteen questions. A short abstract of the answers compiled by the teams follows each question. 1. What is your concept of the current nature of geology, its basic tools, structure, modes of operation, and intellectual composition? What do you think the character of geology will be in the future? There was no unanimity of answers to this question but four broad categories can be delineated. (a) "Geology is an art and a science, a part of everyone's cultural inheritance, and an explanation of his environment." (b) "Geology is the study of the Earth. It is a field of science concerned with processes and the solution of earth problems with a framework of geologic history." (c) "Geology is the study of the Earth from the Interior upward and draws upon every other discipline for solution of problems. It is the broadest and most encompassing of the sciences." (d) "Geology is merely physics, chemistry, and 19 mathematics in which the problems solved are Earth pro blems ." 2. As a consequence of your concept of the nature of geology, can you state a coherent educational philosophy for geology? Can you define, to some extent, what kind of geologist is needed? Generally, all teams agreed that principles should govern all teaching and that the geologist's education should be as broad as possible. "in summary, we need people who can solve problems with the tools of modern science and who have a broad base in related science, who know how to think as well as how to do, who have been trained in fundamental principles and ideas, who have broad acquaintance with field work." 3- What do you consider to be the major demands and opportunities for geologists? What new kinds of opportunities are evident and what will be the major demands and opportunities twenty years hence? In answer to this question virtually every specialty commented on new advances and opportunities as well as on the continuation of existing needs. "Most teams found general optimism throughout the country about the future of geology and the demands for geologists. However, there was almost unanimous opinion that few opportunities existed for the geologists holding an undergraduate degree; he must hold at least a master's degree." 4. What should be the orientation of geological education based on your concept and philosophy and 20 how can you translate your ideas into curricular structure and course content? "There was general agreement that classical geology should be retained in hard-core courses but interdisci plinary lines should be crossed with ease and casualness." Students "should not be allowed to become too narrow in their training.,'' and the "general education of the student should not suffer for the sake of specific needs in geology." "Field training should come early in the under graduate training and continue at all levels." It was felt "that there should be less fragmentation and more integration of all geology courses and course work." 5. What should be the aim of an introductory course with relation to general education and pre professional training? Can one course serve all needs? rr «■ Since the answer to this question is most important to the purpose of the present study its answer will be quoted in full in the section on curriculum. 6. What are your methods of teaching? How do you get students to practice being geologists? How do you communicate the role of "geologist" to them? Many suggestions were made concerning individual teaching methods but "it was generally agreed that the most important thing a teacher could do is to show enthusiasm for the subject." 7. How do you make sure the student is clear about what he is expected to learn? "Answers to this question were laconic and 21 generally unsatisfactory." The best results seem to be achieved simply by knowing the students and being with them. 8 . What type of student is the desirable student and how is he attracted? "The best general answer seems to be that it is neither desirable nor practical to closely define a singu lar type of person who should be recruited for geological research." 9- How do you focus your tests, examinations and problems on what you expect the student to learn? Since examinations are at best only a sampling of a student's knowledge, "they should be so constructed and administered that they reflect what the student should learn and measure his achievement." 10. How can one match faculty and facilities to the evolving structure of geological education? There was not much meaningful response to this question but "most departments touched on the need for continuing faculty education so that each faculty member can stay abreast of his field." 11. How does your department adapt its commitment to a broad educational policy to local circum stances and use local circumstances to evolve a successful educational structure? What are its policies with respect to teacher training, subpro fessional curricula and specialized program? "Adaptation to local environment seems in most cases to be automatic, but it is not pursued very purpose fully." Most people realized that such adaptation is a 22 strength not a weakness. Many schools participated in teacher training but few were involved in any form of sub professional program. 12. Do you have any comments about the character of graduate education in geology? This question is beyond the scope of the current study so will not be considered. 1 3. If the educational policies and practices are necessarily diversified to meet essentially local needs, to what extent and by what means can profes sional requirements be defined and implemented? Most of those interviewed opposed special accredit ation but many thought that some form of informal evalua tion would be valuable. The remainder of this report contained descriptions of practices at various schools throughout the country. In addition to the problems discussed in the GEO- Study report the profession of geology is much concerned about where it is going and even what makes up the field of geology today. The once unified science of geology (science of the earth) has splintered into so many special ties that the basic study of geology is really in danger of dissolution. Croneis (30) felt that geology per se should mount a campaign to recapture all these splinters. In some ways this is being done by using the broadened meaning of the anglicized equivalent of geology, earth science. Of course to do this successfully the usual training of geologists will have to be broadened in the other basic sciences. A picture of some of the exciting advances and frontiers available to the properly trained geologist, and some of the advanced techniques likely to be used is given by Cloud (27). According to Cloud such old standard fields as paleontology, economic geology, petrology, mineralogy, stratigraphy and sedimentology, volcanology, and geomorphology will advance in ways that will make them nearly as unrecognizable to the traditional geologist as geochemistry, geophysics, oceanography, limnology, selenology, and astrophysics are already. Cloud also points out the tremendous opportunities, for the geologist knowledge in civil engineering projects and in hydrology. Flawn (37) reinforced this view but noted that more tra ditional geologic means are better suited to the solution of environmental problems than are the strictly quantita tive approaches. There is a final aspect to this discussion of the status of geological education. It is probably most succinctly stated by Hewitt (52) in his article "Why Study Geology?". Hewitt observed that the average man cannot really escape geology; after all he lives on the subject matter and therefore cannot be considered truly educated unless he has studied, at least in the overview, the subject of geology. He argues that geology is truly a cultural course, at least as cultural as history, art, music, or the social sciences. Moss (6 3) tells of other 24 reasons given by the students themselves for becoming a geologist. The "outdoor aspect" of geology was most frequently (28 per cent) named by students. The rest of the reasons were scattered, but the majority of students gave an interest in some phase of geology as their reason for entering the field. The Geology Curriculum Perhaps more has been written on the geological curriculum and its many phases than on all the other subjects considered in this chapter. Most of the articles are limited in scope but a few major studies can be mentioned. Probably the most far-reaching was that under taken by the Geological Education Orientation Study Group and published in two parts. The first part of this study (l4, 17) was partially discussed in the previous section. Of the thirteen questions asked by the study teams, number 5, "What should be the aim of an introductory course with relation to general education and pre-professional train ing? Can one course serve all needs?" is the most important to the subject of the current research. The answer is lengthy but is worthwhile to quote in full. Some of the suggestions for the introductory course are as follows: a. Eliminate the introductory course for majors. This step would be for students who have taken earth science in secondary schools. b. Separate majors and non-majors and introduce special courses for each group. c. Allow advanced students to enter geology after 25 completing assigned reading and examination. d. Institute honors sections for laboratory or recitation periods, or both. e. Use the brightest, most stimulating teachers on the staff and give them time to prepare their material. f. Teach the Earth as a system using an Earth model. Show that this system changes with time. g. Start with the smallest particles of the Earth and put them together. h. Do not attempt to cover the entire field. Re duce the number of subjects and introduce physics and chemistry necessary to understanding. Con centrate on principles used in solving problems and use the problem approach to illustrate princi ples. 1. Do not teach historical geology at the intro ductory freshman level. It can be much better taught as an upper-class or senior subject after the student has enough background to understand its approaches and concepts. j. Dispense with much of the busy work in the laboratory, move to the field, and make the labora tory more problem oriented. Introduce students to modern equipment and techniques. k. Where more than one lecture session is offered, assign students according to background. This problem overlaps others raised in earlier questions. In general, one gets the impression that departments throughout the country are not as con cerned with the introductory course as they should be and that students on the whole are more aware than the teachers are of its deficiencies. Many felt that a single introductory course can serve the needs of students who will become majors as well as those who will take no more geology. The course should be broad in scope and Include physical as well as historical aspects and should stress fundamentals rather than vocabulary. The purposes of the introductory course are to acquaint students in a general way with geologic knowledge, to stimulate Interest and curiosity In geologic phenomena, to show students the aim and scope of geologic work, and to illustrate the scientific method In solving geologic problems. The course should be rigorous and intellectually demanding. Students should be required to read non-textbook sources, write term papers, and think by working on intellectually demanding problems. All efforts should be toward making the introductory course excellent and 26 interesting, as this is the face of geology seen by the public, legislators, and potential majors. There was widespread agreement that a special GEO-Study committee was needed to study the problems of introductory courses, especially historical geology. Introductory courses offered in geology generally are not tailored to well-prepared students but rather to the non-science students. Most large departments teach more than one section in each of the introductory courses; most staff members agree that a large number of students that enroll in courses are refugees from physics and chemistry. With only a little discomfort most will also admit that the courses are designed to appeal to refugees; in justification they point out that the cultural value of geology is insight into scenery for many non-science majors. Many competent geologists believe that the aims and design of the courses as they are now taught are pedagogically good and useful. They point to their value in imparting cultural values and experience in laboratory science to non-majors, in recruiting majors, and in providing an overview of the science on which later courses are built. In added justification, they point to poor preparation in sciences that characterizes many students. Many equally competent geologists are blunt in their criticism of this kind of course. They say the courses should be made more rigorous in the manner of other sciences, and need not survey the whole field of geology. Principles of physics, chemistry and mathe matics should be extensively incorporated into the treatment of subjects such as minerals, rocks, weather ing and mountain building. Historical geology, sterile and dogmatic in its emphasis on description of past stages of the Earth, should emphasize principles and show the way geologists solve problems of a historical nature. Laboratory content characterized as dull, unchallenging, and inspiring in better students little respect for or desire to continue in geology, should be redesigned accordingly. These men believe that those who lack the necessary background should pick it up as they see the need for it or be allowed to fall by the wayside. The course should be rigorous and challenging to the brightest minds. Obviously the aims of the courses will determine the way in which they are taught. However, if they are conceived as service courses for the student with a poor science background and, at the same time, as recruiting grounds for majors, some concessions to allow execution of each purpose must be made; however, such courses may not succeed exceptionally well. 27 Many departments agreed they must cooperate with high schools in training teachers, selecting materials, and writing texts. Geologists must work closely with high-school guidance counselors to keep them aware of opportunities in geology and of the basic needs of students interested in science majors. It is slowly dawning on faculties that students who have had an earth science course in high school will find repeti tion in the introductory geology course. Some recog nized that, should the time come when most students have had a high-school course, the introductory course must change. (4l:16-17) It Is obvious that on this question there are at least two major points of view. One holds that a single good course can serve both geology majors and general education purposes. While the other feels that a special course Is required specifically for the geology major. This dichotomy recurs in many of the articles reviewed and as yet the most desirable answer has not been found. The second part of the GEO-Study report authored by Hambelton et al. (42, 17) has even more significance for the curriculum than does the first. The group asked one major question concerning the curriculum as a whole: "What Ideas, concepts, and techniques should a student master in order to be ready for graduate study?" In answer to this question it was agreed that: The geological sciences include .the understanding of natural materials, three-dimensional relationships over a wide range of scales, physical and chemical processes affecting natural materials, and the his torical and sequential relationships of these process es affecting natural materials, and the historical and sequential relationships of these processes and their products. Observation, theory, experiment, and interpretation should be Integrated, preferably against a background of how geological work is done 28 and how geological concepts are developed. The student should be taught to read the geological literature critically and with understanding, to write and to speak effectively, and above all, to think as a scientist and as a geologist. (42:3-4) To give a student this necessary knowledge at least one new approach was proposed and reported on. The essentials of this approach are described in the following diagram (Table l). Earth materials would include fundamentals of mineralogy, crystallography, petrology, ecology, and the systematic aspects of paleontology. Earth proces ses would be concerned with the mechanisms by which these materials are moved, altered, evolved, etc. Throughout this progressive subject development and increasing sophistication of knowledge, interplay between these two parallel tracks would be achieved by means of problem solving in the field, laboratory, and classroom. Although many conventional courses could be listed under both materials and processes, departure from such courses should be seriously considered. (42:4) A further question was asked concerning the minimum level of attainment in mathematics and supporting sciences. While it was recognized that students planning to enter various specialized phases of geology might have variations in their needs, it was generally agreed that "the undergraduate curriculum should require mathematics through differential and integral calculus (preferably with statistics, and with differential equations if possible); one year of physics (preferably with a classi cal orientation) as an absolute minimum, and two years desirable if appropriate training in physics courses is 29 TABLE 1 OUTLINE OF UNDERGRADUATE TRAINING IN GEOLOGY (Source: ^2:5) GRADUATE SCHOOL _______________ r______________ INDEPENDENT STUDY, HONORS SEMINARS T t OPEN ENDED \ M ft VT M H >j ft o Ph < CP O f f l < ft ft S O o CP co CO < ft o s: M ft cq o CP cu T co o t INTRODUCTORY COURSE (WITH PREREQUISITE SCIENCES) 30 available; two years of chemistry including physical chemistry (analytical chemistry may or may not be desirable depending upon what is available at a given institution)." GEO-Study also agreed that "the ideas and concepts of geology can be organized in a more logical course sequence so as to avoid undesirable repetition and overlap." There is no basic difference between laboratory and field approaches as one is simply an extension of the other and both are essential and must be carefully integrated into the core curriculum. Six possible curricula were proposed and the first two years of each is given in Table 2. Except for curriculum 1 all of these are essential ly the same as the programs now offered at most of the major schools. The emphasis of the second course has teen changed and probably the approach would be altered but in most cases the new curricula above could be offered without having to change the catalogue. The introduction of field programs in the summer after the sophomore year in curri cula 4 and 5 would constitute the greatest change. Of particular interest was GEO-Study's findings on the introductory course listed in Table 2. To the question "Whom should the introductory course serve?" there were two principal answers. Although the introductory course should serve the needs of all students, and departments of geology have an obligation to the non-science major, views differed as to how this commitment could be fulfilled best. One group concluded that a single course, well based, 31 Year 1 2 Year 1 2 Summer TABLE 2 SEVERAL SUGGESTED LOWER DIVISION CURRICULA (Source: 42) Curriculum 1 Introductory Stratigraphy Sedimentation Paleontology Curriculum 2 Introductory Mineralogy (Strongly em phasizing chem.j, phys.j eco nomic orien tation) Curriculum 3 Introductory Minerals & Rocks Curriculum 4 Introductory Curriculum 5 Introductory Materials on Mineralogy- earth (physi- petrology- cal and chemi- geochemistry cal perspec- (chemical tive, models) emphasis) Curriculum 6 Introductory Mineralogy- petrology (silicate chemistry- atomistic terms) Introduce field and laboratory program in cluding in strumentation Elementary summer field course 32 staffed by the best faculty members, and using the best available equipment, could serve the needs of all students. Further, this group agreed that the course should introduce a fundamentally rigorous approach. Another group Indicated that two kinds of introduc tory courses are needed. One course without prerequi sites should be developed to serve the non-science major. This course should be given at a respectable intellectual level and should be culturally or non- technically oriented. A second course should be offered for the science major (including geology) and should draw freely upon background in other sciences. Either course could be taken by a student with earth science training at the high school level, and either course might serve as a base for higher level training in geology. Thus, the culturally oriented student who changes his mind and elects geology should not be penalized unduly. (42:2) Here again we find the dichotomy of thought men tioned earlier by Hambleton in the first part of the GEO- Study report (4l). The answer given by the second group appears to be slightly self-defeating. If both courses are believed sufficient background for the advanced courses, why give both of them? It would seem that both geology majors and non-science majors would stand in need of the cultural approach. Yet another question was posed by the GEO-Study panel, "What should be the character of the introductory course including possible new approaches?" Since this question also bears upon one of the main purposes of the present study its answer is quoted at length. Participants agreed that most traditionally orient ed courses are inadequate and that heavy emphasis on taxonomic aspects of the paleontological record, iden tification of -individual forms, and memorization of events and their details is of questionable value. 33 Serious consideration should he given to a course that is problem oriented, concerned with processes in a geological context, recognized unsolved problems, recognizes that geologic time is one of the great unifying themes of geology, penetrates certain aspects of geology in some depth but does not cover the entire field, and introduces patterns of reasoning peculiar to geology. Some participants suggested that dissat isfaction with historical geology was greater than with physical geology. A course for the non-science major should be designed to prompt students to think and reason scien tifically, present science as an integrated human activity, and provides students with the understanding of a few basic concepts and some perspective regarding processes, magnitudes, rates, and sequences in geology. The group was reluctant to be specific and agreed that wide latitude in approach was necessary. However, they said, the student should be encouraged to solve more problems. The introductory course designed for geology and other science majors should have prerequisites of at least high school chemistry, physics, and biology, and should treat such subjects as the evolution of oceans, the atmosphere, and energy relations in Earth- surface processes, with emphasis on the Earth as a system. An excellent and powerful introductory course can be built around geologic problems and processes that could be outlined and critically scrutinized on the basis of observation, the results of laboratory experiments, theoretical analysis, and geologic reasoning. All groups agreed that the field is as much a part of the laboratory as is glassware and equipment. (42:2-3) To implement such a course or courses would require a long period of thought, planning, and orienta tion for those who would be involved in its teaching. There is some evidence that at least a few departments have been giving serious thought to the ideas and are trying to implement part of the recommendations. A year before the GEO-Study report, McMannis (60) undertook a study of the basic geology curriculum in an effort to evaluate the curriculum at Montana State College He sent questionnaires listing all the courses offered hy the Department of Earth Science with spaces to check* "absolutely essential*" "desirable*" "non-essential*" and "defer to graduate school*" to about 200 geologists in various fields of geologic endeavor. He received a 5^ per cent return and derived a list of courses believed essential by an overwhelming majority (over 80 per cent) of the respondents. These he calls the core program. The courses include Physical and Historical Geology* General Chemistry and Physics* College Math* English Composition* Mineralogy* Eield Geology* and Structural Geology. The last two courses are usually considered upper division* although two of the curricula proposed by GEO-Study (see Table 2) recommended that Eield Geology be given between the sophomore and junior years. McMannis also composed a further list of 12 courses which he designated "important for most geology curricula." These were considered essential by at least 60 per cent of the respondents and included Calculus * Petrology * Stratigraphy* Paleontology Technical Writing* Foreign Language (German preferred)** * * _ , * Surveying * Qualitative Analysis * Engineering Drawing * Economics * Geomorphology* and History . Those courses marked with an asterick are usually offered in the lower division* whereas Technical Writing and Paleontology can be and often are presented in the first two years. 35 The National Association of Geology Teachers undertook a curricular survey in 1961 (7 0) a year prior to McMannis' study. NAGT polled 250 schools and received 228 responses. From this study a list of fundamental courses was compiled. Mineralogy was first, Historical and Physical Geology second, Structural Geology third, then Invertebrate Paleontology, Hand Specimen Petrology, Field Geology, and Stratigraphy. After these many other courses were listed as Important, but the number of schools con sidering the next most important course essential was one- half that for those listing Stratigraphy. The remainder of the NAGT study was concerned with the graduate program and is not applicable. Hendricks (50) conducted a study in 1957 to deter mine the basic science requirements for geologists. He concluded that on the average, 8-10 hours of mathematics and physics, 6-8 hours of biological science, 10-12 hours of chemistry, 4-5 hours of surveying, and about 6 hours of drafting would provide an adequate background. Charlier and Daley (2 5) surveyed 58 of the major university geology departments and composed a list of the 8 most important courses in geology. Their results agree with the studies previously described. Many articles comment on special or limited phases of the curriculum or describe solutions to specific prob lems. Agnew (10) noted the general lack of student preparation for writing accurate., readable, scientific reports. Part of the problem is of course attributable to the secondary schools, but at least some portion of the responsibility must be assumed by the college geology department. Hough (53) also commented on the writing prob lem and reinforced Agnew's belief in the responsibility of the college for the teaching of this important skill. He felt that the requirement of term papers, field trip reports, and course reports would accomplish the desired results. Geology is also a part of general education. Boardman (22) made a strong plea for closer liason between the various departments of science and the faculties in the humanities and social sciences. Campbell (23) writing on "What Every Young Geologist Should Know," concluded that in this shrinking world where the young geologist may have to work virtually anywhere and do almost anything he really should study "everything." Of course this is impossible but it is a strong argument for a broad general education for geologists. Hewitt's (52) concern for studying geology for its cultural background has already been mentioned and Ellison (35) expressed a similar opinion Often in the past geology majors have been rela tively weak in other basic sciences. Hagner (39) and Tullis (77) emphasized the need for more basic science and Phinney (6 9) verified this view in studies at the 37 University of Minnesota. In a similar vein, Hussey (55) warned of the danger of over-specialization for geology majors. Such specialization will soon he passe and the ex-student will be unprepared for the change. Moss (62) after asking if undergraduate geology departments have a future, went on to argue for a strengthened curriculum emphasizing more basic science. Miscellaneous curricular problems considered by various authors which have some significance for this study include the problem of organizing the geology major in a small college. Gates (38) suggested various ways in which courses can be combined so as to reduce the total number of courses offered and still make it possible for a limited faculty to cover the essential material. In an article also discussing the small school problem, Digman (3 2) conducted the only known study on the space require ments for a small geology department. His work was con cerned with a four year program but the results have some applicability to the junior college. A short paper by Parker (6 7) on the engineering geology curriculum is of some Interest here as junior colleges may be involved in teaching the first two years of all types of curricula. Hambleton (43) noted the possible effects that the current spread of earth science courses in the secondary schools may have. He warned that the college departments need to study their own courses in the light of their prospective 38 students preparation and be ready to change and update them. The final aspect of the curriculum explored in the literature concerns various individual courses commonly offered in the first two college years. Albritton, _et al. (12) discussed what an introductory course in geology for the liberal arts major should include. On the same topic, LaPorte (5 8) concluded that the liberal arts major needs depth in some phase or phases of geology rather than breadth to show the techniques or reasoning involved. A similar theme is reported in an abstract in the Bulletin of the Geological Society of America by Norris (6 5)- Seltin (72) reported on one approach to the liberal or general education problem currently being tried at Michigan State University. Probably the most criticized of all the first year courses currently being taught is Historical Geology (42). Beerbower and Dyson (21) boldly asked "why teach it," then answered that it should still be taught but with an entire ly different approach. They felt the course should cover some of the basic problems in geology of an historical nature with reference to critical areas of the world and critical sequences of rock. Dryden (33) cited the ever present need for a good text and the problem of escaping from the infinity of factual details. Concerning Histori cal Geology, Robert LaPleur (57) described one approach 39 that would modify this course usually Intended for general education so that It would provide a more adequate background for geology majors. He added material on sedimentary tectonics, structural evolution of geologic provinces, methods of dating, and the use of stratigraphic nomenclature. Other parts of the Introductory geology course that have received attention include Physical Geology which was integrated with General Chemistry in a first year program (3^)- Hendrix and Pox (51) described in some detail ten different experimental approaches being tried in the introductory course. Agron (11) made a case for an entire ly new course on Mineral Resources for general education purposes while Hurlbut (5^) conducted and reported on a study concerning the content of the elementary mineralogy course, and what it should be. Finally the need for introducing field work into even the introductory course was underscored by Norton and Giese (66) in their article describing an inexpensive field device for use in such courses. The Geology Teacher Not very much has been written concerning geology teachers. John Snyder, the American Geological Institute Director of Education (7^)j noted that "we teach as we are taught." There is no differentiation between the training 40 of those persons planning to be museum curators and those who plan to teach geology in a college. Worse, many colleges and administrations have come to believe that only research and publication are deserving of serious effort by a scientist. To some extent this problem is due to the difficulty of evaluating teaching. Snyder pleaded for the departments to recognize that teaching is a part of their function as well. That a faculty member must both teach and do research is attested to by several reports. Thurston (76), Murray (64), Cooper (28), and Campbell (24), all argued that the two cannot be separated. They assumed and to some extent documented the fact that a teacher must do some research to remain alive and interesting. He must be helping to discover new knowledge if he is to be success ful at imparting to his students the feeling of being on the leading edge of his field. In contrast, a non researching teacher is far too prone to fall behind in his field, and even the teacher doing research may fall behind in areas not directly related to his research. So far no one has come up with a workable solution to the problem of the college professor who uses most of his energy on research and neglects his teaching. Often research seems to be the only road to advancement (7^0- Several suggestions have been made to help the "aging" faculty member (74) to update himself. The primary responsibility is with the faculty member himself. He must read and study continually, and, in addition, avail himself of refresher courses and sabbatical leave programs. The school has a responsibility to help by providing rea sonable teaching loads, as well as time and funds for supporting research. Further, in small schools, team teaching, sharing of faculties, interdepartmental seminars, and sufficient support for attending advanced seminars might all help. The Council on Education in the Geological Sciences (2 9) supported these statements and discussed the need for short courses, summer institutes, etc. to help up date the geology instructor. Hambleton _et _al. (47) came to similar conclusions. The GEO-Study group believed the most serious cause of poor teaching might be the failure of the teacher to use his theoretical background, therefore caus ing its deterioration. Teaching Methods in Geology To evaluate what is being accomplished or experi mented with in geology it is best to consider what innova tions are currently being tried and what experimental techniques have been proposed for the field of higher edu cation in general. Higher education tends to be conserva tive when viewing its own practice so the list of new techniques is not long. In 1963 Brown and Thornton (3) were only able to name ten innovations including Television, 42 Films (locally produced, or professionally done), Language Laboratories, Listening Laboratories, Amplified Telephone Interviews, Taped Lectures, Programmed Instruction, Multi- Media or Audio-Tutorial Methods, Giant Slides (overhead projection), and Video Tapes. All of these, with the exception of the language laboratories and the listening laboratories, could have some application to geological instruction. Johnson (6) mentioned a few of these tech niques in his report on New Directions for Instruction in the Junior College but spent more time discussing various organizations and living plans being tried throughout the country by colleges seeking to improve the instructional program. When the geological literature is consulted to discover what new experimental techniques are being applied few are found. Of course, such aids as color slides, vari ous types of pictures, models, specimens, and samples have almost always been utilized by geology teachers. Televi sion has been used by the University of Southern California 1 (personal communication, Dr. R. 0. Stone) to offer a beginning geology program to the general public in Los Angeles and an earth science course is being offered by closed circuit television at St. Petersburg Junior College in Florida (6:127). Robert B. Johnson of Pennsylvania ■''This same program will be offered by Grossmont College, California, starting September 1968 and by the New York State College system in 1969- State University (56) described what he felt to be the strengths and weaknesses of the technique. He stated that it permits a more flexible program, lowered teaching loads, and had no adverse effect on student learning. On the deficit side there was the loss of student-teacher contact and there was appreciable student resistance. Johnson felt these problems could be overcome by having a part of the class non-televised and by utilizing appropriate broadcast techniques. This same school uses television with a video-tape recorder to help improve the quality of teaching by its own staff, particularly the teaching assistants. Each person taking part presents a lesson or lecture then on the replay can hear and see himself in action. The most extensive list of experimental approaches to the introductory geology course was compiled by Hendrix and Fox (51) who described ten. Most of these involve new organization of the material or very extensive use of field work. These experiments, although not utilizing any of the new media may provide more significant advances. Other proposals described include the use of professional literature for outside reading (18), Norton and Giese’s plea for more field work (66), and Rahm's (7 1) plan for an integrated practical examination for the laboratory portion of the beginning course. Rahm’s examination involved a large map drawn on the laboratory floor with rocks, minerals, fossils, and such other field information as may he needed placed in their proper places. The student is required to draw his own maps together with cross-sections, and a short geologic history of the area from this. Tuttle and Hase {7 8) introduced a similar type of problem for the historical geology part of their begin ning earth science course at Iowa State University. They also introduced the techniques of blow pipe analysis into the physical geology portion to provide more challenge and consequently more interest for their students. A final note on techniques was provided by P. G. Smith of Toronto University (73) who devised a method of using a computer as an assistant to the teacher in pre paring, scoring, and reporting student examinations and in evaluating the efficiency of the test items. Other than the type and frequency of examinations, Smith made no changes in his techniques of teaching. He felt however, and he presented some data to substantiate his conclusion, that more frequent evaluation assisted the students in their learning. In summation, most geologists consider the new techniques and media a valuable aid to their own teaching and not a substitute for excellence. They agree that no new technique or media can replace a skilled, warm, inter ested instructor in the processes involved in higher learning. On the other hand, they believe a really good instructor will continually study and experiment with all the new techniques available so that he can do the best possible job of imparting learning to his younger colleagues. Geology in the Junior College Only three studies have been made which directly refer to geology in the junior college. The most important of these is the report of the National Science Foundation to the Committee on Science and Astronautics of the United States House of Representatives (8). This study,, which embraces the entire spectrum of science in the junior college, makes many points under each of the topics covered prior to the current section, as well as in the final sec tion of this chapter. It includes chapters on student populations, present and projected, sources and numbers of teachers, their specialities, and junior college science teachers as scientists. The National Science Foundation reviewed the current staffing of junior college science departments in as much detail as the information would allow. All information was derived from the National Register of Scientific and Technical Personnel and from the American Association of Junior Colleges' Registry of Junior College Science and Mathematics Teachers. The newly employed members of science staffs were also discussed. This single report is the most complete and significant source on the subject. 46 The second report pertaining to junior college geology was prepared by the staff of the Geology Department of San Bernardino Valley College (4). In it all the geology courses offered in the public junior colleges of California are listed. The work contains a few errors but it is the only study of its type known. Although it considers only one state, the fact that California junior colleges comprise 28 per cent of those offering geology gives it much significance. The report consists of the catalogue descriptions of all courses offered as well as the department chairman's name. The "Directory" is one of the best indications available of the range of geology offered in the junior college. The third article is a short overview of earth science instruction and potential in the community college. Its author (77) noted that many two year college geology departments were as well equipped and qualified as the smaller senior colleges but that such quality is scattered. The Junior College Many books and reports have been written on the general topic of the junior college. All could have some significance to the current subject but only two general texts are mentioned as representative: Medsker's, The Junior College, (7), and Thornton's, The Community Junior College (9). The authors of both of these books agree on 47 the general purposes of a Junior college. These purposes must be kept In mind when studying the topic of this research. They Include lower division transfer programs, general education for those not planning further education, vocational upgrading, remedial programs, guidance, and community service. In addition, most public junior coll eges are committed to an "open-door" philosophy, which allows and encourages all who are 18 years or older to enroll within the restrictions of necessary prerequisites for whatever programs they desire. Such all-encompassing objectives naturally require some modification or altera tion in the attitudes and practices of those teaching and designing courses and curricula. A more tolerant feeling for the uncommitted and frequently under-prepared student must be developed and, in particular, the guidance function of the faculty itself must be appreciated. With the ever- increasing size of the junior college movement and the ever increasing percentage of lower division students attending junior colleges, it becomes more important each year that the geological profession understand and appreciate junior college functions and take advantage of the benefits which excellent teaching at this level can bring. All those in the senior college geology departments might in particular appreciate the recruiting and screening function which the two year institutions can and do perform. Summary This chapter has reviewed the literature related to the problem outlined in Chapter I. As background for the study the rather discourag ing statistics of recent geological education and employ ment were reviewed in the first section. The great ex pansion of the discipline followed by rapid decline in opportunity and numbers, then the period of shortage and slightly increasing opportunity of the present was noted. The effects of the above cycle and the current status of geological education were next considered, especially as they pertain to the baccaulaureate program. The foment in geological education and programs to improve the quality of the geology graduate were studied. Since a major purpose of this study is to develop a recommended lower division geology program, the various curriculum studies were reviewed and new lower division curricula proposed or on trial were considered. No matter what the program, the teacher continues to be one of the most important factors in determining the success or failure of the educational process. Vari ous factors which seem to improve teachers and some of the outstanding needs and deficiencies were described. Experimentation is being done in new teaching techniques and media so a brief resume of those which might hold some promise of applicability to geological 49 education was made. Finally the too brief literature pertaining to geology in the junior college was reviewed and the overall purposes of the junior college were listed to give perspec tive to the study. CHAPTER III THE PROCEDURES In determining the status of geological education in the junior colleges of the United States and in devising an optimum geology program for the lower division years, eight major steps were necessary: (l) Preparing the questionnaire., (2) Securing an endorsement, (3) Revising the questionnaire, (4) Conducting a preliminary survey, (5) Mailing the questionnaire, (6) Conducting interviews with departments of geology granting graduate degrees, (7) Organizing the findings, and (8) Preparing a summary. Each of these procedures is described in this chapter. Preparing the Questionnaire All of the various phases of lower division geological instruction and the materials necessary to accomplish its aims were reviewed and listed. The author used his own experience and background for this initial step. It became apparent that the program could be sub divided into nine major parts or phases. These are the: (l) courses offered, (2) students taught, (3) instructional staff, (4) facilities used for instruction, (5) equipment 50 used, (6) history of the program, (7) future trends, (8) innovations or new techniques in use or planned, and (9) administrative atmosphere. Questions were constructed within each of these categories which were designed to educe the information needed to answer the questions posed by the study. Finally, a tenth section for general comments or remarks was added. The completed draft questionnaire was then reproduced by spirit duplication so that sufficient copies would be available for subsequent steps. Securing an Endorsement In late October, 1967, copies of the study pro posal and the trial questionnaire were sent with letters requesting endorsement of the study to the American Geological Institute, the National Association of Geology Teachers, and the American Association of Junior Colleges. Since the study was to be national in scope it was deemed necessary to obtain the endorsement of national organiza tions rather than local or regional groups. The American Association of Junior Colleges soon replied that it had a policy against endorsing individual studies and the National Association of Geology Teachers replied that it had no policy since this was the first request. Subse quently, at the November meetings of its Board of Director the NAGT decided to adopt a policy against endorsing such 52 studies. In the meantime,, Dr. John Snyder* the Education Director of the American Geological Institute* a national service organization supported by all the professional geological societies* replied that the AGI would be interested in the proposed study. At the Board of Direct ors meeting in late October the Ufficial endorsement of the American Geological Institute was given to the study. Revising the Questionnaire Duplicated copies of the draft questionnaire were submitted to eight geology instructors at junior colleges in southern California. Their criticisms and comments resulted in some shortening of the questions* and several revisions for clarity. On the suggestion of the same geology instructors several new questions were also added. On the advice of Dr. John Snyder the revised questionnaire was then sent to Mrs. Bonnie Henderson* the woman in charge of manpower studies for the American Geological Institute. Mrs. Henderson made many sugges tions concerning clarity and organization all of which were accepted and incorporated into the final questionnaire. At the suggestion of the members of the authors guidance committee the now revised questionnaire was submitted to the Computer Sciences Center of the University of Southern California. Mr. P. Raja Ramdas of the Center made several suggestions on format to make it easier to 53 process the information by machine. Upon completion of this review it was decided to reproduce the questionnaire by printing in order to reduce the overall size. A copy of the__final draft is included in Appendix A. The Preliminary Survey Inasmuch as there was no list of junior colleges offering geology except for a list of California schools that was two years old, it was necessary first to compile such a list. To accomplish this, a simple post card questionnaire was devised. This was again submitted to Mrs. Bonnie Henderson for suggestions. As a result of her advice some revisions were made in the introductory state ment which was printed on the outgoing half of the double return post card. The complete card was printed and a copy is included in Appendix A. The post card was mailed to the chief officer of each of the two year colleges listed in the 1967 Directory of the American Association of Junior Colleges (5)* There was a total of 878 two year colleges listed. After allowing four weeks for returns, a second request was sent on the same card to the l4l junior colleges which had not as yet replied. As a result of the new mailing 111 more replies were finally received for a total return of 848; 96.6 per cent of the junior colleges known to exist were contacted and replied. The final result of the preliminary survey is a Directory of Junior College Geology Departments, which lists 266 schools offering at least one course in geology. In most cases the department chairman or instructor in charge is also listed. The Directory is included as Appendix B. Mailing the Questionnaire The respondents selected to receive the question naire were those persons listed in the preliminary survey as being in charge of geology instruction in their respect ive institutions. Because of this 287 questionnaires were mailed. The questionnaire was accompanied by an intro ductory letter printed on Barstow College stationary (see Appendix A) outlining the purposes of the study and noting the endorsement of the American Geological Institute. A deadline of January 31* 1968 was given for the return of the completed questionnaires. By February 20, 1 9 6 8, 133 or 46 per cent had been received. Of these 133., eight respondents indicated that the preliminary survey return had been in error so the total of schools included in the Directory of Junior College Geology Departments (Appendix B) was revised downward to 279 and the eight uncompleted questionnaires disregarded, leaving 125 on a 45 per cent return. In early March a followup letter along with a second copy of the questionnaire (see Appendix A) was mailed to those schools which had not responded to the earlier inquiry. This second request resulted in 67 more returns for a new total of 1 9 2. Six additional schools indicated that the post card reply had been in error. Again these questionnaires were disregarded and the total of schools in the "Directory" was finally revised to 266. The final total of satisfactory replies was 186. Thus 70.0 per cent of the colleges offering geology returned their questionnaires and are represented in the findings. Interviews with Geology Departments Gran't'i'ng' Graduate Degrees To supplement and update information derived from the review of the literature it was decided to interview the department chairman and other faculty members of several senior institutions in the southern California area. To assure a representative sample it was decided to select all those schools offering at least a master1s degree in geology. Six schools were found to meet this criterion. Three of them are campuses of the University of California; Los Angeles, Riverside, and Santa Barbara. Two are private institutions, the University of Southern California and the California Institute of Technology, and the last is San Diego State College. Interviews were arranged with faculty members of all except the California Institute of Technology. To aid in structuring the interview and to 56 facilitate note taking, a general interview guide was devised (Appendix A). The guide proved to have a limited value as it was hased on the assumption that the curricula at the schools in question were somewhat standardized. The recent conversion of the University of California from a semester to a quarter system of operation caused these schools to drastically revise both their offerings and their thinking with a subsequent lack of relevance for the interview guide. The Findings The findings are arranged in essentially the same order as the questions presented in the first chapter and are answers to these questions. The data is presented as much as possible on maps included in the body of the text. Certain data not suited to graphic presentation is included In tabular form. Necessary explanations. Inter pretations, and summarizations of the data make up the body of the text. The compilation of the data was performed in part by electronic data processing methods at the University of Southern California Computer Sciences Center. The questionnaires as received were first rectified by the author and then key punched cards were produced directly from the questionnaires. These cards became input for the computer which was programmed to compile answers to an 57 extensive list of questions. Most answers were in the form of averages for each school in the nation and in the six artificially established study regions (41, Pig. 1, in pocket). Preparing a Summary In the final chapter the entire study is summarized and conclusions are presented. Recommendations arising from these conclusions and findings were presented and several new problems suggested for later studies. Summary In this chapter the various steps in the process of collecting and presenting the needed information were reviewed. The procedures used in devising and revising the study questionnaire were noted. The mechanics of the preliminary survey were described and the mailing of the main study form was explained. The securing of the endorsement of the American Geological Institute was recounted and the interview methods used to establish norms were discussed. Finally, the data processing tech niques were mentioned and the organization of the findings and the final chapter describedr- CHAPTER IV THE FINDINGS The findings of the study are arranged under eight major subtitles. These are: (l) Schools Offering Geology, (2) Curriculum (including the history of the program), (3) Student Enrollment, (4) Future of the Program, (5) Facilities Used for Instruction, (6) Instructional Equip ment, (7) Faculty, and (8) Teaching or Curricular Innova tions. The last major phase included In the questionnaire, the administrative atmosphere, is Included in appropriate parts of several of the above categories. Within the major sections the findings are presented as answers to the questions asked in the first chapter. Wherever possible, information is presented in map form and the text is confined to necessary explanations and summariza- tions. Schools Offering Geology 1. How many junior colleges offer geology? Of the 878 two-year colleges listed in the 1967 Directory of the American Association of Junior Colleges (Fig. 1, In Pocket) 266 or 30.3 per cent offer geology. Included In this total is all the schools offering at least one course in geology. Their locations are shown on 58 59 Figure 2 (in Pocket), as are the total number of geology departments in each of the six study regions. A few schools offering only a course in earth science are included. Figures 1 and 2 should serve as references for interpretation of later figures in this chapter. The information portrayed on Figure 2 is based on a 96.6 per cent return of the initial post card survey and can be considered complete and accurate. Figure 3 depicts the percentage distribution of the schools in each of the study regions and the percentage of questionnaire return from each. With a 70 cent return it can be assumed that the information reported in the remainder of this chapter fairly represents the overall status of geological education in the junior colleges of the United States. The Curriculum 2. What is the extent of the geology curriculum i.n the junior college? From a preliminary study of junior college catalogs and the San Bernardino College Directory (4) it was deter mined that the most commonly offered geology courses in the two year colleges were Survey of Geology, Physical Geology, Historical Geology, Mineralogy, Petrology, Paleontology, and Field Geology. Information concerning each of these was requested on the questionnaire and the REGION I Percent of n a tio n a l t o t a l 1 2 .4 % P ercen t retu rn in g q u e stio n n a ir e 63 R E GI 0 N UV P e r c e n t o f n a tio n a l t o t a l i.4 * t P ercen t , ireturn ing q u e s tib n n a ir e 9 1 .0 1 5 R E G I O/N r REGION P e r ce n t’ of national P e r c e n t of nation al t o t a l 3 9 .8 % P e r c e n t retu rn in g q u e stjonn qj re *' 6 05. % .. 17.3 erc^ht x.eturnin ue"stfon n a ire EG JON II ' .P e r c e n t - e f - • Sohtft'*.. ito t a l 8.6 % P ercen t “ r e tu r n in g •question n aire 6 \< y % total P ercen t of national — total 17.8‘5£" P e r c e n t r e tu r n in g q u e stio n n a ir e : .7 4 .5 % / Fig. 3 P e r c e n t a g e o f ju n io r c o l l e g e s in t h e U .S . offeriri g e o lo g y (30.3}^ a n d p e r c e n t a g e r e tu r n in g q u e s tio n n a ir e <70*0) (6 - 1 - 68 ) locations of all schools offering them are plotted on Figures b, 5, & and 7- Survey courses in geology are the third most commonly offered* 36 per cent of the junior colleges naming such presentations. This is slightly more than one-half the number that offer the second most common course* historical geology. In terms of enrollment* how ever* it is the second most popular* with over 2000 more students taking it than take historical geology. Nearly three-fourths of the survey courses Include a laboratory and throughout the nation the students take an average of two field trips. Most survey courses are on a semester basis* but schools in such areas as Colorado and the Pacific Northwest typically offer a quarter course. Three junior colleges offer one year courses which are in many Instances equivalent to the physical and historical geology courses combined. A summary of the most important data concerning survey of geology courses is recounted on Figure b. The most popular and prevalent geology course offered by the two year colleges is physical geology. Usually it Is given every semester or term or at least every year. Only two of the schools which offer it do so less than once a year. Generally a laboratory is included which averages nearly as many meeting hours per week as does the lecture. The important data concerning physical geology such as class size* number of hours lectures and Inset 3 Schools 8 Students 597 Class size 15 H rs. lecl./wk. 2.5 Hrs. lab./wk. 2.5 Field trips 5 Schools 5 Students 250 size 42 Hrs. le^tr/wk-^2 . H rs. lab./wk. 2 /* v A Field trips 1 Schools 1 1 Students 489 Class size 25 Hrs. lect./wk. 3.4 HrsT'rabj/wk. 2.6 ield trW 1 VI . Schoois.^5 . Sfrdents'^OSZ... Class size 36/' , ttrs. lect/wk. 3.2 . H rs. lab./wk. 2.6 ^Fipld trips 1: i p B* s- K / Inset 1 LEGEND Course yr setnqt length $ 9 9 . . - frequency ^ g “* le“ ° 0 laboratory included transfers \ . Fig. 4 - Schools offering a survey course in geology Total No. 67 Total Students 6577 Percent with laboratory 59.7 (June 68) Schools 7 Students 986 size 28 /wk. 3,8 /wk. 2.7 trips 3 \ k h n uaen Class size 33 Hrs. lect./wk. 3.2 Hrs. lab ./w k . 2.6 Field trips 5 63 laboratories meet each week,, and the number of field trips taken are pictured in Figure 5- Similar data concerning historical geology are portrayed in Figure 6. As previously stated,, historical geology is the second most commonly offered course and the third most popular in terms of enrollment. Most colleges include laboratories as part of the course and most are one semester in length. Inasmuch, only 43 schools or 23 per cent of those replying offer one or more of the four more advanced geology courses, they were all plotted together on Figure 7- Mineralogy is the fourth most common geology course offered while Paleontology; Field Geology, and Petrology lag far behind in frequency. Additional information, similar to that shown on Figures 4, and 6, is related for each of these courses in Table 3- Because of the small sample, all averages are national rather than regional. As a general rule these courses are one semester in length but three schools offer mineralogy on a quarter basis, and three offer one year courses. One of the four schools offering petrology gives it as a full year course, and one presents a one-quarter course. Paleontology is offered on an academic year basis by one school, for two- quarters by one, for one-quarter by two, and for a semester by the remainder. All field geology courses are one semester long. IV Schools 4 Students 260 s size 20 rs. TsctrAtk. 3.2 H rs. lab./wk. /^Fleld trips 1 ^ Inset 7 Schools 13 Students 497 Class size .21 Schools 27 Students 1416 Class size 32 0 Schools 6# K yi t Student5~463r A • .Class size 27';' — * Hrs. lect./wk. j.1 \ I - © Hrs. lab./wk. :2.8 WM ft y ■« ~*W?j2 2 r , Inset 1 J LEGEND Course atr 2atr. length Schools tudents Class yr. sem. © 0 . ~ w each frequency yriy. less term t > - DO laboratory included © “ non transfer ♦ for geol. majors only 1 tudent Class Hrs H rs. Field trips 2 Fig. 5 - Replying schools offering physical geology. Total no. 145 Percent of those replying 72.9 Total students 9232 Percent courses with lab. 81.4 (3 -6 8 ) 65 K ^/nsef 3 Schools 13 Students 346 Class size 20 I V Schools 3 Students 130 ss size 17 Schools 23 Students 819 Class size 29 lect/w k A wk. 3.0 ield teros'^2 rs. iecrr*w -^ j.0 rs. lab ./w k . 2 rield trips 1 Hrs. lab./wk. 3.6 Field trips 3 -VJ { _ Schools Stddents 1683 ; ..... £ Class size 17 : tfrs. lect./wk.:3.1 Hrs. lab./wk. :'2.7 ± i Field trips ;2 • n \ Schools Students & tudents Class Hrs. lect Hrs. lab Field trips 2 / i Inset 1 LEGEND Course qtr. 2 qtr. length 0 0 sem. yr. 0 © each yrly. less term frequency 111 ^ q q laboratory included 0 ® non transfer l for geology majors only i Fig.8 -Replying schools offering historical geology. Total no. 126 Percent of those replying 67.7 Total students 4 4 5 7 Percent courses with Idb. 73.8 (June 68) 66 TABLE 3 ADDITIONAL DATA CONCERNING MINERALOGY, PETROLOGY, PALEONTOLOGY, AND FIELD GEOLOGY Course Hours lect. per week Hours lab. per week Field trips per course Enrol lment Mineralogy 2.2 3-7 2 522 Petrology 1-5 3-0 7 55 Paleontology 2.4 1.7 2 413 Field Geology - - 120 Fig. 7 - Replying schools offering mineralogy, petrology, paleontology, and field geology. Total schools offering one or more 43. Percentage of those replying 23.1. In s e t COURSE length frequency majors non 1 no sem qtr yr yrly less' term only trans. lab. Mineralogy 0 B H □ > - ♦ 1 j < Petrology IZl H E J □ > - ♦ * j * Paleontology © © © 0 > - * ^ Field geol. £ * " * I (April 68) _______________________________ 68 With some exceptions all of the courses portrayed on Figures 4, ^, 6, and 7 are intended first to satisfy general education requirements. In addition they are also planned in most cases to satisfy the basic portion of the geology major. Only those schools specifically indicating so and marked with a special symbol on the four figures offer a course only for the geology major. On this basis it can be stated that hypothesis 3j most junior college geology departments perceive their role to be general education rather than pre-professional training, is definitely supported by the findings. Several other geology or geologically based courses are also offered at many of the junior colleges. Figure 8 shows the distribution of schools offering such courses. The courses depicted on Figure 8 provide an indi cation of the variety of programs which can be and are offered in a few of the junior colleges today. The number of schools which have ventured from the four standard courses, Physical Geology, Historical Geology, Survey of Geology, and Mineralogy is small. Some of the courses shown are for adult education or enrichment only but most can be transferred to senior institutions at least for elective credit. 3- What is the optimum lower division geology program? The answer to this question is presented as dis- A « Inset nV :*A 4 . \ (JPVfQA N • v m k o r Inset 1 - JLEGEND + Earth Science O Economic Geology © Individual Study A Geomorphology 0 Oceanography _ . , „ , „ Rocks & Minerals Regional Geology Courses x soils N S " t . h w esl 0 S ' ” 0" -A. Survey of Chem.-Geol. 0 Structural G eology 0 Stratigraphy + Photogrammetry t J- Groundwater D Deserts R Rocky M ountains W Geology in W orld Affairs Fig. 8 - Other courses of a geological nature offered in the junior college [M arch 1968) Inset 3 IV % ... /VH- - * ( a a b A G s % ^ k+4- m i \ □ Geophysical Techniques Geologic M a p p in g $ Geologic Term inolo a Engineering Geolog 5 M ap Drafting A Petroleum Geology cussion and proposals in Chapter V. 4. What has been the extent of junior college geological education in the past? In some cases the inadequacies of the curriculum revealed in the preceding paragraph are due to the restricted time interval the curriculum has been in exis tence in the institution, or; even more likely, to the short time the school has been in operation. Figure 9 presents the basic data concerning the age of geology curricula in the junior colleges of the United States. The first junior college known to offer geology was Christian College at Columbia, Missouri which instituted a program in 1870. Generally the curriculum has been in existence less than ten years. Only Region VI has an older mean starting date than the average, a fact which helps to explain the more abundant offerings of the curricula. One factor should be noted concerning the data of Figure 9- Over one-fourth of the respondents did not know the date of inception of the program. Generally it is safe to assume that instructors at schools with older programs would be likely to check this answer so the actual dates are probably older than given. Another facet of this question should be considered (see Fig. 10). After the geology program was initiated, has it been expanded, decreased, or allowed to remain the same size. On a national basis, and in Regions III and IV, ? V « Me<jn startirig"-year..;l 'Y ear f ir s t o f fe r e d ;1917 O ver .10 y e a r s 3 7 X ^5 to 10 y e a r s .14 X *2 to y e a r s ; ;12 % L e s s th a n 2 y e a r s 12 X l& know n \ 2 5 X : : IV M ean s ta r t in g y e a r 1£i58 Y ear first: o ffe r e d 1 9 4 6 O ver 10 y e a r s 20 X ; tp 10 y e a r s ”'Y 0‘X'...... 2 to 5 y e a r s 2 0 X ’• L e s s th a n 2 y e a r s 10X‘ II! I Mean s ta r tin g y e a r 1964 Moan s ta r tin g y e a r 1963 Y ear f ir s t o ffe r e d 1953 Year fir s t o ffe r e d 1948 O ver 10 y e a r s 3 X O ver 10 y e a r s 19 " 5 to 10 y e a r s 12 X 5 to 10 y e a r s 5 ! 2 to 5^ /y& ars 27 X 2 to 5 y e a r s 2 4 ' th a n 2 y e a r s 30 X L e s s than 2 y e a r s 133% knowp> 2 7 X Unknown f / / / v • • I Unknown 4 0 X ............ •••*•• : 2 2 2 2 ? is ./ Fig. 9 - L en gth of tim e g e o lo g y curriculum h a s b e e n in e x is it e n c e . M ean s ta r tin g y e a r - 1 9 5 8 Year f ir s t o ffe r e d - 1870 O ver 10 y e a r s - 2 3 .6 X 5 - 1 0 y e a r s - 1 0 .8 X 2 - 5 y e a r s - 1 8 .8 X L e s s th a n 2 y e a r s - 2 1 .0 X U nknow n - 2 5 .8 X , L , (M arch 6 8 ) Mean s ta r tin g y e a r 1957 Y ear firjst o ffe r e d 1870 O v e f d O - y e a n s 23 .X : - 5 to ;10‘y e a r s 6 X: . 2 t o : 5 yec£rs 11 S| L e s s ; th a n 2: y e a r s 20 5 5 U nknow n • : ' f “ ‘Mean sta r tin g yea r Year f ir s t .o ffered -..-'1961 A »« ct«* •> * *.* I i -OVjOr 10 *.y e a r s OX > r 5 tjo 10 y e a r s 14' 2 to 5 y e a r s L e s s th an £ y e a r s >29 X Unknown : .14 X In c r e a se d D ecrea sed ia Unknown I n c r e a s e d D e c r e a se d S ta tic U nknow n I n c r e a s e d D e c r e a se d S t a t ic U nknow n I n c r e a s e d D e c r e a s e d S t a t ic Unknown ¥ i n c r e a s e d ” " D e c r e a s e d Statifc U nknow n I n c r e a s e # pe^asQd1 ”" S t a t i c U nknow n F ig . 10 - P e r c e n ta g e s of replying s c h o o ls w h ose n u m b er of c o u r s e o ffe r in g s h as in c r e a s e d , d e c r e a s e d , o r remained th e s a m e s in c e incep tion. N a tio n a l - I n c r e a s e d 4 5 % D e c r e a s e d S t a t ic Unknown (M arch 6 8 ) 73 a majority of the two year colleges expanded their curricula whereas in the remainder of the regions at least one-half of the schools maintained curricula of the same size. In no part of the country has a majority of the schools decreased the size of the geology curriculum. During the period from 1955 to i960 when the senior colleges throughout the country were suffering decreases in geology enrollment the junior colleges suffered no corres ponding reduction. Of the Jb schools offering a geology program before 1955 only 1 5, or 20 per cent, suffered any reduction in enrollment. It must be emphasized however, that the enrollment figures for the senior colleges pertain to the last two years of the program (1 3* 1^* 1 5.....) and that there is no information available on the enrollment situation at the lower division level. Another program initiated during the last 8 to 9 years is the Earth Science Curriculum Project designed for use in the secondary schools. In an effort to determine what, if any, effects this program has had on the junior college level, it was asked whether there had been any changes in enrollment or curriculum as a result. Only 12 per cent noted any change in enrollment while 5^ per cent reported none and 3^ per cent did not respond to the question. Exactly the same percentages were obtained concerning curriculum changes brought about as a result of the advent of the ESCP program. 74 The attitude of the administration of a college, especially of a junior college which is likely to he strongly dominated by the administration, is an important factor in the development of any curriculum. To determine the effect of administrative influence five questions were asked. First the respondents were requested to note whether their administrations were very interested, slight ly interested, neutral, or opposed to the geology program. Only one school felt that the administration opposed the program while nearly one-half (47.4 per cent) considered the administration to be very interested in the geology curriculum. Slightly over one-fourth (28.5 per cent) judged the administration to be slightly interested and 23-6 per cent felt that the administration was neutral. The second question concerned the adequacy of funds. Over two-thirds (69 per cent) believed funds to be adequate and 31 per cent considered them to be insufficient. It is probable that a few of the former group were also short of funds but felt that they had received a fair share of what was available. In this same vein the respondents were queried as to whether or not they were restricted as to field trips. The percentage of replies corresponded closely to the previous question, with 66 per cent answer ing no and 34 per cent yes. In some cases the restriction was only that they use school-owned transportation. To determine the independence of the faculty with regard to standards the fourth question asked if there was a grading policy. Only 17 per cent replied in the affirma tive while 83 per cent stated that no policy existed. Generally it can be stated that faculties are free to determine their grading standards. Finally, it was con sidered desirable to determine what effect the college's counseling service might have on enrollments and, as a consequence, the strength of the curriculum. Over half (54 per cent) considered the counseling service to be neutral, whereas 37 per cent replied that the counselors at their schools encouraged the students to consider geology as a profession. Only 9 per cent stated that the counselors discouraged the student from considering the profession. Student Enrollment 5 . How many students enroll in geology in the junior college? The answer to this question was sought for the current year and for the six preceeding years. Both the total number of students (unduplicated) in all geology courses and the number of students who declared themselves geology majors were requested. The replies were summarized and the data presented in Figures 11 through 17- In the seven years depicted on these drawings the total number of students increased from 8364 to 26,861 or slightly in IV T o ta l 130 M ajors 2 P ercen t to ta l 1.5 % 5 0 % T o t a l 2 7 5 M ajors 5 P e r c e n t t o t a l 1.8 No r e p ly 17 3 S T o ta l 8 6 2 M ajors 3 P e r ce n t to ta l .3 X No r e p ly 3 3 2 ; vi-'---,.... T o t a l / 5 3 9 3 /M a jo r s / BC1 "^- ••P ercen t t o t a l 1.6 X No r e p ly 2 7 X Total Majofs Percent1 *-total .1*2-35* 3 3 X T o ta l 5 8 0 M ajors 1 P e r c e n t t o ta l 1.72 No r e p ly 3 3 X F ifl. 11 - S t u d e n t en ro llm e y e a r 1961 - 1 9 6 2 . N a tio n a l T o t a l M a jo r s P e r c e n t t o t a l N o r e p ly (M arch 6 8 ) 8 3 6 4 1.3 X IV T o ta l 128 In crea se from 6 1 -2 ( -1 .5 S ) ia io r s 2 N o r e p ly T o ta l 8 3 0 T o ta l 2 8 6 in crea se from 61-2 (-3.7ZJ Increase from 61-2 4.0 % M ajors 3 M ajor? No r o |ily w _ ^ 5 7 £ No r e p ly 2 9 : T o ta l /7 4 0 8 /I n c r e a s e frocn 6 1 - ; -M ajors • 102 P e r c e n t t o t £ l 1.4 —. N o \r e p ly • 25 T otal •m crc& se. from 61 - 2 M ajors-— P e r c e n t t o t a l 9 .3 % .... .14. ■••••. 1.0 S " 3 5 % j T o ta l 1010 Inc>jsas6 fro m 6 1 -2 74.1 M ajors 5 P e r c e n t t o t a l .5 % No r e p ly F ig. 1 2 - S iu d e n t e n r o llm e n ts y e a r 1 9 6 2 - 1 9 6 3 N a tio n a l T o ta l 1 0 8 9 1 I n c r e a s e from 6 1 -2 29.3 % M ajors 1 2 9 P e r c e n t t o t a l 1 .2 % No r e p ly 3 0 % (M arch 6 8 ) T o ta l 1 4 4 e a s e from 6 2 - 3 12.5 X Majo'rs""*'- 2 P e r c e n t t o t a l N o r e p l y T o ta l 9 1 4 T o ta l 190 In crea se from 6 2 -3 10.1 % In c r e a se from 62-3 ( M ajors P e r c e n t to 3 M ajors 0.3 % P e r ce n t t o ta l 5 0 2 No r e p ly 4 3 %' rvR...... « T e t a l l7 0 S T -P j I n c r e a s e from 6Z -3 K a X f e Majors P e r c e n t t o ta l No r ep ly 112 1.6 X 2 5 X 1310 In crease* from. 6 2 -3 2 S # X * " AO T o t a t £ Increase*from ' 6 2 - 3 M ajors P e r c e n t to S a l No r e p ly 13 81 12-.4S*: 14 1.6 % L 3 2 Majors P e r ce n t tortfll No r e p ly 17 S F ig . 13 - S t u d e n t e n r o llm y e a r 1 9 6 3 - 1 9 6 4 N ation al T otal I n c r e a s e from 6 2 - 3 . M ajors P e r c e n t t o ta l No r e p ly (M arch 6 8 ) 11036 1.3 X 1 4 4 1.3 X 3 0 X T otal 2 2 0 r e a s e fr o m 6 3 - 4 5 2 .3 % M ajors -— _ 5 P e r c e n t t o t a l No r e p ly T o ta l 1 3 1 8 T o ta l 2 4 6 In c r e a se from 6 3 - 4 4 4 .2 % In c r ea se from 63j^*% 2^5 M ajors 5 M ajors I \ 6 e r c e n t to ttft-^ . 0.435 P ercen t to ta l NoTVeWv^/ 27 % No r e p ly 33 3 5 { Vi*- . T otal /8? S B ‘ In crea se from 6 3 - 4 2 M ajors PerOent to ta l No reply 22 TofdTY ln c r e a s e * ‘TKom 6 3 - 4 M ajors P e r c e n t t o t a l No tfeply 1 6 1 4 I n c r e a s e fr0'm ..63^4...23.2 M a jo rs:" .;’ " ‘ 12- P e r c e n t to ta l 0.7. - r Total Np rep ly - S t u d e n t e n r o llm e n ts y e a r 1 9 6 4 - 1965. N a tio n a l T o ta l I n c r e a s e from 6 3 - 4 ' M a jo rs P e r c e n t t o t a l No r e p ly (M arch 6 8 ) 13646 2 3 .6 188 1 .4 3 5 2 8 % II T otal In crea se M ajors P ercen t to eo ly T o ta l T o ta l In crea se M ajors P ercen t to ta l No r e p ly n c r e a s e from 64 30.6 S i P ercen t to ta No r ep ly / vr- . Total-’ 504 9 4 In c r e a se from 6 4 -6 19.8 o MajoVs / 191 vlPerceh.t to ta l ? 1.8 % No r e p ly 16 % y | V T otal In crea se :'from M ajors Percent to ta l No replay T otal ^ 1851 lncreqae.-:frpm ’64-8*-. M ajors 3e r c e n t total**- No r e p ly ’ 2, Fig. 15 - S tu d e n t e n r o llm e n ts y e a r 1 9 6 5 - 1966. N a tio n a l T o ta l I n c r e a s e fro m 6 4 - 5 M ajors P e r c e n t t o t a l No r e p ly (M arch 6 8 ) 1 7 2 6 7 2 6 .5 271 1.6 % 21 % T o t a l 581 Total 143.1 % In crease 4 M ajors 0.7 s% P e r ce n t t o t^ l %Z % V *-Nov^ 2338 T otal 1223 35.8% In c r e a se from 6 5 -6 ^ 3 5 .6 2 5 30 M ajors 1.3% P e r c e n t to ta l ( \17% 13 % No rep ly from 6 5 -6 from 6 5 -6 n c r e a se P ercen / VI-' . . d T o ta l .12064 I n c r e a s e from 6 5 t‘ 6 16.9c -%-<r Major.s s i i " ^ P e r c e n t to ta l No rep ly 2.0 % 12 % ^ '■■■■/•W. . « “• 2 6 6 0 * * • Total I n c r e a s e _ ;fro m 5 5 -6 M ajors P e r c e n t t o ta l No r e p ly ” Total In c r ea se ;'i1 rom -65r6.. 43. , . * • L Majors \ 3 P e r c e n t tot aft Mo r e p ly 13 Fig. 16 - S tu d e n t e n r o llm e n ts y e a r 1966 - 1 9 6 7 . N a tio n a l T o t a l I n c r e a s e from 6 5 - 6 M ajors P e r c e n t t o t a l No r e p ly (M arch 6 8 } 2 1 3 6 1 23.7 3 8 6 1.8 11 % IV T o ta l 5 7 3 In crea se from 6 6 - 7 (-0.003% ) 2 P ercen t TStut-------------------------0.4 % No r e p ly T o ta l . - -15923 In crea se from 66-7- 32. Majors-. / 2 7 9 i'ipercen.t to ta l : 1.8 % , No r e p ly ; 8 X ^ T o ta l In c r e a se from 0 6 - 7 M ajors P er ce n t tb ta l No re p ly Fig. 17 - S tu d e n t e n r o llm e n c u r r e n t y e a r 1967- 1968 N a tio n a l T o ta l I n c r e a s e from 6 6 - 7 M a jo r s P e r c e n t t o t a l No r e p ly (M arch 6 8 ) 26861 25.7! 4 8 0 1.8 5 5 10 % Total * 2 5 7 3 T otal 1709 In c r ea se from 6 6 -7 10.03 Increase from 6 6 -7 39.7% M ajors 6 7 M ajors P ercen t t o ta l 2.6% P ercent to ta l 1.5% -fp 2 8 .? £ ... T otal 3 2 5 5 13.1 & K 7 In c r e a se ..fr .6 m -5 6 -7 -* -.^ 2 74 jors • * 2.6 W s / P ercen t to ta l 03 ro i 83 excess of 31° per cent. The mean increase from year to year was 21.7 per cent with only the year 1963-64 showing an increase of less than 23 per cent. Region VI consist ently produced well over one-half of the total student enrollment in geology for the nation. The state of California produced the bulk of Region Vi's students. These enrollment figures and the large,, persistent increase strongly supports hypothesis 1 which held that the number of students taking geology in the junior college is ex tensive and increasing. The second hypothesis, that the proportion of students who plan to become geology majors has not increased materially, is also supported. As the general enrollment has increased so has the number of students planning to major in geology. However, few junior college geology students plan to be geology majors. On the average 98.5 pe*1 cent of all students in junior college geology classes enroll for the purpose of general education. Therefore the proportion planning to become majors has not increased. Unfortunately there are no published figures concerning lower division student distributions in the senior colleges for comparison, but from impressions gained talking to senior college faculty members it seems likely that they are comparable. Although the data outlined in Figures 11 through 17 are quite large, it must be remembered that they are 84 based on a 70 per cent return of the questionnaire and that from 10 to 31 per cent (mean 19 per cent) of the returned questionnaires left the enrollment question un answered. It is possible for the actual enrollments to be 50 per cent higher than those given. The last part of the student enrollment section of the questionnaire concerned the schools to which geology majors transferred and the numbers of students who did so. Unfortunately the question was poorly designed and the results as a consequence are uncertain. A majority of the colleges (52 per cent) answered that they transferred students to at least one school. The numbers varied from 1 to 20 students with the average being 3 students. The second school (36 per cent answered) and third school (34 per cent answered) If listed received approximately 2 and 1 students respectively. After the first three places., only 7.4 per cent replied that their students had transferred to other schools. The maximum total numbers range from 1 to 15 transfers. No average numbers would be meaningful since the students were spread through several un-named schools. A study of the schools listed as transfer institu tions reveals that most two year college students stay in their home state and transfer to the nearest state college or university. A good response (64 per cent) was received on the 85 question concerning academic difficulties after transfer. Only 8.4 per cent (10 schools) stated that their students had any academic problems after transferring. The usual small, temporary drop in grades in the first term was probably not counted by the respondents. A rather large number noted that they did not know or had no way to obtain such information. It would seem that some better means should be devised so that there is "feedback" to the junior colleges concerning the further progress of their students. This would be feasible because most junior college transfers are to state institutions within their home state. The schools were also queried concerning other difficulties transfer students might have. Only seven responses were received including one which humorously complained that all the girls quit geology to get married or became airline hostesses. Two commented on difficulties with other science courses and foreign languages and two cited financial problems. Two other schools mentioned counseling problems although they did not specify whether it was the fault of their schools or the four year institution. Future of the Program 6. What trends can be discerned for the future of junior college geological education? 86 Enrollments, facilities, and curriculum are the three areas which most profoundly effect the future of any science curriculum. To determine the future enrollments each respondent was asked to indicate whether he expected a large Increase, a steady Increase, no increase, or a decrease in geology enrollments. The results are recorded in Figure 18. Only one school neglected to answer this question and an overwhelming majority predicted that their program would have a steady but not very rapid Increase in enrollment. Approximately one-eighth of the respondents expected large increases and a slightly greater number expected no increase. A few of those expecting no increase stated that if more faculty or better facilities were available, they could expect a large increase In enrollment. Only one school predicted a decrease in enrollment. These findings help to support hypothesis 1 for future years. The adequacy of facilities is presented in Figure 19 and is further discussed in Chapter V. Presently a little less than one-half of the reporting schools consider facilities adequate for their projected programs. This means, of course, that a little over one-half of the schools consider their facilities inadequate, but to offset this, exactly the same percentage (54 per cent) soon expect to have new or improved facilities. Unfortunately not all of the institutions listing their facilities as inadequate have new housing planned. Slightly over 9 per cent of the 87 *N-In se t 3 , Large increase Steady increase t e a s e ^D ecrease lore m ajors 0 X Large increase 9 X Large increase 1 0 % 70 X Steady increase 58 X Steady increase 71 X 30 X No in crease 18 X No in crease 0 X D ecrea se 0 X D ecrease f o x -T\ More m ajors_ _ 36 X More majors 29 » 0. 0 /: & 0 " E T ■ / n s e t 1 ____ LEGEND 1L4I # Large in crease □ S teady in crease 0 No in crea se A A d e c r e a s e t More d ecla red geo lo g y majors Fig. 18 - F u tu re enrollm ent tren d s. Replying schools expecting: A la r g e in cr ea se 13 X A ste a d y in cr ea se 70 X No in c r e a s e 16 X A d e c r e a s e 0.5 X More d e c la r e d g e o lo g y majors 33 X No r e p ly ____________________________ 0.5 X . w j ' '4. 0 Large increase 1 2 Steady increase"‘73 No in crease • 15 Mere majors ^ \ ' eSjA. \ t I'. C ' Large ihtfFedse 6 X Steady in crease 79 X No in crea se 12 X D ecrea se 3 X More majors 30 X " • , ^ \ j 3 y^Large increase 14! '* Steady increase 79) *0 V n o in crease 7X D ecrea se OX More majors 36 X (March 68) 88 IV Adequate Inadequate ^•/nsef 3 Adequate 39 X In adequ ate 61 X New exp ected 64 X Adequate 30 X Inadequate 70 X New expected ! cted 40 X o">V.L/ b " A D A dequate - v 5 . f i . X fhadequate • ' 44 X * \ L ^ ew expected 46 XJ 1 if to .□ E l 0 . ; Inset 1 / LEGEND Present facilities □ A d eq u ate £ In adequate New facilities ■ 4 E xp ected Fig. 19 * A d e q u a cy o f fa c ilitie s and p ro jected improvements A d e q u a te fa cilities 4 6 X In adequ ate fa c ilitie s 5 4 X New fa cilities e x p e c te d 54 X Adequate 50 5 nadequate 50 X ew expected 64 X A dequate Inadequate New exp ected (M arch 6 8 ) 89 schools with adequate conditions expect to have new facilities, leaving the same percentage of inadequate con ditions persisting, with no expectations of relief. Of the factors which would substantially affect the future of geology at a college, the field of curriculum is the last to be considered. The junior college geology departments were asked whether they planned to add new courses to their program and, if the answer was yes, to name the course. Results from the first portion of the question are depicted on figure 20. A majority of the schools (55 per cent) anticipate adding new courses to their programs. The most commonly planned courses are those included on the ideal list of necessary courses. Table 4 lists the proposed courses with the number of schools considering them in parentheses. Where a labora tory is mentioned separately, it means that the laboratory is to be added to a preexisting lecture course. Since many of these courses are for the enrichment of the community which the college serves it can be seen that a greater percentage of the geology departments will soon be contributing to the community service function of their community colleges. In addition, the large number of schools planning to add mineralogy contributes to the strength of the basic curriculum and brings a far larger number of schools closer to a two year curriculum. 90 ^ Inset 3 New courses planned 76 X New courses planned 52 X None planned 24X None planned 48 X New cou rses planned 20 X None planned A .tfew courses'jSariBedM52X A None planned 38 A A \ : Inset 1 J ~ \ H ' W LEGEND A New c o u r s e s planned 0 No new c o u r s e s planned es planned None planned 57 X & Fig. 20 - F u tu re cu rricu lu m e x p a n s io n . New c o u r s e s p lan n ed 55 X None plann ed 4 5 X (March 6 8 ) c o u r s e s planned planned 91 TABLE 4 NEW COURSES PROPOSED BY THE JUNIOR COLLEGES OF THE UNITED STATES Humber Number Course of Course of Schools Schools Survey of Geology (ll) Physical Geology (6) Historical Geology (20) Mineralogy (32) Paleontology (13) Geomorphology (15) Geology of the National Parks (5) Oceanography (3) Economic Geology (2) Rocks and Minerals (2) Engineering Geology (2) Meteorology (2) Lapidary Work (2) Geology of the Western States (l) Problems in Geology (l) Regional Geology (l) Sedimentation (l) Geology of Kentucky (1) Survey of Geology Laboratory (l) Physical Geology Laboratory (5) Historical Geology Laboratory (6) Petrology (7) Field Geology (7) Geology of California (6) Maps and Aerial Photos (3) Physiography of the United States (3) Earth Science Techniques (2) Local Geology and Pollution Problems (2) Mining Technology (2) Structural Geology (2) Petroleum Geology (l) Gemography (l) Stratigraphy (l) Ecology (1) Earth as a Planet (l) Conservation (l) Introduction to Geophysics (l) Petroleum Engineering (1) 92 Facilities Used for Instruction Despite the inadequacies delineated in Figure 19, the number of rooms devoted to the teaching of geology in the community colleges of the United States is impressive. Question 7 asked: 7. How well-housed are junior college geology departments? The question was partially answered in the previous section but the basic information concerning the housing of the geology program is depicted in Figures 21 and 22. In the replying schools* 312 rooms are used at least a por tion of the time for geology. Only one-quarter of these were designed specifically for geological study and 28.5 per cent of them are used for geology only. Figure 22 depicts the type of activity for which the rooms are utilized. The largest number* 38.1 per cent* are used for both lecture and laboratory. One-third* 33-4 per cent* of the rooms are for lectures alone while 28.5 pen cent are utilized specifically for laboratories. The most common number of rooms per school is 2 (85 schools* 45*7 per cent) with one room per school being next (83 schools* 44.7 per cent). Five is the maximum number of class rooms (either lecture or laboratory) with only 2 schools* 1.1 per cent* devoting so much space to geology. Four schools* 2.2 per cent* utilize four rooms and twelve schools* 6.5 per cent* have three rooms devoted to 93 < "s *Inset j Total 34 - 15 X Exclusively 3 * 15 X Designed for 4 Total Exclusively Designed for Total Exclusively -Unsigned for Inset ex OX 2 X • - . . w j ; m/i : 0 [A r a t a l ‘ 133___n ’ Exclusively 45 -3 5 XL x ' • $2-4o£/7 rIn s e t 1 , J LEG END Number Exclusively Designed^ of rooms for geology for geology /T otal 26 ixclusively 3 - 12? •signed for 2 - 8 X n Fig. 21 - R oom s' u sed for geology. Total Exclusively Designed for (March 6 8 ) 78 -25.5ri 88 - 28.5 Designed for 22 - 42 X 94 < N - Inset 3 Lect. & lab. 20 - 3 7 * Lect. only 17 - 31.5 X Lab. only 17 - 31.5X 5 4 X 31 X 15 X ■ Lect. & lab. 8 - 2 4 X Lect. only 15 - 4 4 X Lab. only 11 - 32J» Inset Fig. 2 2 - Rooms u sed for geology ; Lecture & laboratory Lecture only Laboratory only L ect. & lab. L e c t. only Lab. only 3 0 - 58 X 1 2 * 2 3 X 10 - 19 X 104 - 3 3 .4 X 89 2 8 .5 X (March 6 8 ) geology. As previously mentioned, 71-5 pe^ cent of the rooms used for the study of geology in the community colleges of the United States are utilized for the instruction in other subjects. Virtually all, 94.3 per cent, of the geology lecture rooms are shared with other departments and 80.5 per cent of the combined lecture-laboratory rooms are shared. Only 47-2 per cent of the laboratories are utilized for subjects other than geology. Of the rooms designed for geology (25-2 per cent of the total) only 50.0 per cent are shared with other subjects. Whether this is due to the specialized nature of the rooms or to high utilization by the geology depart ment is not known. A higher percentage of laboratories, 47.2, were designed specifically for geology than were any other types of rooms. Lecture-laboratory combinations were designed specifically for their purpose in 32.8 per cent of the cases while only 13, or 12.5 per cent, of the strictly lecture rooms were so designed. 8 . What are desirable standards for housing lower division geology programs? The answer to this question is presented as Discussion and Proposals in Chapter V. Instructional Equipment 9- How well equipped are junior college geology departments? In order to educe the answer to this question a list of major items of geological equipment was composed with spaces to indicate the number owned. A companion list of other less vital apparatus with spaces to indicate whether or not they were available was also included. The results of these questionnaire items are presented in Table 5- All items in the first list, with the exception of petrographic microscopes and Jolly balances (both owned by slightly over 40 per cent of the schools) which are normally used in upper division courses or research, are owned by over one-half of the responding schools. Equip ment on the second list mentioned above is available at fewer schools. In addition to the more sophisticated equipment mentioned in the previous paragraph, maps remain one of the most important tools of geology. As a consequence, vir tually all beginning geology courses require map study. Table 6 shows the percentage of schools having special sets or collections of maps intended specifically for student laboratory study. The mean number of map holdings per school is 458. The number of maps in each student study set is usually limited (the national average is 25-8 maps) so for teaching purposes, demonstrations, planning field trips, and plotting local sites of geological interest and importance a reference collection of maps or a map library Table 5 - Number and distribution of selected items of equipment. ITEM QUANTITY REGION 1 REGION M REGION III REGION IV REGION V REGION VI NAT 1 ON ----------*-- Petrograph ic Microscopes Total Number Percentage of schools having Average Number per school having Average Number per school in region 33 43% 3.7 1.6 6 29% 1.5 0.4 21 21% 3.0 0.6 0 0% o.o 0.0 18 31% 1.6 0.5 131 63% 2.8 1.8 209 41.4% 2.7 1.1 U1traviolet Total Number 31 25 27 8 32 121 244 Lights Percentage of schools having 76% 71% 52% 70% 54% 79% 68.3% Average Number per school having 1.9 2.5 1.6 1.4 1.7 2.1 1.9 Average Number per school in region 1.5 1.8 0.8 1.0 0.9 1.7 1.3 Geiger Total Number 27 27 30 12 33 70 199 Counters Percentage of schools having 48% 50% 52% 70% 54% 79% 68.3% Average Number per school having 2.7 3.9 1.8 1.7 2.2 1.8 2.1 Average Number per school in region 1.3 1.3 0.9 1.2 0.9 2.0 1.1 Brunton Total Number 36 1 2 56 7 43 215 369 Compasses Percentage of schools having 52% 36% 67% 60% 63% 77% 65.6% Average Number per school having 3.3 2.4 2.5 1.2 2.0 3.8 3.0 Average Number per school in region 1.7 0.6 1.7 0.7 1.2 2.9 2.0 Binocular or Total Number 167 136 158 39 135 480 1115 other Microscopes Percentage of schools having 67% 64% 67% 70% 69% 71% 68.8% Average Number per school having 11.9 15.1 7.2 5.6 5.6 9.2 8.7 Average Number per school in region 8.0 9.7 4.8 3.9 3.9 6.6 6.0 otner rercemaye ui Microscopes schools having Average Number per school having Average Number per school in region 67% 11.9 8.0 .64% 15.1 9.7 67% 7.2 4.8 70% 5.6 3.9 69% 5.6 3.9 71% 9.2 6.6 68.8% 8.7 6.0 Jot ly Total Number 17 62 15 4 24 186 308 Balances Percentage of schools having 43% 50% 33% 20% 31% 55% 43.0% Average Number per school having 1.9 8.9 1.4 2.0 2.2 4.8 3.8 Average Number per school in region 0.8 3.0 0.5 0.4 0.7 ' 2.6 1.7 Stereoscopes Total Number 190 142 263 14 138 857 1604 Percentage of schools having 67% 71% 61% 40% 46% 79% 65.6% Average Number per school having 14.0 14.0 13.1 3.5 8.6 14.8 9.3 A Average Number per school in region 9.0 6.8 8.0 1.4 3.9 11.7 8.6 Thin Section EquIpment Percentage of schools having 14.3% 14.3% 6.1% 10.0% 1 1.4% 23.3% 15.6% Lapidary Equ i pment Percentage of schools having 23.8% 35.7% . 36.4% 30.0% 34.4% 57.5% 42.5% Surveying Equ i pment Percentage of schools having 33.3% 21.4% 30.3%* 40,0% 34.3% 41.1% 35.5% Rock T r immer Percentage of schools having 14.3% 35.7% 39.4% 30.0% 31.4% 49.3% 38.2% S i eve Shaker Percentage of schools having 19.0% 7.1% 15.2% 0.0% 11.4% 24.6% 17.2% Sieve Sets Percentage of schools having 28.6% 14.3% 24. 2% 20.0% 20.0% 58.9% 38.2% Analytical Balances Percentage of schools having 61.9% 71.4% 42.4% 40.0% 40.0% 47.9% 48.4% TABLE 6 DISTRIBUTION AND QUANTITIES OF MAPS USED IN STUDENT SETS Region I Region II Region III Region IV Region V Region VI National Percentage of Schools having Special Maps for Purpose 81.0 7 1.4 75-8 60.0 80.0 76.7 73-1 Average Number of Sets per School having 16.7 18.0 32.7 2.8 40.9 42.2 33-8 Average Number of Sets per School in Region 13-5 12.9 24.8 1.7 32.7 32.4 25.8 Average Number of Maps per School having 299 368 738 129 756 644 600 Average Number of Maps per School in Region 242 263 559 78 605 494 458 vo 00 99 is required. The locations and sizes of map libraries in the responding junior colleges are detailed in Figure 23- Only 27-4 per cent of the colleges have libraries smaller than 50 maps while 7-5 per cent have libraries of over 1000 maps. Because the study of geology involves the entire earth and its materials it is imperative that students be exposed to a large number of specimens representing these materials. Because it is impractical to have more than a small number of specimens set up exclusively for student use, the largest number of specimens are in reference or museum collections maintained by the department. The dis tribution of these collections and their size is depicted in Figure 24. Since most schools have purchased some of their specimens (especially samples of material not avail able in the immediate vicinity) the quantity of these is depicted by the main part of the symbol. In addition most schools have extensive collections acquired on field trips, by the departmental staff, alumni, friends of the depart ment, and by interested townspeople. Often this collection is larger than the purchased collections. The size of the local collection is indicated by the supplementary symbol attached to the main symbol. Only three schools in the country (1.6 per cent) indicated that they have no collections of either type, and 7*5 per cent have over 1000 specimens in both their purchased collection and their Inset 3 Inset A A Inset 1 LEGEND \ Number of maps ^ ■ 100 - 199 u \ ________ V □ 200 - 499 s A 500 - 999 A Over 1 0 0 0 Fig. 23 - M ap libraries in the junior colleges of the United States. (March 68) 9 9. 101 Inset 3 HWijr Inset 1 E 6 E N D Purchased Specimens Local ^ None • 1 * 49 0 50 -9 9 100 - 199 > ■ □ 200 - 499 ♦ A 500 • 999 A Over 1000 + Fig. 2 4 - Geology museum or reference collections in the junior co lleg es. (March 68) locally collected materials. Inasmuch as it is generally impractical to have large numbers of students working with the reference mater ials, it is common practice in many schools to provide special sets of rocks or minerals for each student or group of students for laboratory examination. As with the maps, these collections are of necessity more limited than the reference collection. The size and distribution of this type of collection for each of the major courses listed in the curriculum section are recorded in Table 7* A large majority of the junior college geology departments have such arrangements and the number of specimens in each collection is large. In modern mapping the topographer as well as the geologist is as likely to use aerial photographs as frequently as maps. At present the aerial photograph Is the basis of the topographic map and portrays more detailed information than does any other variety of map. For these reasons it is important that students of geology have early exposure to aerial photographs. Table 8 delineates the quantity and variety of aerial photographs owned as well as the percentage of schools possessing them. The percentage is surprisingly small in four of the regions but it must be remembered that many standard laboratory manuals have aerial photo-stereograms printed in them pro viding students with some experience despite the fact that Table 7 - Number and size of student laboratory collections and the percentage of the replying schools, which offer the Indicated course, utilizing such collections. Averages and percentages are for schools offering the course, not for the total number of schools. COURSE QUANTITY REGION I REGION II REGION III REGION IV REGION V REGION VI NATIONAL PHYSICAL Percentage of schools GEOLOGY & having student 66.7 66.7 59.0 SURVEY OF laboratory collections GEOLOGY Average number of , collections per school 20.4 23.3 22.1 having Average number of collections per school 13.6 15.5 13.1 in region Average number of specimens per 55.2 156.4 67.8 collect ion 77.8 22.4 17.4 30.1 71.8 26.3 18.9 47.9 63.3 23.8 15.1 56.0 65.2 23.6 15.4 57.1 HISTORICAL Percentage of schools GEOLOGY having student 92.3 50.0 73.9 laboratory collections Average number of collections per school 15.4 18.5 18.8 having Average number of collections per school 14.2 9.3 13.9 in region Average number of specimens per 35.0 30.1 30.0 col lection 66.7 20.0 13.3 27.5 100.0 23.0 23.0 30.3 69.0 20.2 13.9 45.9 76.2 19.9 15.2 37.3 MINERALOGY & Percentage of schools CRYSTALL0- having student 0.0 GRAPHY laboratory collections Average number of collections per school 0.0 having Average number of collections per school 0.0 in region Average number of specimens per 0.0 collection 66.7 100.0 100.0 81.5 77.8 10.0 8.0 2 1.2 19.8 20,4 6.7 8.0 21.2 16.1 15.8 160.0 200.0 28.3 94.4 85.9 MINERALOGY & CRYSTALLO GRAPHY PETROLOGY PALEONTOLOGY Percentage of schools having student laboratory collections Average number of collections per school having Average number of collections per school i n reg i on Average number of specimens per col lection Percentage of schools having student laboratory collections Average number of collections per school hav i ng Average number of collections per school in region Average number of specimens per col lection Percentage of schools having student 0,0 laboratory collections Average number of collections per school 0.0 having Average number of collections per school 0.0 in region Average number of specimens per 0.0 col lection 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 66.7 10,0 6.7 160.0 50.0 10.0 5.0 150.0 100.0 8.0 8.0 200.0 100.0 21.2 21.2 28.3 100.0 20.0 20.0 10.0 75.0 30.0 22.5 31.6 81.5 19.8 16.1 S W 100.0 18.7 18.7 121.4 83.3 20.2 16.8 29.0 77.8 20.4 15.8 85.9 100.0 19.0 19.0 92.1 69.2 22.3 15.5 36.2 103 TABLE 8 QUANTITY AND VARIETY OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH SETS IN THE JUNIOR COLLEGES OF THE UNITED STATES Region I Region II Region III Region IV Region V Region VI National Percentage of Schools having Aerial Photographs 47.6 33-7 30.3 60.0 27-3 58.9 44.6 Average.Number of Sets per School having 71.1 36.6 36.0 12.0 107.0 38.2 47.4 Average Number of Sets per School in Region 33-8 13.1 10.9 7.2 27.5 22.5 21.1 Average Number of Different Sets per School having 8.0 6.6 6.8 2.5 29.2 30.1 21.1 o ■fc- 105 their school does not possess any photographs. Because any list printed in a questionnaire must be limited in its scope, room was provided for replying schools to add other major items of equipment not mentioned. Table 9 lists this equipment by regions. Many of the schools mentioned such items not included on the table as extensive slide collections, motion pictures, wall maps, and geological folios. Doubtless the majority of the schools offering geology have such materials as well as audio-visual equipment for its use. In many cases audio visual equipment is available through the library or audio visual center and is not departmental property. 10. What should be the desirable standards for equipping lower division geology programs? The answer to this question is presented as Discussion and Proposals in Chapter V. The Faculty The quality and training of the faculty is the most Important single factor in determining the excellence of geological learning. To determine the adequacy of the faculty several questions were posed. 11. How large is the junior college geology faculty? Figure 25 records the number of instructors at each of the replying institutions to the nearest full-time TABLE 9 OTHER IMPORTANT PIECES OF EQUIPMENT MENTIONED BY REPORTING SCHOOLS* Region I Region II Region III Region IV Region V Region VI **Audio-visual **None equipment (2) Topographic Models Stream Table Sample Split ter **Audio-Visual **None Equipment (2) Prado Micropro jector Soil Testing, Equipment Metallurgy Equipment Stream Table (7) Cameras Binoculars Topographic Models **Audio-Visual ^^Audio-Visual Equipment Stream Table Topographic Models Equipment (12) Spectrograph Geol.ogy Museum Spectroscope (3) Seismograph (2) Geophones Optical Goni- meter (2) Cameras (2) Stream Table(4) Metallograph(2) Permeameter, o TABLE 9--Continued Region I Region II Region III Rebion IV Region V Region VI Constant Head Parshall Flumes Soils Laboratory, Complete Soil Test Equip ment Topographic Models (3) Prado Micropro jector Nikormat Project or ^Numbers in parenthesis show number reporting. **Audio-visual equipment is probably available to all departments but is not specifically the property of the geology department. 108 / ^ Inset 3 Total 35.51 Total 20.58 Average per school 1.11 Average per school 1.03 Part time only 18.7 X Part time only 10J) X Total 9.50 Average per school 1.05 only 22.2 X .. > - M J . • .T otal ■"•M7.4. Average per school 1 ' part tim e only 9.6 / Inset 1 LEGEN D N um ber of instructors 0 - .5 ■ 3 • 1 B 4 0 2 & 5 t Greater than sym bol to which attached school & Fig. 25 - Geology fa cu lties at replying junior c o lle g e s. Numbers and sym bols refer to portion of time spent in teaching rather than portion of time devoted to g eo lo g y alone Total fu ll tim e eq u iv a len t in s tr u c to r s 237. 75 A verage p er sc h o o l 1 .2 8 Schools having part tim e fg cu U y only 18.0 X (March 68) 4 2 .4 2 Average per school 1.25 Part time only 26.5 X 109 equivalent instructor with fractions being indicated. The fractions of instructors refer to part-time teachers hired for the purpose of teaching one or more classes. It must be emphasized that only a small proportion of the faculty members listed teach geology exclusively. Many of the larger schools are able to afford this type of specialization but it is rare in smaller institutions. Geology instructors in most junior colleges must have supplementary fields of knowledge in which they have suf ficient background to enable them to teach at least the introductory college courses. As Figure 25 shows, most of the schools (60 per cent) have one man, or perhaps (6 per cent) a part-time teacher to assist. The second most common size of depart ment is the part-time teacher who presents one or more classes. These schools (18 per cent of the total) do not have a regular member of the faculty responsible for geology. Fourteen per cent of the junior colleges have two man departments while the final 8 per cent of the total have three or more full-time equivalent instructors. Another factor which relates to the size of the faculty is the teaching load. Figure 26 characterizes the teaching loads of full-time instructors and Figure 27 typifies that of the part-time staff. The national average load (full-time instructor) of 1 6 .1 contact hours compares rather unfavorably with the typical senior 13 VI 8 1 N orm ql t o a d s / Max. '24-..M jn. A v e r a g e 16/8 O v e r lo a d s M ax./ 8 Min. A v em g e 3 .8 P ercen t having 38.0 X P ercen t paid e x tf a 7 3 % j>f [N um ber "'of g e o lo g y c o u r s e d Max. 8 \ Mini 1 A v e r a g e \ 3 . 0 :...................... IV N orm al lo a d s Max. 2 4 Min. 17.1 O v erlo a d s Max. 8 Min. 2 A verage 5.0 • P e r c e n t having 2 8 .6 X P ercent paid e x t r a .... 50. X e r -of. .geology .'cou rses....... I 3 A v e r a g e 1.7 • II N orm al lo a d s Max. 2 3 Min. A vera g e 15.6 O v e r lo a d s Max. Tnt p j v cQtiY pa i & /-6X . Number of "gepWg H $ax. 4 Mfn. y&erage 12 .4 7 .0 X fo r m a l lo a d s Max. 2 0 Min A v era g e 14. O v erlo a d s Max. 6 A v e r a g e P ercen t Percent ^Number stage a id ’ , ex-trd f 4 0 X g eo lb g j cou rses Min./-’ ,‘T " 1.7 v .- Fig. 2 6 - T eaching lo a d s T in ^ o v e r l e x p r e s s e d a s con tac for fu ll tim e junior c o lle g e m em b ers tea ch in g g eo lo g y . N orm al lo a d s Maximum 1 3 2 Minimum O v erlo a d s Maximum 16 Minimum P ercen t having 38 X N um ber of Maximum N orm al lo a d s "••M ax,..3 .2 ...Min. 13 A verage l O ..... O v er lo a d s Max. 1£ Min. 1 A verage..... 3 .7 p e r c e n t h a vin g -3.Q X P ercen t paid e x tr a 'i.7-9-SS ..N um ber o f g e o lo g y c d u r s e s Max. 6 Min. 1 A v e r a g e (M arch ■ ? . ^N dnm al- • W a d s lax* ,..-24 Min. 1* A v e r a g e . 16.3 .O ver-foqtls" **•"■•• Nlax. 6 . Min. AVerage"' \ 3.1 P ercen t ha'v.ing' 5 3 X P etco n t p a id e x tr a 7 8 X N u m ber of g e o lo g y c o u r s e s ^in. 1 2. 1 A v era g e 3. Percent being paid g e o lo g y c o u r s e s ta u g h t e a c h ten 9 Minimum 1 A v e r a g e 2 .6 i IV Load Max. 15 Min e 9 Num ber oT'Tjeqlog-’ Max. 2 Mih. 1 A v e r a g e 1.5 Load Load M ax. 12 Min. 3 Max. 6 Min. A v e r a g e 7.9 A verage 5 Number of «jeology co u rses Number of geolog gx. 1 Max. 2 Min. 1 Avdfecfae _ 1.5~\ A v e r a g e 1.2 -■•••V -V .L/ Load: Mjax. 12 Min. 2' A v era g e 5 .4 Num ber 'of g eo lo g y c o u r s e s Max:.. 3 Min A v e r a g e 1.3 Load Wax-,— •1-5.....M in... 3 A v e r a g e -—.. 7 .5 Number of g e o lo g y cou{*ses Max.: 4 : Min. 1 Averag biumber -'a fr 'geotsg'y- A v era g e Average rses F ig. 2 7 - T ea ch in g lo a d s e x p r e s s e d a s c o n ta c t hou for p a r t tim e ju n io r c o lle g e m em bers teach in g g eo lo g y . L oad s M axim um 16 Minimum A v e r a g e 6 .7 N um ber o f g e o lo g y c o u r s e s ta u g h t e a c h te M aximum 4 Minimum 1 A verage 1.5 (March 6 8 } 111 112 college load of 12 hours. Of course it must be remembered that a junior college faculty has either little or no research responsibility. On the other hand most of the junior college instructors have many different prepara tions, often in fields other than their major. Since teaching and laboratory assistants are rarely available in junior colleges the loads of most junior college in structors include laboratories. Most schools still cling to the concept that laboratories require less effort on the part of instructor than do lectures. As a consequence the load of an instructor is usually calculated using some ratio of laboratory to lecture hours. Table 10 lists the mean ratios used in each of the six study regions as well as the national mean. As this table shows,, Region VI, including the far western states., has the lowest ratio, 1.5 to 1, or 3 hours of laboratory are equated to 2 hours of lecture. Many of the schools in this region equate lecture and laboratory hours and most of the remainder have a low ratio. One school in Region III has the highest laboratory to lecture ratio in the country, 4 to 1. The continuing use of these ratios is the principal reason for the much larger number of contact hours required of junior college faculty than of senior college instructors. Since little research is required or encouraged it is logical to expect a slightly higher contact load for faculty in community colleges. 113 TABLE 10 RATIOS OP LABORATORY HOURS TO LECTURE HOURS USED IN COMPUTING TEACHER LOADS Region I Region II Region III Region IV Region V 2.1*1* 1.8-tl 1.6*1 2 .05*1 2*1 Region VI National 1. 5*1 1.67*1 *2.1*1 refers to 2.1 laboratory hours being equivalent to 1 lecture hour. 114 A complicating factor in ascertaining load prac tices in the community college is the almost standard practice of requiring the geology instructor,, or for that matter the instructor in almost any fields to teach other subjects than the one in which he obtained his highest degree. In the larger schools this is not necessary, but in most of the smaller junior colleges, and these comprise the majority, there aren't enough geology classes and geology students to make up an entire teaching load. Even when the instructor can concentrate exclusively on geology he usually must teach several different classes and can not concentrate on several sections of the same class. This obviates tedium but it requires a large amount of time for preparation. An estimate of how much time the typical geology instructor spends teaching subjects outside of geology can be obtained by examining Figure 26. Since a minimum of 3 geology classes, even with laboratories, constitutes the entire load, only Region VI uses most of its geology instructors for that purpose only. The nation al average of 2.6 geology courses per term for each instructor indicates that virtually every instructor is responsible for at least one non-geology course. An idea of the variety can be inferred from Table 11, which lists all of the courses named by responding geology instructors as part of their loads. Virtually every junior college makes some use of TABLE 11 OTHER COURSES TAUGHT BY GEOLOGY FACULTY* Region I Region II Region III Region IV Region V Region VI Astronomy (2) Biology Astronomy Anatomy Anatomy Anthropology Biochemistry Chemistry (2) Biology Biology (3) Biology (2) Biology (4) Biology (5) Geography Botany Dendrology Botany Botany Botany Physical Chemistry Forest Planting Chemistry Chemistry (5) Environmental Science Geography (3) Forestry Geography(4) Electronics Science Physics Natural Health Educa Map Drafting Engineering(2 Geography (2) Science(2) tion Mathemat ic s(2)Engineering Natural Physical Music Apprecia -Oil and Gas Drawing Science Science(5) tion Technology Geography (15 Organic Zoology Music Theory Petroleum Mathematics(3 Chemistry Physics EngineeringMeterology(2) Physics (2) Physiology Physical Physical Science Science (6) Education Physics Physical Zoology Science(8) Physics Planetarium Surveying Technical Chemistry ^Numbers in parenthesis are the number of times reported. m 116 part-time, usually evening, instructors to enrich its offerings. As shown by Figure 25, 18 per cent of the jun ior colleges answering the questionnaire have only part- time faculty for their geology program. A much larger per centage of the community colleges utilize some part-time instructors so that they may offer more courses or sections as part of their adult education programs at night. Nationr- ally these instructors have a mean load of 6 .7 contact hours and teach an average of 1 .5 geology courses. Many of the part-time instructors carry loads that are heavier than a large portion of the full-time loads. Usually the part-time instruction is remunerated at a lower rate than is full-time work. Nearly 40 per cent of the community colleges of the United States allow their geology instructors to carry overloads. Seventy-five per cent of the institu tions pay an extra stipend for this work, usually on an hourly basis, and frequently at a lower rate than that for the normal load. The instructor accepts these additional classes because of (l) a need for added income, (2) a personal desire to offer a more extensive program, or (3) because of administrative pressure. The extent of the overloads carried in each of the six study regions is portrayed on Figure 26. 12. What is the general level and recency of training of junior college geology faculty? 117 An overwhelming majority (80-3 Per cent) of junior college geology instructors hold masters degrees as their highest academic preparation. Figure 28 represents the level of academic attainment in each of the six study regions as well as for the nation. In all of the regions over 70 per cent of the teachers of geology courses have at least a masters degree and in all but Regions I and IV a majority of the highest degrees are in the field of geology. It would seem from this that most geology in structors have at least adequate academic preparation. Figure 29 presents the general recency of prepara tion. Over half (56 per cent) of all junior college geology instructors have earned their last degree within the last 10 years., and only 17 per cent earned this degree over 20 years ago. Since on a national basis 31.2 per cent of all geology instructors did not earn their highest degree in geology or related earth science fields (see Fig. 28) it becomes a matter of some interest to determine how well prepared this important minority is for its duties. Table 12 is a listing of the fields In which the highest degree was earned and Figure 30 records the percentage of this group that has taken various numbers of hours of geology courses. Well over half (6l per cent) have taken over 20 hours in geology and so have at least a minor in geology as calculated by most schools. IV Doctorate M asters elors Degree- " ] D octorate Masters Bachelors Degree D octorate 13,6 M asters 86.4 Bachelors O f- Degree in geology 19.5 % 75.6 % 4.9 % eology 78.0 % 8 3 .3 % 8 .3 % 41.7 % D octorate 14-.6"X M asters 80.5 % Bachelors 4.9 % D egree in geology 76.7 % * { • * V • D octorate^’ ' 25.0 % M asters'” .........7.5..0 % B'afhfe'torsv 0 .* DoctofcitcJ................ M asters : 82.4 Bachelors : 9.8 Degree in geology Degrfee in ’ geology/ 65.0 X Fig. 28 - D egrees held junior co lleg e geology fa cu lty . Doctorate M asters Bachelors Highest degree in geology (March 68) 14.5 % 80.3 % 5.2 %' 68.8 X Y ears 0 to s in c e l a s t d e g r e e 5 25% 8 % 5 - 8 - 3 L 20 Years sin c e la st d e g r e e 0 to 5 39% 18% 21 % Y ears d egree sin c e 8 to 10 11 to 20 O ver 20 O ver No r e p ly Y e a r s/ s in c e last'“4 eg rp e 3 0 % 31 %: 17%/ 12* 10% 0 td 5 6 tb 11 1 1 to 20 Over**.. 20 No rep ly Y e a r s :s in c e la s t d e g r e e O i© £ -5......... Y ears sieves l a s t 0 to :*S .......27..% •••e-.to-'-io* 1 * 8 %' 11 t o 2 0 .. 38% O ver 2 0 " \ 18 No r e p ly \ 1 ' 16 % 28 % 29 % 6 fo 10 1 1 fto 20 Over 20 No re p ly ‘ s . . 0 % F ig . 2 9 - R e c e n c y o f h ig h e s t d e g r e e h eld b y ju n ior c o ll e g e f a c u lt y m e m b e r s Y ea r s s in c e la s t d e g r e e g r a n te d . 0 to 5 6 t o 10 11 to 20 O ver 2 0 No rep ly 22 % 17,% [M arch 6 8 } 119 TABLE 12 FIELDS OTHER THAN GEOLOGICAL SCIENCES IN WHICH JUNIOR COLLEGE GEOLOGY TEACHERS HAVE EARNED THEIR HIGHEST DEGREE Region I Region II Region III Region IV Region V Region VI Botany Biology Biology Biology Biology (2) Arts Chemistry Chemistry Education Chemistry Chemistry Biology (2) Geography Education (2) Geography (2) Education Education (2) Chemistry Library Natural ScienceScience Educa- Forestry English Education (4) Science Physics tion (2) Horticulture General Sci Forestry Physical Science Educa Zoology Science ence General Science Science tion (2) Zoology Geography Geography (5) Physics (2)* Mathematics Meterology Science (2) Natural Science Education Mechanical Oceanography (2) (3) EngineeringPhilo sophy Natural Physical Science Science Science Physics Soil Science Science Educa tion ^Numbers in parentheses indicate number of times reported. ro o H ours H ou rs Hours it 1 4 2 2 9 2 4 3 2 1 4 2 Over 20 6 4 2 O ver 20 78 2 O ver H o u rs 0 : to 5 0 .2 6 / to 10 0:2 11 \ t o 20 2'72 Ove>. 2 0 7 3 2 ............ Of TcT B 8 2 6 - to tO 17 % 11* to 20 17 2 Over 2 0 ‘' - v 58 2 H ours Over-. 20 Fig. 3 0 - O ver 61 * (M arch 6 8 ) 122 Another aspect of the level of training of junior college faculty Is pictured on Figure 31- As both Hambleton (47) and the Council on Education In the Geological Sciences (29) concludedj one of the best ways for the geology teacher to keep up-to-date is to attend short courses and summer institutes. Unfortunately only 28.4 per cent of the current teachers of geology have attended such institutes and it has been over 5 years on the average since the last such attendance. 13. What is the minimum standard of training for teachers of geology in the lower division? The ideal preparation for all of higher education is of course the doctorate, while in general the master's degree is considered to be the minimum level for employment in four year institutions. It is generally considered and often stated by those involved with junior colleges that the master's degree is the minimum preparation level for the two year college. If one can subscribe to the idea that the level of preparation for the teacher must be at least one level higher than the degree granted by the institution, then the minimum level for junior colleges is the baccalaureate. Considering the level of courses most commonly taught in the first two years it is probably safe to assume that the typical holder of the bachelors degree in geology possesses the minimum qualifications for in structor. However, since the teacher at this level IV III Percent who have a tten d ed 4 5 .4 Percent who h ave P ercen t who h a v e atten d ed A v e r a g e nu m b er A verage num ber atten d ed e a r s s in c e la st atten d ed A verage n u m b er a tte n d e d rage ye£tr: VI ..... P ercen t who h ave; a tten d ed ftAverajte num ber atten d ed 1 y 7W era g e\y ea rs sin.ce la st 5.3i A ¥ * ' P ercent wfvo• h a v e ■ atten d ed A v era g e/n u m b d r a tte n d e d A v e r a g e y e a r s s in c e la s t Percent who h a v e , a tte n d e d ' A verage- • ouihber' attended. A verage y e a r s si/ic o la s F ig . 31 A tten d a n ce at N.S.F. or N.O.E.A. in s titu te s . P ercen t o f fa c u lty who h ave a tte n d e d 2 3 .4 A v e r a g e n u m b er a tte n d e d p e r p erson >-J.4 A v e r a g e . num ber of y e a r s s in c e la: in s titu te a tte n d a n c e 5.5 (M arch 6 8 } 123 124 requires the broader outlook provided by an advanced degree., and because In most schools the junior college Instructor must also teach subjects other than geology, the requirement of a master's degree is the reasonable and preferred standard. Inasmuch as the junior colleges rarely have facilities, funds, or even time for their staff to engage in research, and the doctorate normally is a research-oriented degree, it is neither unusual nor sur prising that there are relatively few holders of this degree on the faculties of the two year institutions. As long as the junior colleges recognize and accept no responsibility for research it is perhaps unreasonable to require the doctorate for the instructional staff. 14. What is the need for updating the education of junior college geology teachers concerning innovations and new techniques? Several factors need to be considered in answering this question. The first is the general recency of the training received by the college teacher. As depicted in Figure 29 a majority of junior college instructors earned their highest degree within the last ten years. However all fields of science, including the earth sciences, are advancing and changing rapidly. Secondly, the fairly high proportion of the faculty who earned their highest degree in other than geology definitely need more background and knowledge of recent advances in the field in which they 125 are teaching. Thirdly, nearly 60 per cent of all junior college geology departments are one-man operations (see Pig. 25) and as a consequence the scientist has little opportunity for consultation and discussion with collea gues. Fourthly, a study of Figure 31 shows that less than one-third of the junior college faculty has had opportunity to engage in updating through National Science Foundation or National Defense Education Act, summer or academic year institutes. All of these factors combined point up the fact that a large part of the junior college geology faculty is in need of some form of updating regarding new developments in the various aspects of geology, new techniques being used in geologic studies, and even new techniques and methods in the teaching of geology. That the last is true seems to be indicated in the final section of this chapter. One way that the college instructor can keep abreast of developments in his field is through reading in the professional literature. For the most part, this literature is in the form of bulletins or journals published by the various learned and professional societ ies. Membership in these societies is listed in Table 13 for each of the regions. In most cases, the answering instructors listed more than one society. Generally faculty in Region VI did not indicate membership in professional educational societies although from personal TABLE 13 SCIENTIFIC AND PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS* WITH WHICH JUNIOR COLLEGE FACULTY MEMBERS ARE ASSOCIATED Region I Region II Region III Region IV Region V Region VI A.A.A.S.(5) A.A.U.P. A. C.S. A.F.A. A. G . A. A.G.U. A.I.M.E. A.S.P.E. G.S.A.(4) M.S.T.A. N.A.G.T.(5) N.E.A. N.S.T.A.(2) N.Y.Acad.Sci. Sigma Xi S.E.P.M.(2) A.A.A.S.(4 A.A.P.G.(4 A. C.S. A.P.S. Clay Min.Soc Fla.E.A. G.S.A.(5) Ga.Acad.Sci. Ga.Conserv. Ga. S. T. A. N.A.B.T. N.A.G.T.(5) N.E.A. N.S.T.A. P.D.K. Sigma XI(2 S.E.P.M.(2 S.E.Geol.Soc A.A.A.S.(5) A. A.G. A.A.P.G.(7i A.A.U.P.(2 . A.C.S. A.G.U.(2) A.I.M.E.(2) (2)A.Meteorl.Soc. Cushman Fd. D.G.F. Geochem.Soc. Geog.Soc.Chicag G.S.A.(13) Geo.Soc.Wash. Ky.Geo.Soc.(3) Mich.Acad.Sci. (2) .(2)MIch.Basin Geo.Soc.(2) Mich.E.S.T.A. Mich.E.A.(2) Micropaleo. N.A.G.T.(18) A.A.P.G.(4) A.A.A.S.(4) Alaska Geo.Soc. MesabiRange A.A.G. (2) A. A.A.S.(15) Geo.Soc. A. A.P.G.(7) A.A.G.(2) Minn.Acad.Sci. A.A.U.P.(3) A. A.P.G. (23) (2) A.I.M.E.(3J A.A.U. P. M.S.T.A. A.P.I. A.B.T. N. S.T. A. A. S.P. E. A.C.S.(2) P.D.K. Assn.Mo.Geol. A.E.G.(2) S.E.P.M. G.C.A.G.S.(3) A.G.S.(2) Wyo.Geo.Assn. G.S.A.(14) A.G.U.(3) Grand Jet. A.I.M.E.(3) ) Geo.Soc. A. I.P. G. (3) A.Meteorl.Soc. Huston Geo. A.S.Photogram Soc. me try Mo.Acad.Sci. A.S.T.M.(2) (3) Arctic Inst. Mo.S.T„ A. N. A. N.A.G.T.(7) C. J. C.F.A. N.E.A. C.T.A. £ Okla.Acad. Geochem. (2) ctn Sci. G.S.A.(39) Rocky Mtn. Geo.Soc.Sacto. TABLE 13--Continued Region I Region II Region III Region IV Region V Region VI N.E.A.(3) Assn.Geol. (3) N.S.T.A. (3) Glaciological N.Y.Acad.Sci. Roswell Geol. Soc. Paleo.Res.Inst. Soc. Ida.Acad.Sci. P.S. Sigma XI(3) Int.Assn.Sedi- S.E.G.(2) S.E.G.(2) mentologists S.E.P.M. S.E.P.M.(3) LeConte Club S.G.E. S.Tex.Geo. M.A.C. Sigma Xi (5) Soc.(5) M.S.A.(7) S. S.A. Tex.Acad.Sci. N.A.G.T.(49) Wise.Acad.Sci. T.J.C.T.A.(2) N.Cong.Geog.Ed. T.S.T.A. N.W.Geol.Soc. Wyo.Geol. (2) Assn. Sigma Xi (7) Seismological Soc. S.E.G. S.E.P.M.(9) S.G.E. Spectrochem. Soc. I —f *See Appendix C for complete names of organizations. Numbers in parenthesis refer to frequency named. 128 knowledge many belong. The length of this list as well as the large percentage of the respondents who contributed to it indicates that the junior college faculty is endea voring to keep itself current. Because of the small per centage of junior college faculty who publish (22 per cent as contrasted with 45 per cent for four year institutions) (8 :7 1) membership is a one way street rather than a dia logue among colleagues. 15- What are the opportunities and inducements for becoming and remaining a geology instructor on the junior college level? Two main factors can be named which serve to help in the recruiting of junior college geology teachers. One is that they are indeed teachers of geology, rather than researchers first and teachers second. There are many qualified teachers who do not like the pressure of having to do research and publish as a means of advancement but would rather concentrate on doing an excellent job of teaching. On the other hand, as mentioned in the answer to question 14, there is little opportunity for research in the junior college so there is little inducement for the holder of the doctorate. The second factor is salary. Table 14 shows the median salaries paid by each of several classes of employ ers to full time civilian scientists. When the salaries reported in this table, especially for holders of the TABLE l4 MEDIAN ANNUAL SALARIES OP FULL-TIME EMPLOYED (From Tahle 2-(l965)) CIVILIAN SCIENTISTS Degree Total Type of Employer Educational Federal Other Nonprofit Industry Self- Institutions Govern- Govern Organiza and Employed Academic Calendar ment ment tions Business Year Year Ph.D. 12000 10500 12800 13800 11400 13000 14400 15000 Masters 10500 7900 8900 11700 9400 10800 11400 14000 Bachelors 11600 7200 7200 11300 9000 9600 1200 13000 t —1 ro VO 130 master's degree in educational institutions, and even for other types of employers, are compared with the salaries shown on Figure 32 it can he seen that, on the whole, the junior colleges pay higher salaries. Unfortunately the two figures are not strictly comparable due to the use of different measures (mean on Fig. 32 and median in Table 14) but the general trend can be observed. Higher salary schedules together with the academic atmosphere enables the junior college to attract faculty. Teaching or Curricular Innovations 16. What curricular and/or teaching innovations are being made in the junior college geology program? Each of the pertinent new teaching techniques described by Brown and Thornton (3) were listed in the questionnaire and the respondents were requested to indi cate whether or not they were experimenting with each. The overall results of this question are recounted in Table 15- As this table reveals, only a small percentage of the schools are experimenting with any new teaching techniques. Of course the cost of some of these devices such as television and computer assisted instruction, would in general be prohibitive to all but the largest schools. It is interesting to note that multi-media instruction (audio-tutorial methods) has evoked the most experimenta tion by geology departments. For the average geology class IV Max. $10,000 Min. $7,6 0 0 ^Average $ 8 8 6 2 7 1 .4 % Max. $13,200 Min. 6,000 Max. $13,600 Min. $7,000 A verage $ 8 5 5 4 A v er a g e $ S 6 0 9 P ercen t rep ly in g 76.3 % P ercen t rep lyin g /78.& % * I M aV $ 1 4 ,8 6 0 Min. $7,124 A v e r a g e $10, £ 6 3 I Perceh.t rep lyin g 68.1 % j^ j S S 2 V t : Max. $50,35& ;“ Min.” $’6 /4 '5 4 ..,, A veragje $8,{186 P e r ce n t rep lyin g F ig. 3 2 - S a la r ie s p a id to f a l l tim e ju n ior c o lle g e g^Sfogy' fa c u lty m em b e r s ( 9 -1 0 mo. b a sis). M aximum $14,8 5 0 Minimum $6,000 A verage $ 9 ,8 9 5 P ercen t replying 70.9 % (M arch 68) 6 5 .9 ! i / ■ ' f j , « , • ^ * • ,<• • • • • * Max. $13,32$** Min, $ 7,300 7 ... A verage* ***$• 9jt575*‘‘ ' ’*->- P ercen t rep lyin g 78.9 M * . f “ ! —1 132 TABLE 15 PERCENTAGE OP REPLYING SCHOOLS EXPERIMENTING WITH SELECTED NEW TEACHING TECHNIQUES Technique Per Cent Programmed Instruction 16 Television 14 Multi-media or Audio-tutorial 27 Computer Assisted Instruction 7 Giant Slides (Overhead Projection) 25 Quantitative Geology 13 133 this technique in its myriad variations offers more ad vantages and possibilities to geology instruction than do any of the others. Giant slides which are really only a slightly newer extension of the normal color slides used in most geology classes have the next largest number of ex perimenters. It is likely that the percentage of schools using these is larger than indicated by the questionnaire since many of the respondents may not have recognized the appellation, giant slides. Quantitative methods in geology are particularly fascinating to many geology instructors in the larger four year institutions. As many of the groups indicated in Hambleton's two reports (41,42), there is a feeling on the part of many geologists that to become more scientific, geology must be made much more quantitative. If the quality of students is high and the motivation of these students to make geology their life's work is also high, then such techniques can be introduced early in the geology program. Most junior college geology students commonly are deficient in both of these qualities. Therefore, as noted in Figures 4, 5j 6, and 7 most junior college geology courses are intended mainly for general education., and only secondarily for the preprofessional training of majors. Such courses, by their very nature and by their clientele, will have to be more descriptive in their content. It is not surprising that only 13 per cent of the responding 132 * schools are experimenting seriously with quantitative methods. Space was provided on the questionnaire for reply ing schools to enter any other teaching techniques they might have devised and with which they are experimenting. Only a very few were mentioned. Most involved the more widespread use of field work, either as a substitute for most of the laboratory work or in a few cases even as a substitute for most of the formal instruction. The imple mentation of more field work in the beginning courses was another of the general recommendations made in the GEO- Study reports (41^ 42) and could very well be acted on more generally by junior colleges if they are situated favor ably. Many of our largest junior colleges are in con gested urban areas and it is a practical impossibility to move their large classes to suitable field areaSj if these areas even exist any longer. How much the low percentage of use of the new techniques examined is due to the reasons listed in the previous paragraphs is unknown. In many cases the methods may have been considered and then rejected by the instruct ors involved because they seemed unfeasible or did not fit the conditions encountered at the respective school. In still other situations, the instructors involved may not know enough about the methods to consider their use or many may not be aware of them. The reasons behind each of 135 the "no" answers were not explored in this study. Summary The majority of the data obtained in the course of this study is presented under nine major headings in the body of Chapter IV. The first section shows the number of two year colleges which offer geology and provides the answer to the first question posed in the introduction. The second section concerns the geology curriculum in the junior college and answers questions 2 through 4. The third hypothesis was considered here and found to be sup ported. Student enrollment was studied in the third sec tion and the fifth question was answered. Hypotheses 1 and 2 were also considered and found to be supported by the evidence. The fourth section was concerned with the future of the junior college geology program and provided the answer to question 6. Next the problems of housing were examined and in answering questions 7 and 8 it was found that a majority of the schools judged their facilities inadequate but were expecting improvements in the foresee able future. Section 6 recounted the adequacy of the instructional equipment in the community colleges;, answered question 9 and attempted to provide an answer for question 10. The faculty was studied in the following section and answers to questions 11 through 15 presented. Generally the faculty is well-qualified but heavily overloaded. Salaries were also studied. The final section expressed 136 the amount of experimentation with new teaching techniques at the junior college level. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The preceding chapter presented the information and data obtained by a questionnaire sent to all junior colleges offering geology In the United States. Additional information obtained by means of a preliminary post card survey, interviews, and a review of the literature were integrated with the questionnaire data to formulate answers to a series of questions posed In the introduction to the study. In this final chapter the study is summarized and then the conclusions to be drawn from it presented. Discussion and proposals concerning optimum programs follow the conclusions and in the final section several recommendations are made. Summary Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study was to determine the present condition of geological education in the junior college and to discover what should be the status and ex tent of geological education in the lower division. The information was needed because of the paucity of knowledge 137 138 concerning geological education at the two year college level and because ever-increasing numbers of college students take their Introductory college programs in these institutions. Procedures In order to ascertain the status of junior college geological education in an organized manner a series of 16 questions were formulated. The answers to these questions it was felt would provide the essential information con cerning the current condition of geology programs in the two year college. As a further aid to the study, three hypotheses were proposed for testing, namely: 1. The number of students taking geology in the junior colleges is extensive and increasing. 2. The proportion of students who plan to become geology majors has not increased materially. 3- Most junior college geology departments per ceive their role to be general education rather than pre professional training. The first research step was a review of the liter ature followed by a post-card survey. Most of the research data was derived from an extensive questionnaire sent to all junior college geology departments. Data were process ed and presented principally in map form. The scope of the investigation was national and all 139 two year schools listed in the 1967 Directory of the American Association of Junior Colleges were contacted. In order to obtain information regarding standards, interviews were conducted with representatives of 5 of the 6 geology departments granting graduate degrees in southern California. Informal interviews with colleagues teaching geology in local junior colleges completed the data-gather- ing phase of the research. Findings from the Literature Work undertaken concerning the problem and the amount of research pertaining to the lower division of geological education was limited. Because the history of geology as a profession is one of boom or depression and because geology is just emerging from the depths of a depression, a literature search was made to trace the his tory of the slump. Through 1957 the numbers of under graduate students increased yearly, then in 1957-58 the number of juniors declined, followed by seniors in 1958-5 9- By 1962 there were not enough graduating geologists to fill all of the available post-graduate fellowships and indus trial positions. Enrollment continued to be low through 1965 but in 1967 the situation was improving. The problem was essentially one of supply and demand in which geologists had discovered a surplus of mineral reserves. With a lessening of demand the employing companies reduced their geological staffs. As a result, many students stopped pursuing geology as a major. Such drastic reductions in the numbers of under graduate students caused the faculties of geology depart ments throughout the country to examine and reassess their programs and to undertake several studies on the national level. The most important of these was the Geological Education Orientation Study (GEO-Study) reported on by Hambleton and other (41,42). Many recommendations were made by this group but the most significant for the pur poses of the current study concerned the beginning courses about which there were two main points of view: (l) that these courses should be rigorous, based mainly on the principles of chemistry, physics, and mathematics, and be highly quantitative, or (2) that they should be culturally based and designed to offer even the student poorly pre pared in science insight into and appreciation of his sur roundings and at the same time provide the geology major sufficient although perhaps not as complete background for future studies. Hambleton also outlined several possible new curricular approaches. Other authors, (25, 50, 60, 71), made similar but not as far-reaching studies. Many individual courses were probed and generally the course most criticized was Historical Geology. Virtually all recommended that it be reorganized to eliminate the dull repetition of facts. The teacher also received consideration in the 141 literature. Generally it was agreed that short courses and institutes were needed to help him keep ahreast of his field but that the principal responsibility rested with the individual teacher. Several investigators agreed that for a teacher to be good he must himself engage in research; he must help to add to the store of knowledge which he dispenses. Little has been written about new teaching methods in geology specifically, , but Brown and Thornton's New Media in Higher Education (3) named 10 new techniques currently being applied throughout higher education. Prom their list it was possible to compile a reduced list of 6 methods which might be applicable to geological education. Others writing in the geological literature described minor innovations which seemed useful. The major reports men tioned earlier,, as well as several others written on teaching techniques^ urged the early incorporation of extensive field work into the beginning courses. Only one report of any significance has been made specifically about the junior college and it encompasses the entire spectrum of science. The National Science Foundation in its third report to Congress (8) included a wealth of information concerning the faculty and potential of junior colleges for science and listed many shortcom ings. Unfortunately the report contains little which spec ifically refers to the more limited subject of the current research. Post Card Survey.--After the review of the litera ture a post card survey was made to determine how many of the two year colleges listed in the 1967 Directory of the American Association of Junior Colleges taught geology. This post card survey achieved a 9 6 .5 per cent return and 287 two year colleges indicated that they offered a geol ogy program. Questionnaire Survey.--The questionnaire, after initial revision^ was submitted to the American Geological Institute along with a request for sponsorship of the study. The American Geological Institute agreed to sponsor the research and made many valuable comments con cerning the format of the questionnaire. After its print ing, the questionnaire was mailed to the 287 colleges answering in the affirmative on the post card survey. Answers were received from 200, but fourteen indicated that the post card reply was in error. The list of colleges offering geology was corrected to 266 schools and the total of satisfactory replies was 18 6, a 70 -0 per cent return. To aid In the understanding of the remainder of the summary the topics are presented as answers to the questions posed in Chapter I. 1. How many junior colleges offer geology? . 143 As noted In a prior paragraph, the final listing included 266 (30-3 per cent of all the junior colleges in the United States) two year colleges which list geology in their curricula. As an aid to the study the schools were arbitrarily placed in regions. The distribution of those which offer geology is unequal. Region VI, which has only 17 per cent of the total number of colleges, contains 40 per cent of those which offer geology. Regions III and V, with 29 per cent of the schools between them offer another 35-1 per cent of the geology. Thus the other three regions with 54 per cent of the total number of schools, offer only 25 per cent of the geology instruction. 2. What is the extent of the geology curriculum in the junior college? Curricula in most of the junior colleges are limited. The most commonly offered geology course is Physical Geology which is presented by 73 per cent of the colleges. Historical Geology is offered by 68 per cent, while the third most common course. Survey of Geology Is given by only 36 per cent. Survey of Geology, however, is the second most popular with students in that its enroll ment throughout the nation exceeds that of Historical Geology by over 2000 students. Mineralogy is the fourth most commonly offered geology course, but by only 37 of the two year colleges, or 14 per cent. The other three standard geology courses. Petrology, Paleontology, and 144 Field Geology, are offered by 4, 13, and 7 schools respectively. A great many other geology courses, some of a specialized or regional interest are also Included in curricula hut in a limited number of schools. 4. What has been the extent of junior college geological education in the past? Generally, the history of the junior college geology program is limited in years. The mean starting year throughout the United States is 1958, and in only 24 per cent of the schools is the program over 10 years old. In addition, 21 per cent of the programs are less than 2 years old. In 45 per cent of the colleges the number of course offerings has increased since inception of the pro gram and in another 40 per cent the number of courses has remained the same. Only 6 per cent of the schools have fewer courses today than in the past. The advent of the Earth Science Curriculum Project programs in the secondary schools has had little effect on the curriculum. Generally the administrative atmosphere of the junior colleges is favorable to the geology program. Only 24 per cent of the respondents felt that the administra tion was neutral and at only a single school was the atmosphere considered unfavorable. Most junior college geology departments considered funds to be adequate and about one-third were restricted as to field trips. As a rule two year college geology instructors are free to set 145 their own academic standards since only 17 per cent of the junior colleges had established grading policies. 5. How many students enroll in geology in the junior colleges? Student geology enrollment in the junior colleges has grown tremendously. The average yearly percentage of gain is nearly 22 per cent and in the past 7 years the total junior college geology enrollment has increased 310 per cent from 8364 in 196I-I962 to 26_, 86l in 1967-6 8. These figures are based on a 70 per cent return of the questionnaire but on nearly 20 per cent of the question naires the enrollment question was left unanswered. As a result the enrollments could be as much as 50 per cent higher. Less than 2 per cent of all junior college geology students intend to become geology majors. Fifty-two per cent of the reporting schools trans ferred prospective geology majors to at least one senior college; over one-third report students who have trans ferred to still a second and third college. Only 8.4 per cent of the geology instructors stated that their students have had any academic difficulty upon transferring. 6. What trends can be discerned for the future of junior college geological education? Seventy-nine per cent of the junior colleges expect a slow but steady increase in enrollments. Another 6 per cent expect large increases^ and 12 per cent expect 146 no change. Only 3 per cent of the respondents anticipate a decrease in enrollment. A surprising 54 per cent of the junior college geology departments considered their facilities inadequate but exactly the same percentage expected improved facili ties soon. Unfortunately, 9 per cent of the improvements were expected in schools which already had adequate hous ing. Over half, 55 per cent, of the junior colleges expect to add new courses to their curricula. 7- How well-housed are junior college geology departments? A total of 312 rooms is used for the teaching of geology in the 186 responding junior colleges. The most common number of rooms per school is 2 (45-7 per cent) while 1 room is used in nearly as many (44.7 per cent). Five is the largest number of rooms used. More laborator ies were designed specifically for geology and not for purposes of sharing with other disciplines. Approximately one-quarter of all the rooms were either designed for geology or used exclusively for geology. 9- How well equipped are junior college geology departments? About one-half of the junior colleges are equipped with an adequate variety and amount of equipment. 11. How large is the junior college geology faculty? 147 The responding two year colleges employ a total of 237 full-time-equivalent faculty members to teach geology. Sixty per cent of the schools have only a single faculty member In the geology department and 18 per cent have only part-time teachers. Two-man departments exist in 14 per cent of the Junior colleges and 3 or more member depart ments constitute 8 per cent. Most of the instructors have heavy teaching loads, the national average being 16 .1 contact hours. This fact is due mostly to the use of load ratios which assume that 1 hour of lecture is equivalent to I .67 hours of laboratory on the average. In addition to the large normal loads, 38 per cent of the instructors carry overloads for which they usually receive additional remuneration. Finally, a majority of the geology instruct ors teach at least one class outside of their major field. 12. What Is the general level and recency of training of junior college geology instructors? The standard degree level for junior college geology instructors is the master's (8 0 .3 per cent). Doctorates were held by 14.5 per cent of the faculty while only 5 .2 per cent had completed only the bachelors degree. A majority of the highest degrees were earned within the past 10 years and 6 7 .8 per cent are in the field of geology. Only 28.4 per cent of the geology faculty has attended National Science Foundation or National Defense Education Act Institutes and on the average it has been 5 148 years since last attendance. 13* What is the minimum standard of training for teachers of geology in the lower division? The bachelors degree possibly constitutes the absolute minimum of acceptable preparation for teaching geology at the junior college level but considering the variety of courses which must be taught and other important factors the master’s degree must be considered the ideal minimum academic degree. Since few junior colleges have any time, facilities, money or encouragement for research, the doctorate should not be considered as a minimum requirement. 14. What is the need for updating the education of junior college instructors concerning innovations and new techniques? Inasmuch as most of the junior college geology departments consist of only 1 person, few geology instruct ors have attended institutes. The field of geology is changing rapidly. Thirty per cent of the instructors hold degrees outside of geology. Since the teaching loads are heavy, and there is little opportunity for research, a majority of the faculty is undoubtedly in need of some up- dating. 15- What are the opportunities and inducements for becoming and remaining a geology instructor on the junior college level. 1^9 Generally the salary levels compare favorably with other types of employers. There Is no requirement for research in insure advancement. 16. What curricular and/or teaching innovations are being made in the junior college geology program? Only a small percentage of the junior college geology departments are experimenting with new teaching techniques. The greatest number, 27 per cent, are utiliz ing multi-media or audio-tutorial methods, and 25 per cent are using giant slides. Much smaller percentages are experimenting with programmed instruction (16 per cent), television (14 per cent), and quantitative geology (13 per cent). Only 7 per cent are considering computer assisted instruction. In many cases the lack of innovation undoubt edly has good justification but In at least some of the schools the lack probably is related to the need for up dating. Conclusions Today in a time of great change, social, moral, and even educational goals and aspirations are being attacked and many will undoubtedly have to be reconsidered and revised. New techniques of communication and of teaching have been devised and are being tested. It is with this background in mind that all of the conclusions and recommendations made in this study must be viewed. Despite 150 the foment* the basic home for uian, the earth; does not change in its essential physical form. Yet because of our rapidly increasing numbers it is more important than ever that all who live on the earth develop a more thorough and vital understanding of her nature and workings. We are faced with depletion of our taken-for-granted resources and; worse yet; with ever-increasing threats of pollution to those that remain. Thus it is more important than ever that some study of geology be included in the general education of every person who wishes to consider himself educated. In this light the following conclusions are arrived at : 1. Relatively few junior colleges offer geology. 2. The number of students in geology will continue to increase. 3- Large numbers of geology instructors will be needed for the increasing student bodies and for staffing new departments. 4. The number of qualified personnel is not increasing in proportion to the need. 5* The junior college geology curriculum will continue to increase in the variety of courses offered. 6. More short courses and institutes are needed to update the geology instructor. 7. Geology teaching loads in the junior colleges 151 are heavier than in four year colleges. 8. In general junior colleges are not experiment ing with newer teaching techniques. Discussion and Proposals The problem of this study included determining what should be the status and extent of geological educa tion in the lower division. To do this it is necessary to establish some form of standard for each of the phases of the geology program previously studied. The optimum conditions for geological education could not., unfortunate ly., be adequately validated from the survey material; the interviews; nor from the literature. However; from all of these sources several proposals can be made and are here presented as answers to questions 3j 8; and 10 which have not been previously mentioned. 3- What is the optimum lower division geology program? There can probably never be a precise answer to this problem. A program that might be ideal for one school; a program which is suitable for the location and geologic setting of that school; its student population; and its faculty; might be very poor for another school in a different setting. At best in this section a few state ments on optimum minimum programs can be made; but the development of the whole curriculum must be left to the individual school. In the attempt to achieve suitable answers to the problem of the ideal curriculum a series of interviews were conducted with department chairmen and faculty members of 5 of the 6 senior colleges in southern California which offer at least a master's degree in geology. The programs prescribed by these schools are presented in Table 16. This table is divided into two parts because three of the schools operate on a quarter system while the other two are on a semester basis. A quick glance at this table shows considerable diversity among the programs. The gap in the program at the University of California, Los Angeles, during the second year is filled with other basic science and mathe matics courses. The feeling at UCLA is that the general education function is covered with the one quarter of physical geology offered as one-third of the basic first year physical science course. The remainder of the program is aimed toward professional preparation. At the University of California, Riverside, historical geology has essentially been eliminated, although some historical concepts are taught in the second and third quarters of the first year general geology course. The last quarter is planned to include both physical and historical geological concepts presented on a regional basis. The second year course at UCR is one of concentra- 153 TABLE 16 LOWER DIVISION GEOLOGY PROGRAMS AT SENIOR INSTITUTIONS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Semester I Semester II Semester III Semester IV Physical Geo- Historical logy (USC) Geology Physical Geo- (USC) logy (SDSC) Historical Geology (SDSC) Mineralogy ( Mineralogy ( USC) Petrology SDSC) (USC) Petrology (SDSC) Quarter I Quarter II Quarter III Quarter IV Physical Geo- Historical logy (UCLA) Geology Physical Geo- (UCLA) logy (UCSB)Nothing General-Physi- (UCSB) cal GeologyGeneral Phy- (UCR) sical Geology (UCR) Nothing (UCLA) Historical Geology (UCSB) General (Reg ional Geo logy) (UCR) Nothing (UCLA) Mineralogy (UCSB) Crystallo graphy (UCR) Quarter V Quarter VI Nothing (UCLA) Paleontology (UCLA) Mineralogy (UCSB) ' Optical Mineralogy Mineralogy (UCR) (UCSB) Paleontology (UCR) Petrology (UCR) Paleontology (UCR) 154 tlon upon the materials of geology in contrast to the processes studied in the first year. The University of California, Santa Barbara campus offers a somewhat more traditional physical and historical geology program in the first year but each is only one quarter long and there is a one quarter gap between. Both of the courses are purposely designed for general education rather than strictly professional training. The second year at Santa Barbara concentrates on the materials of geology but in a much narrower sense than at Riverside. The first two quarters involve physical mineralogy with emphasis on the rock forming minerals. In the final quar ter of the sophomore year optical mineralogy is taught., a course that traditionally has been a junior year or higher course. The Santa Barbara faculty is seriously considering changing this last portion of the program and substituting a field petrology course in its place. The University of Southern California offers a more traditional approach with physical geology, historical geology, and mineralogy in the first three semesters, then petrology in the fourth semester. Emphasis of the first two courses Is definitely on general education with the feeling that both courses in part should be made to relate to the current and future lives of the students. The program at San Diego State College is also traditional with the first year spent on processes and the 155 second on the materials of geology. The principal differ ence from a strictly traditional approach is the moving of petrology into the first two years. From the study of the literature it was apparent that the introductory course was the object of appreciable controversy. The two divergent points of view are (l) the course should be rigorous and based very much on the other basic sciences and (2) the course should be rigorous but designed for the general, cultural background educa tion of the student. The first viewpoint provides a course which would give excellent training for the future profes sional geologists. The second provides a course which is wide in scope and can serve for pre-professional training, although perhaps not as well. This type of training also provides for the very Important element of general educa tion which virtually everyone needs and can use to under stand and appreciate the environment in which he lives. Since few junior college students continue on to upper division work, and only a microscopic number of these eventually become geology majors, it is apparent that the junior college introductory course must be designed with general education in mind rather than professional train ing. The course must be designed to relate to the stu dent's future and present life and instill in him an appreciation for his environment and its preservation. For this purpose a well-designed and carefully conceived 156 course in physical geology is the most important. The course should make use of local examples and preferably a large amount of field work. Important as the concepts and processes taught in physical geology are, the student should gain some appreciation for the vast amount of time involved in the earth's evolution to its present appear ance. For this a student must have exposure to historical geology. The typical historical geology course, however, has far too often been a dull rehash of large numbers of facts on the changes of the earth and its life. Students lose sight of the forest because of the trees. It is proposed that what the junior colleges should teach as an absolute minimum, is a one-year course embrac ing both the principles of physical geology and the essen tials of historical geology, both phases including labora tory work. The scientific method, and the special methods of geology must be emphasized and the course related to the student's life. It should instill in him an apprecia tion for his environment and a desire to see more of it. It should really be a "one-year" course and artificial divisions between physical and historical geology elimin ated . If money and instructional staff are available, the junior college must endeavor to teach more than a minimum program. The second course in geology should be concerned with the materials of the earth. It should combine the 157 elements of mineralogy and petrology although, depending on available staff and the locality, some elements of paleon tology might be substituted. Laboratory work is an essen tial part of the course and should be reasonably rigorous involving the principles of chemistry and physics where appropriate. Again the cultural, social and historical aspects and consequences can be emphasized since most of the students are more likely to be seeking a general educa tion than specialized pre-professional training. If the junior colleges were involved only in lower division transfer education, the two basic courses dis cussed above would essentially constitute the curriculum. However, a major part of the function of any public com munity college is the cultural enrichment of its community. In this function the performance of the community colleges is rather discouraging. Only a few schools, mostly in Region VI, have endeavored through regional geology courses to perform this duty. (See Fig. 8.) In the past a few schools have presented such courses as the Geology of the National Parks, or the Mineralogy of the Gem Stones, geared essentially to the enlightenment and enjoyment of the general public and not specifically for fulfillment of lower division science requirements. There is a definite need for additional endeavor in this field. Locations of schools which offer the optimum curriculum as defined previously or which closely approach 158 it are plotted in Figure 33- In addition, schools which offer an adequate minimum program consisting of physical and historical geology and laboratories are indicated. 8 . What are desirable standards for housing lower division geology programs? There are no published standards on this topic and the practice varies greatly with each of the schools con tacted on the Interview survey. DIgman, (32) in his study of the space requirements for a small geology department, was concerned with the four year program. However, he made several recommendations applicable to the junior college. Digman concluded that 1 to 2 laboratory recita tion rooms are necessary for 100 students. Also required was adequate storage space. A museum was desirable, but not at the expense of laboratory space. A geology library was also recommended. The senior institutions visited in the interview survey all have laboratories devoted exclusively to geology but except for small classes which usually meet in seminar rooms or the laboratory itself all share the lecture rooms with other disciplines. Frequently the major utilization of the lecture room Is for other subj'ect matter fields, with geology occupying them one or two periods a day. From the interviews with senior institutions as well as many informal talks with colleagues in other junior colleges in southern California the following are suggested 159 ^ I n s e t 3 Ideal (0) OX Minimum (6) 29 X Inadequate (15) \ IA “ • inadequate buj Z9 • • • » » li a '© Ideal (1) 3 X Minimum (20) 57 X Inadequate (14) 40 X & . • /»*!* & Minimum Inadequate ® f i l t \ * i\i + ______ • 't slnset 1 l < & J LEGEND # ideal program o Minimum adequate progrfil t Enrichment courses + Inadequate program . No return Fig. 33- Replying sc h o o ls classified as to adequacy of program. N ational t o ta ls - ideal (9) 5 X Minimum (92 ) 51 X Inadequate (80) 44X (March 68) Minimum (5) 36 X inadequate (9) 64X 160 as the optimum conditions for the two year geology pro gram. The laboratory should be devoted exclusively to geology and be specifically designed for that purpose. It should have adequate storage and preparation areas immediately adjacent and preferably the instructors' offi ces should adjoin it. Lecture facilities should be design ed with adequate provisions for the efficient use of all types of projection equipment and sufficient wall space for the permanent display of many varieties of maps. Lecture rooms should be close to the laboratory storage areas for easy movement of demonstration equipment, specimens, and supplies. Serious thought should be given to provisions for audio-tutorial types of equipment in the laboratory areas. Unfortunately, in most junior colleges the optimum housing situation described is impossible to attain as the school would be unable to afford having room that is not used during most of the day. In small institutions a single combined lecture-laboratory room with adequate storage and preparation areas adjacent is the best com promise. The room could be shared with other fields of study and such subjects as geography, anthropology, astronomy, and meteorology would be particularly suited to such facilities. The only substantial disadvantage of sharing such a room is the difficulty students have in carrying out extended problems which may require more than l6l a single laboratory period and for which extensive labora tory preparations are required. A combined room as described above needs extensive display and storage cabinetry so that it may also serve as a limited museum. In larger colleges the separate laboratory is feasible, since the lecture may be given to a large group which can then be dispersed into several laboratory-discus- sion sections giving the laboratory the necessary utiliza tion. Smaller, advanced classes could probably have lec ture sessions in the laboratory. In all planning for geological facilities the need for adequate storage and preparation room cannot be over stated. If this space is available and conveniently locat ed, the program can generally be carried out in an efficient manner. 10. What should be the desirable standards for equipping lower division geology programs? No articles have dealt with this problem and the results of the interview survey are of little help. All of those interviewed felt that no special items of equip ment were absolutely required but several mentioned that students should be exposed to as much instrumentation as possible. This exposure does not require the students to operate the more sophisticated instruments. Considering the cost and delicate nature of most of the instruments this would not even be desirable. Rather they should 162 observe the equipment being operated if possible, and be able to see and work with output from such equipment. One interviewee felt that this could be accomplished satis factorily by means of films, if the students could then have copies of the data to manipulate. On the basis of this information, that of the original list of equipment, the first seven items on Table 3, can be considered to be the minimum list of equip ment for the junior college geology program. Of course a full selection of audio-visual equipment--slide projector motion picture projector, overhead projector, and suffic ient slides, transparencies, and films to use with them, must be available. If the student is to have adequate laboratory experiences, there must be available for use sufficient numbers of specimens of rocks, minerals, and fossils. Also needed are reasonable quantities of maps and aerial photographs for study and reference. As pre viously noted many of the new laboratory manuals contain representative selections of maps and aerial photographs, but the student still needs exposure to the entire map and to different maps of other localities. Aerial photographs as reproduced in printing leave much to be desired for detail and general usability. It is virtually a necessity for the student to familiarize himself with stereopairs and a stereoscope. With the foregoing assumptions a minimum standard 163 list of equipment is proposed for the junior college geology program. This list together with explanatory and justifying statements is presented as Table 17- Recommendations For Action 1. All schools which offer general curricula and with enrollments of over 300 students (as a minimum) should provide the beginning year course as described in the pre vious section. 2. Senior college geology departments should be more interested in the two year college programs in their geographical areas and help them develop. 3* The beginning course in geology should be changed to a year course covering the principal geologic processes and procedures as described in the previous portion of this chapter. A second year course emphasizing the material of geology should also be developed. 4. Junior college geology staffs should study their communities and seek to develop courses which will educate and interest the general population. 5- Rooms in which geology is taught should be designed for the purpose. Faculty Members should become I \ more interested in laboratory and lecture room design and be involved in the actual design work at!their schools. 6. Two year college faculties should strive to 164 TABLE 17 MINIMUM STANDARD LIST OP EQUIPMENT FOR THE LOWER DIVISION GEOLOGY PROGRAM Equipment Use Petrographic Microscope Ultra Violet Lights and Geiger Counters' Brunton Compasses (l) for demonstration and explana tion, more needed if classes are large or if optical mineral ogy is Included as part of the ideal second course in geology. (l each) mostly needed for demon stration. One instrument is sufficient for the needs of a very large class. (l) Is an absolute minimum number, if more adequate field work is to be included the number should be increased to 1 for each 4 students. Binocular or other Microscopes Jolly Balance Stereoscopes Thin Section Equipment Lapidary Equipment (l for each 5 to 6 students) these need only be available. Fre quently they can be borrowed from biological science classes when needed. (l) mostly for demonstration. The Jolly Balance can readily be replaced by good triple beam balances which have greater adaptability and utilization. (l) for each 4 students--vitally necessary for adequate aerial photo study. of dubious value considering the cost and how inexpensive com mercially cut thin sections are. not necessary in a strictly practical way but It can lead to 165 TABLE 17--Continued Equipment Use Surveying Equipment Rock Trimmer Sieve Shaker much community interest and its products can he shared with the art department. mostly for demonstration in lower division classes. It is better to borrow from the engineering depart ment as needed if such a depart ment has plane tables and alidades. an important item for the prepara tion room if the school is in an area where a reasonable amount of local collecting is possible. useful but not vitally necessary for work on the petrology of sedi ments. Sieve Sets Analytical Balances necessary if the previous item is available, but useful in their own right. They can be used without a shaker and are therefore more important. for more quantitative work in the laboratory, but it is probably better to make arrangements with the chemistry department for use of their balances. Student Col'Te'cTions Physical Geology at least 50 to 60 specimens repre sentative of the important ore and rock forming minerals, and each of the 3 rock families should be avail able for study by all of the stu dents, either in laboratory sets or in specimens which are passed around. The latter method is tedi ous and unsatisfactory in large classes. 166 TABLE 17--Continued Equipment Use Historical at least 30 to 40 specimens repre senting each of the major inverte brate phyla should he available for study. Considering the cost of specimens, reference collections are practical here with the student working on only a single specimen at one time rather than having a set. Mineralogy and Petrology student collections are vital. At least a hundred specimens for each course is the minimum. Paleontology student collection sets of adequate size would probably be impractical for this course. Sets to illus trate certain special characteris tics are desirable. Maps and Aerial Photographs Map Library Student Map TTeFs at least a hundred maps of classic physiographic regions are a necessity. Whenever possible the map coverage should be duplicated by geologic maps and aerial photographs of the most vital or interesting features shown. if adequate laboratory manuals are used, these are not vital for every student, but at least k or 5 originals of each map in the manual should be available for student reference and study. If the lab oratory manuals do not contain maps, some collections must be available. As a minimum one set of maps for each 4 students in the laboratory is recommended. 167 TABLE 17--Continued Equipment Use Aerial several excellent lists of aerial Photographs stereo-pairs are available and one or two sets of each important fea ture should be on hand. Fifteen to twenty different sets are ade quate . Museum or it is difficult to see how any Reference adequate earth science program can Cloll'ection be conducted without a sizeable collection of rock, minerals and fossils. At least one hundred specimens are considered an abso lute minimum. A large locally collected collection should also be a part of this museum. Rarely is a school so unfavorably situated that its staff cannot find a good selection of geologically interest ing specimens at least within one hundred miles of the campus. Other Equipment no set list can be compiled. What is needed depends on the training and bent of the instructional staff, the location of the school, the nature of the courses, avail ability of funds, and finally on the housing of the department. 168 acquire at least an adequate number of instruments. 7- More of the senior colleges should develop programs for training geology and earth science teachers for the junior college level. 8 . Two year college geology instructors must be well-founded in their subject matter but also need prepara tion in teaching and learning methods. They also need interest in research but can not be primarily research workers. 10. More diversified and advanced levels of regular summer session classes should be offered. It is recognized that insufficient enrollment frequently makes it difficult to justify such classes. Part of the problem might be solved by such devices as a common summer catalog for all senior college geology departments in a region listing all advanced courses. If it were sent to all of the junior college geology departments., it might solve part of the problem. 11. Junior college geology salaries will have to be raised In many areas to attract qualified personnel and to retain them as the shortage of geologists grows during the next few years. 12. Teaching loads should be reduced to the point where a normal work week at least approximates the 40 hour week that exists in industry. 13- Conditions for research should be Improved 169 and instructors encouraged "but not required to engage in it. 14. New teaching techniques which may he applic able to geological education need to be more widely published in the professional geology literature. For Further Study Since there has been essentially no prior research into geological education at the junior college level the possibilities for further study are almost unlimited. For this reason it is suggested that the following list is not at all complete: 1. More study could profitably be undertaken concerning the optimum course content of the beginning courses. Although more advanced portions of the curricu lum should remain individualized and specialized^ there undoubtedly are certain and reasonably limited numbers of facts and concepts that the beginning student needs both for his cultural background and for pre-professional training. 2. More research needs to accompany experimenta tion with new teaching methods. There must be proof that a newer and perhaps more expensive technique actually results in more and better learning for the student. 3- Some study is needed to determine what a student gains from his first one or two years of geology. The study should mainly consider the majority of students 170 taking beginning geology for general education. 4. Several questions concerning teachers of geology remain to be answered. What is the best prepara tion for the junior college geology instructor? What pro portion of his training needs to be the subject matter of his field, how much is needed in related fields, and how much training does he need in teaching and learning techniques? 5- More information is required concerning the tenure of geology teachers in junior colleges. How long do they normally remain with a school, what are their reasons for leaving, and how does this duration of stay compare with other levels of educational employment and with other types of employment? 6. Finally there must be more information develop ed as to what is needed in the way of short courses and institutes to help bring the instructor at the junior college closer to the leading edge of his field. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY 172 Books 1. Berg, John Roberts. Annotated Bibliography of Geologi cal Education, published for the" National Associa tion of Geology Teachers by the American Geological Institute, Washington, D. C., 1963- Lists all of the older references. 2. Borg, Walter R. Educational Research, An Introduction. New York: David McKay Co., Inc., 1963. A complete textbook on educational research, its methods, and purposes. 3- Brown, James W., and Thornton, James W., Jr. New Media in Higher Education. Washington, D. ST: 'Association for higher Education, and Division of Audio Visual Instructional Services, National Education Association. A listing of most of the newer techniques being tried. 4. Geology Department, San Bernardino Valley College. A Directory to the Geology Course Offerings in the Public Junior College's "of California. San Bernardino, Calif.: Geology Department, San Bernardino Valley College, 1966. 5 . Harper, William A., ed. 1967 Junior College Directory. Washington, D. C.: 'American Association' of 'Junior Colleges, 1967- Lists all the schools that could conceivably be classed as junior colleges that existed in 1967 and that were scheduled to open in 1967- It gives the address and the name of the chief executive officer. 6. Johnson, B. Lamar, ed. New Directions for Instruction in the Junior College'. ' Lo's Angeles, Calif. : School of Education,'University of California, 1965* Occasional Report No. 7 from the Junior College Leadership Program. Describes various instructional innovations throughout the country. 7- Medsker, Leland L. The Junior College. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, I960. A complete text covering all phases of the junior college. 173 8. National Science Foundation. The Junior College and Education in the Sciences. ' Washington, D"! C.: !T S3 Government Printing Office, 1967- Report of the National Science Foundation to the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Devel opment of the Committee on Science and Astronau tics, U. S. House of Representatives; Nintieth Congress, First Session. A complete report on the entire subject of science in the junior college. 9- Thornton, James W., Jr. The Community Junior College. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., I960". One of the best books available on the junior college in general and its philosophy in par ticular. Articles and Periodicals 10. Agnew, Allen F. "Student Report Writing Must be Improved," Journal of Geological Education, VII, No. 1 (1959), 29-32. Describes the general lack of preparation in communication and states that instruction in writing scientific reports is the responsibility of the geology department. 11. Agron, Sam L. "Mineral Resources for the General College Student," Journal of Geological Education, IX, No. 1 (1961), 32-33- Argues for a possible general education, lower division course innovation. 12. Albritton, Claude, Eckelmann, Donald, Kitts, David B., Shaw, Dennis, and Stearns, Richard G. "introduc tory Geology in the Framework of Liberal Arts Studies," Journal of Geological Education, XIII, No. 5 (196517 Lists concepts which should be covered in a geology course for liberal arts majors. 13. American Geological Institute. "Geology-Geophysics Students in the U.S. and Canada in 1959/' GeoTimes, III, No. 8 (1959), 16-17, 32. Notes the steady lowering of numbers of junior and senior geology majors. 14. American Geological Institute. "Pendulum Swinging Too Far - 1 960-61 Student Enrollment Survey," GeoTimes, V, No. 8 (1 9 6 1), 24-27. 15- 16. 17- 18. 19- 20 . 21. 22 . 23- 174 Graphs the alarming drop in geology enrollment. American Geological Institute. "Pendulum Has Swung Too Par - AGI Enrollment Survey Shows Shortage of Undergraduate Students in 1962," GeoTimes, VI, No. 8 (1962), 13-16. American Geological Institute. "Pendulum Performs as Predicted - 1963 Enrollment Survey," GeoTimes, VII, No. 6 (1963), 20-24. American Geological Institute. "GeoStudy Questionnaire GeoTimes, X, No. 3 (1965)* 14-15. A discussion of the results of a questionnaire sent to departments of geology concerning the geology curriculum. Baldwin, Brewster. "Groundwater Reports for Outside Reading in the Beginning Geology Course," Journal of Geological Education, VIII, No. 1 (196071 9-10. A possible innovation in the teaching of beginning geology. Baumel, H. B., and Berger, J. C. "Meeting the Chall enge of Community College Science Instruction," Science Education, LI (April, 1967), 263-64. A' general discussion that has only limited application to this study. Beebe, B. Warren. "Quest for Unity in the Geological Sciences," GeoTimes, XII, No. 5 (1 9 6 7), 18-22. Part of the "story of the founding of the AGI. Beerbower, James R., and Dyson, James L. "Why Teach Historical Geology?" Journal of Geological Educa- tion, VII, No. 2 (1959)* 71-74. Boardman, Donald C. "Correlating the Geology Curricu lum with the General Education Requirements of the College," Journal of Geological Education, V, No. 1 (1957)* TUT A plea to develop closer liason between science departments and the faculties In human ities and social studies. Campbell, Charles D. "What Every Young Geologist Should Know," Journal of Geological Education, X, No. 2, pt. 1 (1962), 3'7-'40. The case for a broad general education for geologists. 175 24. Campbell, Ian. "Teaching and Research: Immiscible Components or Isomorphus Series?" Journal of Geological Education, VI, No. 1 (1955j7 11-14. The' author argues for the latter situation. 2 5. Charlier, R. H., and Daley, C. "Requirements in Geology Departments," Science Education, XLVIII (October, 1964), 375-3781 Reports on a survey of 58 major universities and lists the 8 most important courses. 26. Childs, Orlo E. "History and Forecast of Geological Training and Employment," American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin~,~ XLV, ~ No. 3 (August, T9bT)T , l'4bT-Tlf7G. The report of a survey conducted by the AAPG concerning the prospects for geology graduates in Industry and graduate school. 2 7. Cloud, Preston E., Jr. "Earth Science Today," Science, CXLIV, No. 3625 (1964), 1428-1431. General trends in the field as a whole. 28. Cooper, Byron N. "Research and Effective Teaching in the Geologic Sciences," Journal of Geological Education, VI, No. 1 (195'8) ' 7 15—18. The two must go together. 29. Council on Education in the Geological Sciences. "(Report)", GeoTimes, X No. 2 (196 5), 18-19. Tells of the need for updating by geology teachers. 30. Croneis, Carey. "Future Spectrum of Earth Science Education," Journal of Geological Education, XIII, No. 2 (1965)V 35-39- Geology should recapture many geologic fields and needs to train people to do this. 31. Decker, Robert W. "The Future's Market," GeoTimes, VI, No. 1 (1961), 47. Suggests that better employment conditions are in the offing. 32. Digman, Ralph. "Space Requirements for a Small College Geology Department," Journal of Geological Educa tion, II, No. 2 (1954), 53-5b- Pertains mostly to a four year program and represents the only research on the topic. 33. Dryden, Lincoln A., Jr. "On Teaching Historical 176 Geology," Journal of Geological Education, VII, No. 2 (1959), bTTtr:---------------------------- A description of the problems involved in this course. 34. Eckelmann, F. Donald. "Physical Geology Integrated with General Chemistry/' Journal of Geological Education, VI, No. 2 (195«), 3-5* 35- Ellison, Samuel P., Jr. "A Philosophy of Geological Education," Journal of Geological Education, XIV, ■ No. 1 (1966)',' '3-b*. “ 36. Fields, Ralph R., Mastin, John W., and Walsh, James P. "Educational Programs," Review of Educational Research, XXXV, No. 4 (October, 1965)', 29'2'-'303- Reviews the very limited research done on higher education curriculum problems. 37- Flawn, Robert T. "The Other Road," Journal of Geolo gical Education, XV, No. 1 (1 9 6 7),' V7- ' A' pl'ea 'for the application of geology to environmental problems and to approaches other than quantitative. 3 8. Gates, Olcott. "The Geology Major in a Small College" Journal of Geological Education, IX, No. 2 (1 9 6 1), '8 3' - '8 £ r: '---- — ----- — — — States the case for combining subjects to reduce the number of courses. 39- Hagner, Arthur F., and Henderson, Donald M. "Problems in Geologic Education: The Elementary Course," Journal of Geological Education, VII, No. 1 (1959)j 3b-39. Stresses the need for strong background studies in the fundamental sciences for geology majors. 40. Halbouty, Michael T. "History and Forecast of Academ ic and Employment Relationships in the Geologic Profession," Houston Geological Society, Bulletin, IV, No. 2 (I9bl), 7-b. A brief resume of the AAPG survey on the topic. 41. Hambleton, William W. "The Status of Undergraduate Geologic Education, a GEO-Study Report," GeoTimes, VIII, No. 4, Pt. 2 (November, 1 9 6 3), 29p. Iji'scusses the problems of geological educa tion and outlines possible solutions to problems. 177 42. Hambleton, W. W., Beerbower, J. R., Gutschick, R. C., Jahns, R. H., Prouty, C. E., Roy, C. J., Heller,, R. L., and Snyder, J. L. "The Status of Under graduate Geologic Education - A Geo-Study Report, Including Recommendations for An Action Program," GeoTimes, VIII, No. 5, Pt. 2 (January, 19641 ), 13 p. Particularly recommends that historical geology be replaced or revised. 43. Hambleton, William W. "Impact of High School Earth- Science Courses on College Curricula," Journal of Geological Education, XII, No. 2 (1964)" b9-73- Reviews 't'he need for study and change due to the offering of earth science courses in secondary schools. 44. Henderson, Bonnie C. "A Survey of Geology-Geophysics Students in the Colleges and Universities of the United States and Canada in I96O-6 1," American Geological Institute, Report, XII, 1961 edition, T T p^ A compilation of the numbers of students in the junior and senior classes and the graduate programs. 45- Henderson, Bonnie C. - Same as above but for 1955-56, 1956-57, 1957-5 8, and 1961-6 2. 46. Henderson, Bonnie C. "Directory of Geoscience Depart ments in the Colleges and Universities of the United States and Canada," American Geological Institute, Report XI (revised')', Cl'962'), 125 P- Also issued in 1956-57, and 1954-55, and as Report IX in 1953, Report VIII in December, 1952, and Report VI in March, 1952. It was also issued In March, 1949 by the American Association of Petro leum Geologists. A listing of the schools giving degrees in geology and their degree requirements. 47. Henderson, Bonnie C. "Geology Graduates Sought Again," GeoTimes, VIII, No. 7 (1964), 8 . Reports the up turn in demand. 48. Henderson, Bonnie C. "Demand and Supply," GeoTimes, X, No. 1 (1965), 12-15- Reports that the supply of geologists is still low. 49. Henderson, Bonnie C. "Enrollment in Earth Sciences - Demand and Supply," GeoTimes, XII, No. 7 (1967), 15-1 6. 178 Reports on the latest student census. 50. Gendricks, Herbert E. "Basic Science and Mathematics Requirements In the Geology Curriculum/' Journal of Geological Education, V, No. 1 (1957)/ b-10. Lists the usual patterns of science require ments for geology majors. 51. Hendrix, Thomas E., and Fox, William T. "Experimental Approaches to the Introductory Geology Course," Journal of Geological Education, XIII, No. 5 (1965)* T3 7- T ^------------------------- Describes ten experimental approaches currently in use. 52. Hewitt, Philip C. "Why Study Geology?" Journal of Geological Education, XV, No. 1 (196771 8-T0T Lists' the major reasons why people enter the study of geology. 53- Hough, J. L. "The Written Word," Journal of Geological Education, VII, No. 1 (1959) ^ 33-3'5. Gives reasons why the college should accept some responsibility for improving students writing. 54. Hurlbut, Cornelius S. "The Elementary Course in a Changing Mineralogy," American Mineralogist, XLIX, Nos. 3-4 (1964), 227-2417 Gives a good example of a survey of major schools. 55> Hussey, Keith M. "Applied Courses Will Limit Our 1 Products'Potential," Journal of Geological Educa tion, V, No. 1 (1957)* '4-51 States the case against over-specialization. 5 6. Johnson, Robert B. "Teaching Geology by Television: Effective Method or Gimmick," Journal of Geologi- cal Education, IX, No. 1 (196177 24-26. An excellent review of this teaching method. 57. LaFleur, Robert G. "Historical Geology for the Geology Major," Journal of Geological Education, VII, No. 2 (1959)7 64-'6b. 5 8. LaPorte, Leo F. "Evolution as a Geologic Concept: An Introductory Geology Course," Journal of Geological Education, XIII, No. 4 (1 9 6 5), 115-116. Argues for depth rather than breadth for liberal arts students. 179 59- Lindquistj Clarence B. "Geology Degrees During the Decade of the Fifties," GeoTimes, V, No. 8 (1 9 6 1), 15-17. Lists the total numbers of degrees awarded during the 1 9 5 0's and the major schools. 60. McMannis, William J. "The Search for a Basic Geology Curriculum," GeoTimes, VI, No. 8 (196 2), 32-35- Reports on a questionnaire survey concerning what the geology curriculum should be. 61. Monnett, V. Brown. "The Status of Geological Educa tion in the United States Today," Journal of Geological Education, X, No. 1 (19'62), 22-2'7. A" "good’ short background of the problem as it pertains to the profession as a whole. 62. Moss, John H. "Do Undergraduate Geology Departments Have a Future," Journal of Geological Education, XIII, No. 1 (196517 " 3"-bL ~ ~ Author states that the geology course should be strengthened and describes course at his school. 6 3. Moss, John H. "Geology Majors: Are They Soon to Become Extinct," GeoTimes, VII, No. 7 (7963), 77-19- Gives reasons why geology majors entered the field and how to encourage them. 64. Murray, Grover E. "Some Relationships of Teaching and Research in Geology," Journal of Geological Educa tion, VI, No. 1 (1958), 19-21. Again states that the two belong together. 6 5. National Register of Scientific and Technical Personnel "Summary of American Science Manpower, 1 9 6 6," Na tional Science Foundation, NSF 68-9, March, 1 9 6 8. 6 6. Norris, R. M. "Facts or Concepts, Which Should be Emphasized in Introductory Courses?" (abstract) Geological Society of America, Bulletin, LXXI, No. 12, Ft.' ' 2 ' '(T9'60’ ) , ' T9'37------------------ 67- Norton, Mathew F., and Giese, Ross F., Jr. "An Econom ical Compass and Clinometer for Basic Geology Courses," Journal of Geological Education, VII, No. 1 (1959), 10-12. States the need to introduce field work into the laboratory of the first year course. 6 8. Parker, John M., 3^b. "Geological Engineering Curricu lum," Journal of Geological Education, IX, No. 1 180 (1 9 6 1), 13-1 8. Gives background information on this branch of geology. 6 9. Patton, LeRoy T. "Geology Enrollment," GeoTimes, I, No. 10 (1957), 11- More information on this topic and some views on the1 curriculum. 70. Phinney, William C. "Geology Majors and Other Sciences GeoTimes, VIII, No. 7 (1964), 14-15- Geology students grades are often low in other science fields. 71. Prouty, Chilton E. "NAGT Reports on Curriculum Survey of Degree-Granting Geology Departments," GeoTimes, VI, No. 3 (1961), 28-34. An important listing of courses considered essential. 72. Rahm, David A. "An Integrated Pinal Examination for Laboratories in Introductory Geology," Journal of Geological Education, VIII, No. 2 (1960“J7 49-53• An interesting new teaching technique. 73- Seltin, Richard J. "Geology in a Basic College Course" Journal of Geological Education, VI, No. 2 (1958), 6-8. Describes a natural science course at Michigan State University. 74. Smith, P. G. "A Hybrid Man-Machine Teaching Method," Journal of Geological Education, XIV, No. 4 (1 9 6 6), 123-12b. Describes another new teaching technique. 75. Snyder, John. "Education in Geology," GeoTimes, VIII, No. 3 (1963), 29. Underscores many of the shortcomings of teachers of geology. 7 6. Socolow, Arthur A. "Bread and Butter Courses May Be Fattening," Journal of Geological Education, VI, No. 2 (1958), 1-2. Beginning courses must be dynamic and be taught by dynamic instructors. 77- Stone, Richard 0. "Earth Science," Science Education News, American Association for the-"Advancement of "Science, Miscellaneous Publication No. 67-20, Dec., 1967- 181 7 8. Thurston, William R. "Scholarship in Geology/' Journal of Geological Education, VI, No. 1 (1958), £?2-23 • Teachers must do research to he good. 79- Tullis, Edward I. "Basic Science Curriculum in Geology (abstract)'/ Geological Society of America, Special Paper, LXVIII' '(^62), '108. “ An idea about the ideal curriculum. 80. Tuttle, Sherwood D., and Hase, Donald H. "Realism in Geology Classes," GeoTimes, VIII, No. 3 (1963), 17-19. New techniques for the beginning class in geology. 81. Vitaliano, Dorothy B. "Foreign Languages for Geolog ists," Journal of Geological Education, VII, No. 2 (1959), ^9-53. A discussion of the need for a reading know ledge of languages to open the door to the world's geologic literature. A P P E N D I C E S 182 APPENDIX A TWO HALVES OF POST CARD USED IN INITIAL SURVEY 183 APPENDIX A TWO HALVES OF POST CARD USED IN INITIAL SURVEY Dr. UirtoninG-. Bass in, President New York City Community College of Applied Arts and Sciences Brooklyn, New York 11201 f~l N O courses in geology are offered. □ YES. O ne or more courses in geolog)' are offered or listed in T he name of the instructor or person in charge of geology instruc tion is: SECOND ? = 32-13 our catalog. Name of Department College Address City M n a i u w , . i r z jii J ELDON S. ROTH 27965 Panamint Street BARSTO W , CA LIFO R N IA 92311 D e a r S i r : If your college offers any courses in geology we would like to include it in a national study on the status of geological education in the junior colleges of the U nited States. T his project, which has been endorsed by the American Geological Institute, should provide the first clear picture of our discipline at this level. T o help us locate all colleges teaching geology, would you please answer the questions on the attached card and return it to me. Thank you, E l d o n S. R o m Department of Geology Barstow College be Paid BUSINESS REPLY CARD F IR S T CLASS P E R M IT No. 81 BARSTOW , C A L IF . 92311 No Postage Stamp Necessary If Mailed in the United States E L D O N S. R O TH 27965 Panamint Street BA R STO W , CA LIFO R N IA 92311 512 p m o n l 714 /256-6751 Barstow College 1AR ST OW J U N I O R C O LL EG E DI STR IC T 2 7 0 0 B A R S T O W R O A D B A R S T O W . C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 3 1 1 January 2, 1968 Dear Colleaguei We who are Involved in the teaching of geology in the Junior colleges of the United StateB know the growing part being played by our institutions in the undergraduate education of college studente in our country. In order to aoourately assess our role in geological eduoation I am requesting you to fill in the enclosed questionnaire as completely as possible and return it by January 51. i —1 co C J l I Some of the information requested on the questionnaire will undoubtedly require quite a bit of research on your part, e.g. the past enrollment figures, flease do your best so that we can get a clear picture of our contribution to geological education. If possible, a summary of the findings will be published and reprints supplied to all contributing institutions. Sincerely, Eldon S. Roth Instructor of Geology The objective of this study is to give us all a clearer picture of our discipline in the junior college and to help the senior institutions to which our students transfer achieve a better understanding of the quality and quantity of geological education in the two year colleges. This study is endorsed by the Amerioan Geological Institute and the information obtained will be made available for use by that organisation in its future manpower studies. STA TU S OF GEOLOGY IN T H E JUNIO R COLLEGE □□□ □□ □ 1 2 3 4 5 6 N am e of College D ep artm en t/D iv isio n A ddress I. FACILITIES Rooms used for geology Room CA) Room (B ) Room (C ) Room (D ) Room (E ) Room (F ) F o r geology exclusively ’□ 12D «□ " □ 27D 32D D esigned specifically fo r geology 13D »[- 2 S [ ~ 33 CZ S h are d w ith o th er su b jects 9D 1 9 D 24D “□ 34D U sed for lab o ra to ry 10D "□ 20D 25D 30D 35D U sed for le c tu re “□ 16D 21D 26D "□ 36D II. Equipment Petrographic microscopes Ultra violet lights Geiger counters Brunton compasses Binocular or other microscopes Jolly balances Stereoscopes N u m b er 3 7 n n 3 8 3 9 n n 4 ° 4 Q Z T 4 7 n r r 4 9 n o ° Thin section equipment Lapidary equipment Surveying equipment Rock trimmer Sieve shaker Sieve sets Analytical balances Y es No 5 1 Q H 5 2 n n T E 5 4 D D 5 5 D D Map library—N o. of different maps: 0-49 | | ': 50-99 | j ~: 500-1000 □ « : Over 1000 Q « . 100-199 D !; 200-499 Maps for student use: No. of sets S9 C O 61 No. of maps per set | || |. 62 63 Museum or reference collection of rocks, minerals, and fossils. of specim ens L ocal collection P u rch a sed 64 65 None n □ 0 1-49 H □ 1 50-99 n □ t 100-199 H □ 3 200499 n □ 4 500-999 n □ 5 1000 or more n □ R II. EQ U IPM ENT-cont. Student laboratory collections (for individual use) No. of collections (w hat n u m b er of students can be accom m odated a t one tim e) Physical geology Historical geology Mineralogy and Crystallography Petrology Paleontology Other, specify 6 6 £ 68 |" 7or No. of specim ens (p er student) 22 23 24 Other major items of equipment.. □ □ 8 7 C a rd 2 7 □ n L Q » 1 0 L n 2 1 Q 1 13 U Q 5 1 □ 7 3 16 | □ 1 8 C O 5 [ 3 IS 1 □ 2 l C □ 1 □ □ 1 □ U I □ n □ Number of diff. sets : i n i ' 25 26 27 III. HISTORY OF GEOLOGY CURRICULUM Year first offered | | || || |: Unknown j j. 28 29 30 31 Has the number of course titles increased? Q L Decreased? j p; Remained the same? [ |3; Unknown j |L If geology was offered prior to 1955, did enrollments decrease during the period 1955-60? Yes N o | p ; Unknown | p. Have such programs as ESCP in the high schools increased your enrollment? Yes | N o [ p . Effected changes in your curriculum? Yes N o cr- u 32 L J 33 LJ 34 1— 1 35 IV. ADM INISTRATIVE ATMOSPHERE Is the administration interested in the geology program? Very □ l! Slightly | p; Neutral n - Opposed | [j. Are adequate funds available? Yes j |; N o Q Are you restricted as to field trips? Yes Q ; N o | [. Is there a grading policy? Yes? D N ° Explain__________ ____________________________ LJ 36 u 37 LJ 38 L J 39 Does the counseling service encourage j |;; or discourage | [ g students to go into geology as a professional career? LJ 40 VI. FACULTY MEMBERS Definitions: Faculty mem ber: person who teaches one or more geology courses. Full-time: employed full-time as a college teacher. Part-time: has other employment than college teaching (may teach as little as one geology course) fractional time to be entered. Use one line for each faculty member. Faculty names EM PLOYM ENT P a rt Full- tim e tim e (Give (check) fract.) TEACHING LOAD .t A . E x tra No. O ther N orm al Over- pay for geol, courses no. hrs. load over courses (specify) p er w eek h rs/w k . load Ye PhD 19 A. *□/ «□ /n* 25 26 27 28 □□ u u m u Y es No 30 31 □□ B. 5 ° D/ *□ /Qi 53 54 55 56 "□ □□ □□ n o Y es No 58 59 nn C ard 6 c . O ' n /n 11 12 13 14 1 0 D □□ □□ D O Y es No 16 17 n n D . 3 6 U/ 3 5 D C] 3 7 11 12 13 14 "□ □□ □□ D O Y es No 44 45 □□ C ard 7 E. 8 U/ U /Q O □□ □□ D O Y es No 36 17 n n F. TJ/ 3 5 D /Q7 39 49 41 42 O □□ □□ D O Yes No 44 45 n n C ard 8 G. 8 U/ 7 D /n 39 40 41 42 O UU □□ D O Yes No 16 17 □□ H. "□ / 3 5 U /U3 7 39 40 41 42 T ] u u n n d o Yes No 44 45 □□ *Data will rem ain confidential—publication will be in term s of regional averages. In terms of teaching load, ( ) hours of laboratory are equivalent to ( ) hours of lecture. V I I . INNOVATIONS Are you experimenting with any new teaching techniques? (Check) Programmed instruction Yes □ No a Television Yes □ No □ * Multi-media approach Yes □ No c r Computer assisted instruction Yes □ No □“ Giant slides Yes □ No O 1 Quantitative geology Yes □ No □- Other— please specify VIII. FUTURE TRENDS — f i v e - y e a r p r o j e c t i o n Do you expect a large increase Q h a steady increase | no increase | p; a decrease n >in your geology enrollment in the next five years? Do you anticipate that a larger percentage of these students will declare geologv majors at your school? Yes □ No D 14 Are your facilities adequate for the projected program? Yes □ n ° □ y If no, do you expect to have better facilities at vour school in the near future? Yes j ~ j No □ y Do you anticipate adding new courses? Yes No If yes— please describe —................... 17 IX. STUDENT ENROLLMENT Total (unduplicated) in all geology courses (Do not count twice if in a second course or separate lab course) Total declared majors (Estimafc as closely as possible) 1 1962- 1963 1963- 1964 1964- 1965 1965- 1966 1966- 1967 1967- 1968 u u u 18 19 20 1 . 1 . I I 1 21 22 23 n n n 2 1 25 26 n m 27 28 29 UUU 3 U 31 32 □ □ □ 33 34 35 UUU 36 37 38 1961- 1962 1 I I I I 1 29 40 41 1962- 1963 □ m 42 43 44 1963- 1964 CTD 45 46 47 1.964- 1965 n n n 48 49 50 1965- 1966 n n n 51 52 53 1966- 1967 n n n 54 55 56 1967- 1968 □cm 57 58 59 188 EDUCATION SALARY* (optional) from teaching only PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS e.g. (AAPG, GSA, SEPM) ;ar of Degree Master Bachelor 1 9 1 9 Institution of highest degree Field of degree Total hrs crd in geol Year Institutes attended NSF NDEA 1 9 1 9 32 33 34 35 □ □ □ □ 36 37 38 □ □ □ 39 40 41 42 □ □ m 9-10 mo. | |43| 112 mo. $ nnnnn 44 45 46 47 48 60 61 62 63 □ □ □ □ 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 □ □ U U 9-10 mo. j |71j j 12 mo. $nnnnn n ] ■ 80 1 1 II 1 i ii ii_ ii ii i 72 73 74 75 76 IB 19 20 21 □ □ □ □ 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 □ □ □ □ 9-10 mo. Q 29Q 12 mo- » n n n n n 30 31 32 33 34 1 II I I I 46 47 48 49 □ □ m 50 51 52 nnn 53 54 55 56 □ □ □ □ 9-10 mo. 1 — p7|— 112 mo. $nnnnn 58 59 60 61 62 [8] 80 IS 19 20 21 P 1 I----1 1 ----1 !' 1 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 m □ □ 9-10 mo. j |29| 112 mo. □ □ □ □ □ □ □ * n n n n n 30 31 32 33 34 46 47 46 49 □ □ □ □ 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 □ □ □ □ 9-10 mo. |~~|57|—-j 12 mo. $nnnnn [7] 80 1 II I I 1 I --- 1 1 ----1 1 ----IL -— I I__ 1 58 59 60 61 62 IB 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 □ □ □□ 9-10 mo. j |29| 1 12 mo. nn nn nnn i_ _ ii_ _ i i H — i i ii ii— i 30 31 32 33 34 46 47 48 49 □ □ □ □ 50 51 52 nnn 53 54 55 56 □ □ □ □ 9-10 mo. | |57j 112 mo. t n r r m 58 59 60 61 62 [8] 80 IX. ST U D E N T ENROLLM ENT-cont. To what senior institutions do most of your geology major students transfer? 61 62 School ................................ N o. Students | || [ 63 64 School ----------------------------------------------- N o. Students | | j | 65 66 School ____ - No. Students | || ] 67 68 Others .............. N o. Students | j| | Do your students have academic difficulties after transfering? Yes Q N o | | 69 Other difficulties? If so, please describe: ............ [°1 r 80 X. C O M M EN TS A N D SU G G ESTIO N S Please use the space below to write any comments, suggestions, or criticisms you may have. 0 3 VO phone 714/256-8751 Barslow College BAR STOW JUNIO R COL LEGE D IS T R I C T 2 7 0 0 B A R S T O W ROA D BARSTOW, C A L I FO RN I A 9 2 3 1 1 March 18, 1968 Dear Colleague! Approximately two months ago you should have received a copy of the enclosod questionnaire concerning the Status of Geology in the Junior College, a project endorsed by the American Geological Institute. At that time, with final examinations, the starting of the new semester, and all the other details which seem to inundate faculties I realize you may have put aside the first copy or lost it in the rusho The information which only you can supply will give us the background necessary to present our needs and capabilities to the profession as a whole and to the various national councils. I an aware that some information can not be obtained. If this is the case, please mark it not available and re turn the questionnaire anyway. Any and all information you supply will be of use and appreciated. A summary of the information obtained will be provided all participants as soon as possible after the study is completed. On the basis of earlier returns there are a few notes to make concerning the questionnaire! 1. Section 17, some Bchools have policies discouraging giving too many low grades, others leave it to the discretion of the instructor. If the latter applies, mark the aN0" square. On the laat question in Section IV the most common alternative was omitted. If you don't know, or if there seems to be no bias on the part of the counselors, chfeck both the "Encourage" and "Discourage" boxes. 2. Section V, courses may be and often are planned for both geology majors and general education. Check both boxes 190 if both are applicable* If an "Barth Soience" course is offered, please list it below in the "Othera" portion* 5* Section VI, if you are a part-time faoulty member mark what fraction of a normal load you teach, such as 1 / J • The section on teaching loads is particularly im portant. Many of us teach astronomical loads (anything over 15 contact hours might be considered heavy), others have reasonable loads but are persuaded to take overload assign ments presumably because of the oritioal shortage of teachers. Many feel a need for more time for study and research in order to do a better job. Please give this subjeot some thought and express your feelings on it. Note the last question below the table on lecture-laboratory equivalency* Finally in this section, the question on institutes may help get more institutes funded and scheduled. 4. Please feel free to make use of Section X if you can spare the time. Some of the most enlightening infor mation thus far has been contributed by colleagues who commented either on various phases of programs or on specific problems. Again I thank you for your time and efforts on behalf of geological education in the two year college. Sincerely, Eldon S. Roth Instructor of Geology INTERVIEW FORM 192 School Person General courses to be offered: Physical Geology Historical Geology Mineralogy Petrology Paleontology Field Geo logy I. PHYSICAL GEOLOGY Should include laboratory? Hours lect. Hours lab. Subject matter: Any standard text? Special items or equipment? lab: rocks minerals map interpretation air photo work other quantitative work sedimentary methods,, field trips II. HISTORICAL GEOLOGY Should include lab. Hours lect. Hours lab. Subject matter: Any standard text? Special Items or emphasis? lab: fossil identification morphology fossil drawing map interpretation stratigraphy field trips other work III. MINERALOGY Should include laboratory? Hours lect. Hours lab. No. of semesters No., of quarters Subject Matter: a standard text? Which one? Hand specimen Identification no. spec. Optical mineralogy Physical properties Chemical procedures: blowpipe wet. anal. Quantitative 193 X-ray analysis spectrometer Crystallography: goniometry contact goniometry Number of minerals: total Any other special emphasis: IV. PETROLOGY Should include laboratory? Hours lect. Hours lab. No. semesters? No. quarters? Subject matter: A standard text? Which one? Hand specimen identification: No. specimens Petrography: Sedimentary techniques: Time on igneous sedimentary metamorphic Special emphasis V. PALEONTOLOGY Should include laboratory? Hours lect. Hours lab. Subject matter: Any standard text? Which one? Morphology Number of fossils? Number of phyla or families? Invertebrates only? Micropaleo included? VI. OTHER COURSES IN GEOLOGY VII. OTHER PARTS OP THE CURRICULUM 1. Math: through trignometry college algebra diff. calculus integral calculus diff. equat. statistics other 2. Chemistry: Inorganic general qual. anal, 194 quant, anal. organic physical chem. other 3. Physics: General-1 sem. 1 year Engr. phy. 3 sem. 2 years other 4. Engineering: Descriptive geometry surveying other drawing other 5- English: 1 semester 1 year 6. Languages 7. Biological science VIII. OTHER COMMENTS--SUGGESTIONS--CRITICISMS APPENDIX B DIRECTORY OF JUNIOR COLLEGE GEOLOGY DEPARTMENTS 195 196 APPENDIX B College A'd dress DIRECTORY OP JUNIOR COLLEGE GEOLOGY DEPARTMENTS Department Courses Anchorage Community College 1700 Hillcrest Dr. Anchoragej Alaska 99801 Sheldon Jackson Junior College Box 479 Sitka, Alaska 99835 ARIZONA Arizona Western College Box 929 Yuma, Arizona 85364 Cochise College Douglas, Arizona 85607 Glendale Community College 6000 W. Olive Glendale, Arizona 85301 Faculty Geology Dr. Ruth Schmidt* Geology Miss Gladys Whitmore* Science & Math Donald W. Clay John P. McLain Math & Science Edward L. Pence* Physical Science Milford Benham? Mesa Community College Physical Sciences 1833 W. Southern Av. Frank R. Beck Mesa, Arizona 85201 Phoenix College 1202 W. Thomas Rd. Phoenix, Arizona 85013 Geology Gilbert Mills? Survey Geology Physical Geol. Historical Geol Survey Geology w/o lab. Historical Geol. w/o lab. Survey Geol. Physical Geol. Historical Geol. Physical Geol, Physical Geol. Historical Geol Mineralogy CALIFORNIA 197 Allan Hancock College 800 S. College Dr. Santa Maria,, Calif. 9 3 W Antelope Valley College 3041 W. Ave. K Lancaster, Calif. 93534 Bakersfield College Bakersfield, Calif. 93305 Bakersfield College Desert Division Ridgecrest, Calif. 93555 Barstow College 2700 Barstow Rd Barstow, Calif. 92311 Life & Physical Science Arthur Schilder Geology Warren B. Houghton Physical Geology Historical Geology Mineralogy Field Geology Physical Geology Historical Geology w/o lab. Physical Science Survey Geology John Zimmerman H. K. Lauten- schlager S. E. Karp Physical Geology Historical Geology Mineralogy Petrology E. A. Laskowski Geol. of Calif. w/o lab. Basic Mineralogy w/o lab. Desert Division Dr. Carl F. Austin* Math & Science Division Eldon S. Roth Survey Geology w/o lab. Mineralogy Geol. of Calif, w/o lab. Physical Geology Historical Geology Mineralogy Petrology Physical & Biologi cal Aspects of the Desert Cabrillo College 65OO Soquel Dr. Aptos, Calif. 95003 Cerritos College 11110 E. Alondra Norwalk, Calif. 90650 Chabot College 25555 Hesperian Blvd. Hayward, Calif. 94545 Physical Science & Math Linsley Wyant? Geology Dr. John Cannon Math & Science Kenneth Edwards Survey Geology w/o lab. Physical Geology Historical Geology Chaffey College Alta Loma, Calif. 91701 Citrus College Azusa, Calif. 91702 City College of San Francisco 50 Phelan Ave. San Francisco, Calif. 9^112 Coalinga College 300 Cherry Lane Coalinga, Calif. 93210 College of the Desert 43-500 Monterey Ave. Palm Desert, Calif. 92260 College of Marin Kentfield, Calif. 94904 College of the Redwoods Eureka, Calif. 95501 College of San Mateo San Mateo, Calif. 94402 College of the Sequoias Visalia, Calif. 93277 Geology Marlin L. Dickey Geology Dee D. Trent Richard Ohrhom* Donald Nemeth Geology William R. Cleveland 198 Survey Geology Physical Geology Historical Geology Geol. Lab. Tech. Survey Geology Physical Geology Historical Geology w/o lab Geology Robert Kaar Willis Pelletier Geology Elliot J. Fowkes Physical Sciences Wilbur Rankin? Geology Stephen C. Bruff Kenneth J. Miller Leonard D. Baver Science, Math & Engr. Alfred Batz? Geology William Glen? Physical Geology Historical Geology Mineralogy Paleontology Physical Geology Historical Geology w/o lab. Mineralogy Survey Geology w/o lab. Physical Geology Historical Geology Mineralogy Paleontology w/o lab. Field Geology Oceanology w/o lab. 199 College of the Siskiyous 800 College Ave. Rte. Box 1025 Weed, Calif. 96094 Compton College 1111 E. Artesia Blvd. Compton; Calif. 90221 Contra Costa College San PablO; Calif. 94806 Diablo Valley College 321 Golf Club Rd. Pleasant Hill; Calif. 94523 Cuesta College Box J San Luis Obispo; Calif. 93401 Cypress Junior College 9200 Valley View Cypress; Calif. 90630 El Camino College El CaminO; Calif, via Torrance; Calif. 90506 Foothill College 12345 El Monte Los Altos HillS; Calif. 94022 Geology Paul H. Dawson Physical Science John H. Hayes Natural Science Donald B. Moore Physical Science Don L. Protzman Robert H. Gray Physical Science John E. Bowen Physical Science Altus L. Simp son* Geology Waldo Ford E. Joan Baldwin Bruce Fitz patrick Amil Cochran Dorothy Stellar Physical Science & Math Nelson Timothy Hall Physical Geology Historical Geology Physical Geology Survey of Geology w/o lab. Historical Geology w/o lab. Survey Geology Physical Geology Historical Geology Mineralogy Physical Geology Historical Geology Physical Geology Survey Geology Physical Geology Historical Geology Mineralogy Physical Geology Historical Geology Mineralogy Spec. Field Proj. California Spec. Field Proj . Southwestern US Honors Reading Fullerton Junior 200 College 321 E. Chapman Fullerton, Calif. 92634 Gavilan College P. 0. Box 126 Gilroy, Calif. 95020 Glendale College 1500 N. Verdugo Rd Glendale, Calif. 91208 Grossmont College 8800 Grossmont College Dr. El Cajon, Calif. 92020 Hartnell College 156 Homestead Ave. Salinas, Calif. 93901 Imperial Valley College P. 0. Box 158 Imperial, Calif. 92251 Lassen College 1100 Main Street Susanville, Calif. 96130 Long Beach City College 4901 E. Carson Long Beach, Calif. 90808 East Los Angeles College 5357 E. Brooklyn Ave. Los Angeles, Calif. 90022 Physical Science Walter Reiss? Physical Science James Ledden? Physical Science Physical Geology & Math Historical Geology Delos R. Tucker Paleontology w/o lab. Physical Science Survey Geology Ray C. Ressler Physical Geology Historical Geology w/o lab. Physical Science Raymond P. Puck Natural Science & Math William D. Miller Math-Science Van Mitchell? Survey Geology w/o lab. Physical Geology Historical Geology Survey Geology Physical Geology Historical Geology Earth Science w/o lab. Physical Science Physical Geology Charles Hoheisel Howard Shifflett Charles Curtis Loren Slentz* John Spotts* Historical Geology w/o lab. Mineralogy Paul Schnurr* Michael Jeffries- Charles Peterson* Harris* Earth Sciences John Grant? 201 Los Angeles City College 855 N. Vermont Av. Los Angeles, Calif. 90029 Earth Science George J. Bell- emin Mark Newton Jim Vernon* June Carroll* Richard Orhbom Don Garrett Physical Geology Historical Geology Paleontology w/o lab. Los Angeles Harbor College 1111 Figueroa PI. Wilmington,, Calif. 90744 Science Martin Reiter E. N. Gotts- danker Physical Geology w/o lab. Historical Geology w/o lab. Los Angeles Pierce College Woodland Hills, Calif. 91364 Geology Barry Haskell Richard Lownes* Los Angeles Trade- Technical College 400 W. Washington Los Angeles, Calif 90015 Science Larry Dalen? Los Angeles Valley College 5800 Fulton Van Nuys, Calif. 91401 Earth Science Robert Cooney John Barnhart Gordon Fay Angus MacDonald Richard Raskoff James Slossen* Physical Geology Historical Geology Mineralogy Paleontology Geol of California w/o lab. American River College 4700 College Oak Dr. Sacramento, Calif 95822 Life & Physical Science William Findlay Bruce Imswiler Physical Geology Historical Geology w/o lab. Mineralogy Sacramento City College 3835 Freeport Blvd Sacramento, Calif. 95822 Geology Survey Geology Burton A. Amundson w/o lab. Physical Geology Historical Geology w/o lab. Mineralogy Menlo College Science Div. Physical Geology Menlo Park, Calif. Kurt Servos Historical Geology 94025 202 Science Physical Geology Robert D. Lemmon Historical Geology w/o lab. Mineralogy w/o lab, Geology Mervin Lovenburg Physical Science Survey Geology Division Oceanography Milton Bristow Gary Auadesian* Geology Physical Geology Dr. H. J. Bender Historical Geology Kazimer Pohopien Mineralogy James Reese Merced College 36OO M. Street Merced,, Calif. 95340 Modesto Junior College Modesto,, Calif. 953^0 Monterey Peninsula College Mt. San Antonio College 1100 N. Grand Ave. Walnut j Calif. 91789 Napa College 2277 Napa-Vallejo Hwy. Napa, Calif. 94558 Golden West College 15744 Golden West St. Huntington Beach., Calif. 92647 Orange Coast College 2701 Fairview Rd. Costa Mesa,, Calif. 92626 Palomar College San MarcoSj Calif. 92069 Pasadena City College 1570 E. Colorado Blvd. Pasadena., Calif. 91106 Earth Science Robert L. Beatie Nat. Sci. & Math Div. Wallace Kleck Joe Willis Physical Science H. S. Hill? Physical Geology w/o lab. Historical Geology w/o lab. Survey Geology w/o lab. Physical Geology Historical Geology Mineralogy Rocks & Minerals w/o lab. Math & Science Physical Geology Harold Fitzwater w/o lab. 203 Merritt College 5714 Grove Street Oakland, Calif. 94609 Earth Science George Hilton Porterville College 900 S. Main St. Porterville, Calif. Geology Burl R. Cuffman Rio Hondo Junior College 3600 Workman Mill • Rd. Whittier, Calif. 90601 Riverside Junior College 3650 Fairfax Ave. Riverside, Calif. 92506 Physical Scienc John A. Minch Physical Science Division Richard Rozelle Robert Southwick Physical Geology Historical Geology Mineralogy Geology of Calif, w/o lab. Physical Geology Historical Geology San Bernardino Valley Geology College Joseph T. Allen, San Bernardino, Jr. Calif. 92403 San Joaquin Delta Geology-Geography Physical Geology College Dr. Allen Waldo Historical Geology 3301 Kensington Way Stockton, Calif. 95204 San Jose City College Physical Science Survey Geology 2100 Moorpark Ave. John W. Martin w/o lab. San Jose, Calif. Harold C. Wend- Physical Geology 95114 landt Historical Geology Santa Ana College Science Div. 1500 W. 17th St. James A. Pitton Santa Ana, Calif. 92706 Santa Barbara City Physical Science College David R. Williams 721 Cliff Drive Santa Barbara, Calif., 93105 Santa Monica City College Physical Science Physical Geology Charles A. Lee w/o lab. 204 1815 Pearl St. Santa Monica, Calif. 90406 Santa Rosa Junior College 1501 Mendocino Ave Santa Rosa, Calif. 95401 Shasta College Old Oregon Trail Redding, Calif. 96001 Sierra College 5000 Rocklin Rd. Rocklin, Calif. 95677 Solano College 100 Whiting Drive Vallejo, Calif. 94590 Southwestern College 5400 Otay Lakes Rd, Chula Vista, Calif, 92010 Fresno City College 1101 University Presno, Calif. 93704 Bruce C. Young Environmental Sciences Louis Gex Mr. Bushnell Historical Geology w/o lab. Mineralogy Survey Geology Physical Geology Historical Geology Mineralogy Field Geology Physical Science Physical Geology David Bell w/o lab. Historical Geology w/o lab. Physical Science Floyd Wilmoth? Ernest Goff, Jr. Physical Geology w/o lab. Historical Geology w/o lab. Chemistry- Geology Donald C. Lynn Physical Geology Geology Physical Geology Francis J. Leyden w/o lab. Richard Brown Historical Geology John Stokle* w/o lab. Mineralogy w/o lab. Reedly College Science Reed & Manning Aves.Albert McElhoe? Reedly, Calif. 93654 Ventura College 4667 Telegraph Rd. Ventura, Calif. 93003 Victor Valley College 18422 Bear Valley Road Victorville, Calif. 92392 Math & Physical Science Rex Brittingham? Richard Lownes* Arvind Desai 205 West Valley Junior3 College 44 E. Latimer Ave. Campbell, Calif. 95008 Yuba College N. Beale Road Marysville, Calif. 95901 Science & Math 0. D. Blake Ted Herman Earth Sciences Ernest D. Wett- stein Ernst Bthr* Physical Geology Historical Geology Mineralogy Physical Geology Historical Geology DeAnza College Physical Science Physical Geology 21250 Stevens Creek & Math Historical Geology Blvd. William Schelter Cupertino, Calif. Edward Hay 95014 Moorpark College 7075 Campus Road Moorpark, Calif. Physical Science Physical Geology Dorothy Sarnecky COLORADO Arapahoe Junior College Littleton, Colorado 80102 Geology Physical Geology Howard H. Odior- w/o lab. ne* Mineralogy w/o lab Mesa College 1120 North Ave. Grand Junction, Colorado 815OI Physical Science Survey Geology Vernon Scott Jack Roadifer James Johnson Robert Young George Murray* Physical Geology Historical Geology Mineralogy Petrology Paleontology Economic Geology Stratigraphy Geophysical Tech. Geologic Mapping Geologic Terminol ogy Engineering Geol. Map Drafting Rocky Mt. Geology Northeastern Junior College Sterling, Colo. 80751 Science Norman Berry Physical Geology Historical Geology Earth Science w/o lab. 206 Physical Science Survey Geology Frank Hensley Physical Geology Historical Geology Minerals & Rocks Photogrammetry Intro. Ground Water w/o lab. Otero Junior College La Junta,, Colorado 81050 Rangely College Rangely, Colorado 81648 Trinidad State Junior College 600 Prospect St. Trinidadj Colo. 81082 Colorado Mountain College 803 Colorado Ave. Glenwood Springs, Colorado 816OI FLORIDA Brevard Junior College 1519 Clearlake Rd. Cocoa, Florida 32924 Edison Junior College Fort Meyers, Florida 33901 Junior College of Broward County Davie Road Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314 Arts & Science Forest H. Majors* Geology & Geography John J. Steven son Science William Wyatt? Math-Science Dave Cooper Floyd Gangloff Science Edmund A. Kulak- owski Science James C. Con don L- D. DeYam- pert Survey Geology Physical Geology Historical Geology Physical Geology Historical Geology Paleontology Stratigraphy w/o lab. Geomorphology Physical Geology w/o lab. Historical Geology w/o lab. Survey Geology w/o lab. Historical Geology w/o lab. Physical Geology Historical Geology Miami-Dade Junior Chemistry & College Earth Science 11380 N.W. 27th Ave.Frank Groselle? Miami, Florida 33167 Pensacola Junior College Physical Science Dr. Ramond Starke? 207 1000 College Blvd. Pensacola., Florida 32504 St. Petersburg Junior Natural Science College, Clearwater & Math Campus Joseph C. Gould 2465 Drew Street N. G. Langford Clearwater, Florida R. Smith St. Petersburg Junior Natural Science College, St. Peters-Bernard Maynard burg Campus Roy Hundley 6605 Fifth Ave. N. Marvin L. Ivey St. Petersburg, Mary Robinson Florida 33733 Tallahassee Junior College 444 Appleyard Dr. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 GEORGIA Brunswick Junior College 4th & Akama Brunswick, Georgia 31520 Columbus College Columbus, Georgia 31907 Gainsville Junior College P. 0. Box 1358 Gainsville, Georgia, 30501 Oxford College of Emory University Oxford, Georgia, 30267 Southern Technical Institute Marietta, Georgia 30060 Science John J. Ryan Natural Science Science Div. A. L. McLendon, Jr. Math-Science Nancy P. Wright? Civil Dept. R. W. Roley? Survey Geology w/o lab. Physical Geology Historical Geology Survey Geology w/o lab. Physical Geology Historical Geology Survey Geology Survey of Chemistry and Geology Survey Geology Physical Science Physical Geology Richard C. Wilson IDAHO 208 College of Southern Idaho P. 0. Box 1238 Twin Palls, Idaho 83301 Science Dr. Marvin B. Strope Physical Geology Historical Geology North Idaho Junior College Coeur D’Alene, Idaho 83814 Geography & Geology Warren W. Keat ing Edwin Stuart No information supplied Ricks College Rexburg, Idaho 83440 Geology Edmund J. iams Steven C. sen Lowell G. ulph* Survey Geology Will- Physical Geology Historical Geology Han- Mineralogy Petrology Bidd- Field Geology ILLINOIS Belleville Junior College Belleville, Illinois 62221 History, Poli Sci., & Geography Otis Miller? Black Hawk College 1001 l6th Street Moline, Illinois 61265 Chemistry & Earth Science Dr. Courtney Waddell? Prairie State College Chicago Heights, Illinois 6o4ll Physical Science Walter G. Peters? Canton Community College 102 E. Elm Street Canton, Illinois 61520 Physical Science Joseph Evans? Chicago City College Bogan Branch 3939 W. 79th Street Chicago, Illinois 60652 Physical Science Physical Geology Milton F. Danger Historical Geology Chicago City College Physical & Physical Geology 8600 S. Anthony Chicago* Illinois 60621 Applied Sci. Roger A. Pode- well 209 Historical Geology Chicago City College Wright Campus 3^00 N. Austin Ave. Chicago* Illinois 60634 Physical Science John Karpeck? Elgin Community College Science Elgin* Illinois Marvin F. 60120 mann Kuhl- Survey Geology w/o lab. Highland Community College Freeport* Illinois 61032 Illinois Valley Com munity College Fifth at Chartres La Salle* Illinois 61301 Natural Sci. Division George Golds worthy? Geography Keith Runyon Physical Geology Joliet Junior College 201 E. Jefferson St.Douglas Graham* Joliet* Illinois 60432 Physical Science Physical Geology Historical Geology Monticello College Godfrey, Illinois 62035 Science & Math Duane Randall Physical Geology Historical Geology Directed Readings Morton Junior College 2423 S. Austin Cicero* Illinois 60650 Science J. J. Masek? Rock Valley College 3301 Mulford Road Rockford* Illinois 61111 Physical Science Survey Geology Dr. Douglas Block Physical Geology Tom Loumsbury Historical Geology Bruce Mueller* Sauk Valley College Route 1 Dixon* Illinois 61021 Science George Stanley Survey Geology Physical Geology Historical Geology Thornton Junior College Science Karl Corley Physical Geology Historical Geology Harvey, Illinois 60426 Triton College 1000 Wolf Road Northlake, Illi nois 60164 Wabash Valley College 2200 College Drive Mt. Carmel, Illi nois 62863 Illinois Central College P. 0. Box 2400 East Peoria., Illinois 6l6ll William Rainey Harper College 34 West Palatine Road Palatine, Illinois 60007 INDIANA Vincennes University Vincennes, Indiana 47591 IOWA Eastern Iowa Commun ity College, Mus catine Campus 158 Colorado Muscatine, Iowa 52761 KANSAS Allen County Commun ity Junior College 300 E. Jackson Iola, Kansas 66749 John Gifford Science, Math & Engr. J ohn J. Kar- peck* Survey Geology w/o lab. Physical Geology w/o lab. Historical Geology w/o lab. Field Geology Science Dr. A. C. Johnson* Physical Geology Individual Research in Geology Math & Science Survey Geology. Gene W. Gallion Physical Geology Historical Geology Dr. Betty Physical Geology Enbysk Historical Geology Paleontology Mineralogy Sc ience Stewart Boyer? Science Survey Geology Vernon Ohlendorf Natl. & Physical Physical Geology Science Robert Barclay* 211 Colby Community Science Physical Geology Junior College Richard H. Pearl* 1255 South Range Colby, Kansas 67701 Cowley County Commun- Physical Science Physical Geology ity Junior College Lonnie Bedwell* w/o lab. 125 South 2nd Arkansas City, Kan sas 67005 Garden City Community Physical Science Survey Geology 100 W. Jones Street John M. Sims w/o lab. Garden City, Kansas Physical Geology 67846 Highland Community Junior College P. 0. Box 68 Highland, Kansas 66035 Hutchinson Community Geology Physical Geology Junior College Hugh 0. McMillen Historical Geology 1300 North Plum Hutchinson, Kansas 67501 KENTUCKY Lees Junior College Natural Science Survey Geology Jackson, Kentucky \ Division 41339 Johnnie C. Blair Paducah Junior College Science & Math Physical Geology Blandville Road Nat Dortch Historical Geology Paducah, Kentucky 42001 Elizabethtown Community Physical Science College Linda Alvey? Elizabethtown, Kentucky 42701 Henderson Community Dr. Prank Stanonis? College, U. of Kentucky Henderson, Kentucky 42420 Science James E. Thomp son? 212 Hopkinsville Community Geology College North Drive Hopkinsville, Ken tucky 42240 Robert D. Trace* Physical Geology w/o lab. Historical Geology w/o lab. Geology Lab. (1 Hr) Northern Community College, U. of Kentucky Covington, Ken tucky 41011 Dennis Bass- arab? Somerset Community College, U. of Kentucky Somerset, Ken tucky 42501 Jefferson Community College P. 0. Box 1036 Louisville, Ken tucky 40202 Geology Richard Q. Lewis* Geology Barbara Con- kin* Survey of Geology Historical Geology w/o lab. Physical Geology Historical Geology LOUISIANA Delgado College 615 City Park Ave. New Orleans, La. 70119 Petroleum-Gas Engr. Tech. Edwin A. O'Neal Tom M. Mount* Tom Grasso* Physical Geology w/o lab. Historical Geology w/o lab. MARYLAND Frederick Community College 520 N. Market St. Frederick, Md. 21701 Astronomy/Geo- Survey Geology logy w/o lab. Edward J. Kernes, Jr.* Montgomery Junior College Rockville, Md. 20850 St. Mary's College of Maryland St. Mary's City, Md. 20686 Physics Survey Geology Dr. David Gardner Physical Science Dr. Bruce Martin? MASSACHUSETTS 213 Berkshire Community College Second Street Pittsfield, Mass. 01201 Bradford Junior College 320 S. Main St. Bradford., Mass. 01830 Greenfield Community College 225 Federal St. Greenfield, Mass. 01301 Leicester Junior College Leicester, Mass. 01524 Massachesetts Bay Community College Watertown, Mass. 02172 Mount Wachusett Com munity College Elm Street Gardner, Mass. 01440 MICHIGAN Concordia Lutheran Junior College 4090 Geddes Rd. Ann Arbor, Mich. 48105 Delta College University Center Michigan 48710 Science Roger H. Brown plus part-time instruction Geology John L. Roberts Science & Technology Gerald O'Brien Environmental Science Richard Z. Gore Physical Geology w/o lab. Historical Geology w/o lab. Physical Geology Historical Geology Earth Science w/o lab. Physical Geology Historical Geology Environmental Sci. Science, Math Physical Geology & P.E. Historical Geology Wilbert H. Rusch Human Paleo. w/o lab. Geology Physical Geology Bruce C. Corliss Historical Geology Owen E. Homeis- Mineralogy ter Paleontology Science Physical Geology Warren I. Johans-HIstorical Geology son Paleontology Carlos Carranza* Geology Physical Geology Anthony Thurston* w/o lab. Historical Geology w/o lab. North Shore Community College 3 Essex Street Beverly, Mass. 01915 214 World Mineral Res. w/o lab. Flint Community Junior Science & Math Physical Geology College Division Historical Geology 1401 E. Court St. Wayne M. Haglund Mineralogy Flint, Michigan Paul E. Myers Geomorphology 48503 Chester H. Wil- w/o lab. son Highland Park College Physical Science Highland Park, Edward Garvin? Mich. 48203 Lake Mighigan College Physical Science Physical Science 711 E. Britain Larry Fairbanks? (5 wk. portion) Benton Harbor, - - Mich. 49022 Lansing Community College 419 N. Capitol Lansing, Mich. 48914 Macomb Community College 14500 Twelve Mile Road Warren, Michigan 48093 Muskegon County Com munity College P. 0. Box 629 Muskegon, Mich. 49440 Port Huron Junior College 323 Erie Street Port Huron, Mich. 48060 Sc ience K. R. Cranson Physical Geology Geology Physical Geology Kenneth VanDellen Historical Geology Carl Signor Science A1 Cronheim* Math & Physical Science Daniel Robbins Survey Geology w/o lab. Physical Geology Historical Geology Schoolcraft College 18600 Haggerty Rd. Livonia, Mich. 48151 Washtenaw Community College Geology William A. Ryan John P. Bedford James Lowell* Earth Science Dan Laursen Physical Geology Historical Geology (New College) Survey Geology? 215 Box 345 Ann Arbor, Mich. 48107 MINNESOTA Anoka-Ramsey State Junior College 11200 Mississippi Blvd. N. W. Coon Rapids, Minn. Vermilion State Junior College 500 East Harvey Ely, Minn. 55731 Mesabi State Junior College Virginia, Minn. 55792 Northland State Junior College Thief River Falls Minn. 5 6 7OI Willmar State Junior College Willmar, Minn. 56201 MISSISSIPPI Jones County Junior College Ellisville, Miss. 39437 MISSOURI Christian College Columbia, Mo. 65201 Crowder College Neosho, Mo. 64850 Florissant Valley Natural Sci. Div Robert Glasser? Science & Math Herbert Moline Sc ience Eugene Schmidt Sc ience Moeglein Science Jerry Schliep Geology? Arthur Beasley? Geology Burnett E. Ellis Jessie B. Ellis Science, Engr. & Math. Robert Wing Geology Survey Geology Survey Geology w/o lab. Survey Geology Earth Science Geology (Survey?) w/o- lab. Physical Geology Physical Geology 216 Community College 3400 Pershall Rd. Ferguson, Mo. 63136 Forest Park Community 5 6OO Oakland Ave. St. Louis., Mo. 63131 Meramec Community College 959 So. Geyer Kirkwood, Mo. 63122 Kemper Military & College Boonville, Mo. 65233 Metropolitan Junior College 560 Westport Rd. Kansas City, Mo. 64111 Stephen’s College Columbia. Mo. 65201 Trenton Junior College Trenton, Mo. 64683 Wentworth Military Academy & Junior College Lexington, Mo. 64067 NEW HAMPSHIRE Franconia College Franconia, N. H. 03580 NEW JERSEY Ocean County College Bruce L. Stinch- comb Physical Science Paul D. Nelson Physical Science Joseph Walka? Geology Dale Biagi Omar Conrad Melvin Bishop Edward M. Ryan Paul Schafer W. L. Stagner* A1 Catheron? Science School Wilfred J. Monk? w/o lab. Historical Geology w/o lab. Physical Geology Historical Geology Survey Geology Historical Geology w/o lab. Survey Geology Mineralogy Paleontology No information Physical Geology Survey Geology 217 John A. Miolli Toms River, N. J. 08753 Union College Cranford, N. J. 07016 Mercer County Commun ity College 28 West State St. Trenton, N. J. 08608 NEW MEXICO New Mexico Military Institute Roswell, N- Mex. 88201 NEW YORK Adirondack Community College Bay Road Glens Falls, N. Y. 12801 Auburn Community College Franklin Street Auburn, N. Y. 13021 Cazenovia College Cazenovia, N. Y. 13035 Geology & Astronomy Forrest P. Dexter, Jr. Math & Science Dr. Walter Spink? Natural Science Capt. Bret Hamner* Science-Math Anson S. Piper Natural Science Ralph M. Watson Jr. Physical Geology Historical Geology Physical Geology w/o lab. Historical Geology w/o lab. Survey of Geology Physical Geology Historical Geology Science Survey Geology Harry Greer, Jr. Daniel Kehoe Carlbad Branch, New Mexico State University 2900 W. Church St Carlsbad, N. Mex. 88220 Earth Science George Hanley? Roswell Community Col. Science E. N. Mex. Univ. James Waldrip Box 6761 Roswell, N. Mex. 88201 218 New York City Commun. College of Applied Arts & Sciences 300 Jay Street Brooklyn,, N. Y. 11201 Staten Island Com munity College 715 Ocean Terrace Staten Island,, N. 10301 Dutchess Community College Poughkeepsie, N.Y. 12601 Physics & Genl. Science Prof. A. Dol- goff? Science Dr. Alfred Macri Mr. Otonie* Physics & Phy. Science John Losee Pinch College Science & Math 52 E. 7 8th St. Harry Hersh New York, N. Y. 10021 Hudson Valley Commun- Physics ity College Richard LaBrake 80 Vandenburg Ave. Troy, N. Y. 12180 Jefferson Community Science Div. College John R. Cecil P. 0. Box 255 Watertown, N.Y. 13601 Junior College of Albany 140 N. Scotland Albany, N. Y. 12208 Monroe Community College 410 Alexander St. Rochester, N. Y. 14607 Onondaga Community College 700 E. Water St. Syracuse, N. Y. 13210 Earth Science Denis Millspaw Biology Robert Sanders Geology Prof. Norbert Faltyn Physical Geology w/o lab. Historical Geology w/o lab. Physical Geology Mineralogy Survey Geology Historical Geology Physical Geology w/o lab. Historical Geology w/o lab. Earth Science w/o lab. Survey Geology 219 Orange County Com munity College 115 South St. Middleton,, N. Y. 10940 Paul Smith’s College Paul Smith's, N.Y. 12970 Suffolk County Com munity College Selden, N.Y. 11784 NORTH CARORINA Isothermal Community College Box 804 Spindale, N. C. 28160 Montreat-Anderson College Montreal,, N. C. 28757 Western Piedmont Community College Morganton; N. C. 28655 NORTH DAKOTA Bismarck Junior College Bismarck; N. D. 58501 North Dakota School of Forestry Bottineau, N. D. 58318 North Dakota State School of Science Wahpeton; N. D. 58075 OHIO Physical Science Clifford Lloyd Liberal Arts William La Bounty Physical Science Prof. M. Strass- berg Norman Hutchins? Natural Science Dr. Guy H. White Jr.* Natural Science Donald W. Whelan Science Loren Kjonaas* John M. Molberg* Howard S. Lewis? Physical Geology w/o lab. Historical Geology w/o lab. Survey Geology w/o lab. Survey Geology w/o lab. Survey Geology Physical Geology Historical Geology Geomorphology w/o lab. Physical Geology w/o lab. 220 Lake Erie College Painesvillej Ohio 44077 Science Dr. Herman Bod- son? OKLAHOMA El Reno College Science Box 580 Bill Cole El RenOj Okla. 73036 Northeastern Okla. A. & M. College 3rd & I N.E. Miami; Okla. 74354 Oklahoma Military Academy Claremore; Okla. 74017 Biological & Earth Science Samuel H. Wells Geology C. W. Beson; Jr.* Southwestern College Frank B. Overman 4700 N.W. 10 Oklahoma City; Oklahoma 73127 OREGON Central Oregon Com munity College College Way Bend; Oregon 97701 Clatsop Community College l6th & Jerome Astoria/ Oregon 97103 Concordia College Portland; Oregon 97211 Science Bruce Nolf* Physical Science Paul D. See Sci.; Math & P.E. Frank Gebhard? Salem Technical Vo- Industrial; Mech cational Community Don DuffieId? College 4389 Satter Dr. NE Salem; Oregon 97303 Survey Geology w/o lab. Survey Geology w/o lab. Physical Geology Historical Geology Physical Geology w/o lab. Physical Geology w/o lab. Historical Geology w/o lab. Physical Geology 221 Umpqua Community Col P. 0. Box 967 Roseburg, Oregon 97^70 PENNSYLVANIA Penn. State Univ. Altoona Campus R. R. 4, Box 1 Altoona., Penn. 16601 Penn. State Univ. Behrend Campus Station Road Erie, Penn. 16510 Penn. State Univ. Ogontz Campus 1600 Woodland Rd. Abington, Penn. 19001 Science/Geol. Richard L. Thompson* Survey Geology Taped on main campus and sent out by microwave. Grad students from main campus for labs. Geology Eva Tucker Peter Bazakas Williamsport Area Community College 1005 W. Third St. Williamsport, Pa. 17701 SOUTH CAROLINA Univ. of South Car. Aiken Regional Campus Aiken, S. C. 29801 Univ. of South Car. Lancaster Regional Campus Lancaster, S. C. 29720 Geology & Geography Ralph L. Boyer Dr. I. Windell Marine* Irving Kiff, Dir. Physical Geology w/o lab. Historical-Geology w/o lab. Physical Geology for Teachers w/o lab. Historical Geology for Teachers w/o lab. Physical Geology Historical Geology Physical Geology Historical Geology Univ. of South Car. Geology Union Regional Irving Kiff Campus 222 P. 0. Box 490 Union., S. C. 29379 TEXftS Amarillo College Box 447 Amarillo,, Texas 79105 El Centrl College Main & Lamar Dallas., Texas 75202 Del Mar College Corpus Christ! Texas 78404 Grayson County College P. 0. Drawer 979 Sherman, Texas Howard County Junior College Birdwell Lane Big Spring, Texas 79720 Kilgore College ^Kilgore, Texas 75662 Lee College P. 0. Box 818 Baytown, Texas 77520 Odessa College Box 3752 Odessa, Texas 79760 San Antonio College 1300 San Pedro San Antonio, Texas 78212 Geology A. M. Johnson Joe Tert* Science & Math Donald Lokke? Geology Mary J. Seals Science-Engr. H. Glenn Walter Geology E. Lee Thackrey K. 0. Seewald* Engineer-Sci. W. R. Mays Dr. B. K. Thomas* Science Div. James Miller Edward W. Orton? Geology John R. Sandidge G. G. Dickinson E. L. Langford John Currie Ed Warren* Robert Brauer Physical Geology Historical Geology Mineralogy Physical Geology Historical Geology Physical Geology Historical Geology Mineralogy Physical Geology Historical Geology Physical Geology Historical Geology Survey Geology Physical Geology Historical Geology Paleontology San Jacinto College 8060 Spencer Pasadena, Texas 77505 South Plains College Levelland, Texas 79336 South Texas Junior College M & M Bldg. Houston, Texas 77002 Tyler Junior College Henderson Hwy. Tyler, Texas 75701 The Victoria College Victoria, Texas 77901 Central Texas College P. 0. Box 848 Killeen, Texas 76543 Tarrant County Junior College Fort Worth, Texas 76102 UTAH College of Eastern Price, Utah 84501 Dixie Junior College St. Qeorge, Utah 84770 Snow College 150 College Ave. Ephraim, Utah 84627 Geology C. F. Wray R. H. Cross Science J. B. Balch Science Robert F. Brandt Science John M. Burket Geology H. P. Sergeant Sciences Ralph H. McKin ley J. E. Grozier, Jr. Don Burge Physical Science & Math Prof. Wayne R. McConkie? Physical Science & Math Dr. H. R. Christensen? 223 Physical Geology w/o lab. Historical Geology w/o lab. Physical Geology Historical Geology Physical Geology Physical Geology Historical Geology Survey of Geology w/o lab. Physical Geology Historical Geology Rocks & Minerals Life of the Past VIRGINIA 224 Roy A. Miles? Virginia-Western Com munity College Roanoke, Va. 24015 WASHINGTON Big Bend Community Col.Geology Hwy 17 & Nelson Road Moses Lake, Wash. 98837 Clark College 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd . Vancouver, Wash. 98661 Everett Community College 801 Wetmore Aven. Everett, Wash. 98201 Grays Harbor College Aberdeen, Wash. - 98520 Green River Community College Auburn, Wash. 98002 Highline College Box 1000 Midway, Wash. 98031 Warren Scott Lower Columbia College Longview, Wash. 98632 Olympic College Bremerton, Wash. Douglas Nosier? Physical Science Physical Geology Vernor Tovrea* Mineralogy Earth Science Soils Physical Science Physical Geology James B. Phipps* Historical Geology Science Survey Geology Gerald M. Miller Historical Geology Geology of N. W. w/o lab. Geology Robert Adams Earth Science Adrian Nelson Geology Charles Thorman Survey Geology Historical Geology Mineralogy Geol. of Pacific NW w/o lab. Economic Geology w/o lab. Origin of Land Form w/o lab. Physical Geology w/o lab. Historical Geology w/o lab. Survey Geology Physical Geology 225 98310 Charles Plummer Seattle Community College 1718 Broadway Seattle, Wash. 98109 Shoreline Community College 16101 Greenwood Av Seattle, Wash. 98133 Skagit Valley College Mount Vernon, Wash. 98273 Science Harold Pelton Science Donn Charnley Historical Geology Geol. of N.W. Geology in World Affairs Origin of Land scapes Physical Geology Physical Geology Historical Geology Economic Geology Geol. of Pacific Northwest Physical Geol. for Majors Physical Science Survey Geology Dr. Dwight w/o lab. Milne* Physical Geology w/o lab. Tacoma Community College 5900 S. 12th Tacoma, Wash. 98465 Geology W. James Craw ford Jack H. Hyde Physical Geology Historical Geology Geology of Wash. Geology & World Affairs Geol. & the Pacific Northwest w/o lab. Wenatchee Valley College Wenatchee, Wash. 98902 Yakima Valley College 16th & Nob Hill Blvd. Yakima, Wash. 98902 WEST VIRGINIA Natural Science Newell Campbell? Physical Science Physical Geology Newell Campbell w/o lab. Historical Geology w/o lab. Mineralogy w/o lab, Parkersburg Center West Virginia Univ. Geology H. D. Bingman Physical Geology Historical Geology w/o lab. 226 3108 Emerson Ave. Parkersburg^ W. Va. 26101 Potomac State College Keyser, W. Va. 26726 WISCONSIN Geology & Geo graphy Allen Murphy Physical Geology Historical Geology Concordia College 3126 W. Kilbourn Ave. Milwaukee; Wis. 53208 Univ. of Wisconsin Pox Valley Center Midway Road Menasha; Wise. 54952 Univ. of Wisconsin Green Bay Center 1567 Deckner Ave. Green Bay; Wise. 54302 Univ. of Wisconsin Parkside Campus Kenosha; Wise. 53140 Sci.; Math; P.E. Daniel DeBlock? Geology Dr. Leonard Weis W. Geology Dr. Leonard W. Weis Geology & Geo graphy Dr. James Shea* Physical Geology Historical Geology Independent Study Physical Geology Historical Geology Independent Study Survey of Geology Physical Geology Platteville State Univ. Geology-Geo- Richland Campus Richland Center; Wise. Survey of Geology graphy Physical Geology Garrett Deckert Historical Geology WYOMING Casper College 125 College Drive Casper; Wyo. 82601 Geology R. L. Engert A. G. Allen W. Fenwick* N. Braun* Physical Geology Survey Geology Historical Geology Mineralogy Geomorphology w/o lab. ? Structure w/o lab.? Petroleum w/o lab.? Oceanography w/o lab. ? Stratigraphy w/o lab.? Sheridan College Sheridan, Wyo. 82801 Geology Dr. Prescott Underwood Physical Geology Historical Geology *Designates part-time instructor. ?Uncertain identification because of "no return." APPENDIX C LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS (Table 13) 228 229 1. 2 . 3- 4. 5- 6 . 7. 8. 9- 10 . 11 . 12 . 13- 14. 15- 16. 17- APPENDIX C Alaskan Geo. Soc A. A.A.S. A. A. G. A. A. P.G. A. A.U.P. A.B.T. A.C.S. A.E.G. A.P.A. A. G.A. A.G.S. A.G.U. A. I.M.E. A. I.P. G. A.Meteorl.Soc. A, P.S. A.S.P.E. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS (Table 1 3) Alaskan Geological Society American Association for the Advancement of Science American Association of Geographers American Association of Petroleum Geologists American Association of University Professors Association of Biology Teacher American Chemical Society Association of Engineering Geologists American Forestry Association American Gas Association American Geographical Society American Geophysical Union American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers American Institute of Petroleum Geology American Meteorological Society American Physical Society American Society of Petroleum Engineers 18. A.S.Photogrammetry 19- A.S.T.M. 20. Arctic Inst.N.A. 21. Assn. Mo. Geol. 22. C.J.C.F.A. 23. C.T.A. 24. Clay Min. Soc. 25. Cushman Fd. 26. D.G.F. 2 7. Fla. E. A. 28. Geochem 29- Geog. Soc. Chicago 30. G.S.A. 31. Geol. Soc. Sact. 32. Geo. Soc. Wash. 33- Ga. Acad. Sci. 34. Ga. Conserv. 35- Ga. S. T. A. 3 6. Glaciological Soc. 37* Grand Jet. Geol. Soc, 230 American Society of Photo gramme try American Society for Testing Materials Arctic Institute of North America Association of Missouri Geologists California Junior College Faculty Association California Teachers Associa tion Clay Minerals Society Cushman Foundation Danish Geological Foundation Florida Education Association Geochemical Society Geographical Society of Chicago Geological Society of America Geological Society of Sacramento Geological Society of Washington Georgia Academy of Science Georgia Conservancy Georgia State Teachers Assoc iation Glaciological Society Grand Junction Geological Society 231 38. 39- 40. 41. 42. 43- Huston Geo. Soc. Ida. Acad. Scl. Huston Geological Society Idaho Academy of Science Int.Assn.Sedimentologists International Association of Sedimentologists Ky.Geo.Soc. LeConte Club M.S.T.A. 44. Mesabi Range Geo. Soc. 45- Mich. Acad. Sci. 46. Mich.Basin Geo. Soc. 47. Mich. E.S.T.A. 48. Mich. E. A. 49- Micropaleo. 50. M.A.C. 51. M.S.A. 52. Minn.Acad.Sci. 33- M.S.T.A. 54. Mo.Acad.Sci. 55. Mo. S.T.A. 56. N.A.B.T. 57- N.A.G.T. Kentucky Geological Society LeConte Club Maryland State Teachers Assoc iation Mesabi Range Geological Society Michigan Academy of Science Michigan Basin Geological Society Michigan Earth Science Teachers Association Michigan Education Association Micropaleontological Society Mineralogical Association of California Mineralogical Society of America Minnesota Academy of Science Minnesota Science Teachers Association Missouri Academy of Science Missouri State Teachers Association National Association of- Biology Teachers National Association of Geology Teachers 232 5 8. N.Cong.Geog.Ed. 59- N.E.A. 60. N.S.T.A. 61. N.Y.Acad.Sci. 62. N.W.Geol.Soc. 6 3. Okla.Acad.Sci. 64. Paleo.Res.Inst. 6 5. P.S. 6 6. P.D.K. 6 7. Rocky Mt.Assn.Geol 6 8. Roswell Geol.Soc. 6 9. Seismological Soc. 70. 71. 72. 73- 74. S. G.E. Sigma Xi S. S.A. S.E.G. S.E.P.M. 75- S.E.Geol.Soc. 7 6. S. Tex.Geo.Soc. 77- Spectrochem. Soc 7 8. Tex.Acad.Sci. 79. T.J.C.T.A. National Congress of Geographical Educators National Education Association National Science Teachers Association New York Academy of Science Northwest Geological Society Oklahoma Academy of Science Paleontological Research Institute Paleontological Society Phi Delta Kappa Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists Roswell Geological Society Seismological Society of America Sigma Gamma Epsilon Sigma Xi Social Sciences Association Society of Economic Geologists Society of Economic Paleontol ogists and Mineralogists Southeastern Geological Society South Texas Geological Society Spectrochemical Society Texas Academy of Science Texas Junior College Teachers Association 233 80. T.S.T.A. Texas State Teachers Association 81. Wise.Acad.Sci. Wisconsin Academy of Science 82. Wyo.Geol.Assn. Wyoming Geological Association WASH. 22 MONT. ORE. 14 IDA. 4 WYO. CALIF. 85 NEV. UTAH 3 COLC — ARIZ. 6 N. MEX REGION VI Total (146? Includes the sta te s A laska (7) Hawaii (5) REGION 1 N / Total (68) r e g i o n Total 1121) MONT. 2 WYO. 5 A / -1 'wis. 1 5 \/a A S. D. 2 1 o V A L . •• Y < V 0 O 0 O' 30 1 o ° O o ILL. *A o o<P KANS. 21 O o _ JQ Y A M. MEX. 6 o i o ° " A . ARK. 7 “V y . O « o^«° o » 0 ° ° n ° ° 8 ° ' R E G I O N Total (121) REGION I Total (220) Includes D.C. (3) ME. 2 MICH o OHfO 11 IND. 2 „ rf W. VA. 6 / VA. f KY. 20 N. C. 37 o o TENN. 11 o . A A - / T °o O o MISS. ° SP R.l. 3 REGION II Total 1192) In c lu d e s Puerto Rico (2) Virgin Islands (1) Canal Zone (1) CALIF. 85 / o NEV. 0 UTAH 3 COLO. ARIZ. 6 N. MEX. REGION T otal (146? Includes the s t a t e s of A la s k a (7 ) Hawaii (5) FIG. 1 - Distribution of junior colleges in the United S t a te s and in th six stud y regions. Number following the state nam e shows th e total num ber of junior c o lle g e s in the s ta te . TOTAL - Un-ited S ta te s (878J (March 1968) O o NEBR. 23 IND. 2 ILL. 4 4 COLO. 8 KANS. 21 MO. 21 KY. 20 TENN. OKLA. o o N. MEX. o MISS. 27 ARK. ALA. 1 TEX. 51 LA. cP o REGION T o ta l 1132) S t a t e s an d in th e sta te nam e shows te s t a t e . PENN. 49 o o OHIO 11 ° IND. 2 W. VA. 5 / VA> 2 4 : / y 0° O o ° ° M G' 37 s o ° ° TENN. _ -r^ °o O ' 'o MISS. ® ^14 & REGION II Total (192) Includes Puerto Rico (2) Virgin Islands (1) Canal Zone (1) O o FLA. 30 o »• p » REGIO T o ta l (11) WASH. MONT. 0 ORE. 5 CALIF. 74 NEV. UTAH COLO. REGION V\ V. Total 1106) Includes the sta tes of Alaska (2) Hawaii (0) RE GI ON IV R E G I O N Total (46) Total (11) MINN. MICH. WIS. 5 MICH. 11 W YO. 2 NEBR. 0 IA. ILL. 20 i COLO. KANS. MO. s > _ TE NN. OKLA. 4 N. MEX. ARK. MISS. ALA. TEX. : g i o n tal (46) REGION I (33) Tota Includes D.C. (0) ME 0 MICH. MICH L. 20 i IND. 1 > OHIO 1 V W . VA. 2 \ I . 0 1ISS. 1 ! ALA. 0 \ REGION II Total (23) Includes P u e r t o Rico (0) Virttin IcInnHc If)) / CALIF. 74 / I ^ 7 1 NEV. 0 o o O o o SPo o REGION VI Total 1106) Includes the states of Alaska (2) Hawaii (0) UTAH 3 \ ! ■J ) ARIZ. 5 COLO N. HEX. FIG.. 2 - Number and distribution of junior coll United States offering geology. TOTAL - 2B6 (March 1968) R E G I O N T otal (47) m PENN. OHIO 1 20 | — * " / o. O T E NN. C. o o GA. 5 REGION II Total (23) Includes Puerto Rico (0) Virgin Islands (0) Canal Zone (0) FLA. 9

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Evaluation Of The Effectiveness Of Student Personnel Services Of Small Junior Colleges In California

PDF

Community Service Programs In California Public Junior Colleges

PDF

Evaluation And Implementation Of The Conant Report On Education In The Junior High School Years

PDF

Administering Scholarship And Loan Funds In California Public Junior Colleges

PDF

Summertime Activities Of High School Teachers

PDF

Factors Involved In Determining What Grade Levels Should Be Included On Opening A New High School

PDF

Secondary Students' Mathematics Competencies In Relation To Employment Tests

PDF

Written Discipline Policies In California High Schools

PDF

An Historical Analysis Of The Origin And Development Of The College Of Medical Evangelists

PDF

A History Of Public School Organization And Administration In Orange County

PDF

The Professional Preparation Of Physical Education Teachers For The High Schools Of Arizona

PDF

Capital Outlay Approval Procedures For Public Institutions Of Higher Learning

PDF

Criteria For High School Graduation Policies

PDF

An Appraisal Of Administrator Preservice Training Programs Conducted By School Districts

PDF

The Role Of The Principal In The Organization And Administration Of The Junior High School Guidance Program

PDF

Curricular Changes Made Since The School Year 1956-1957 In Three-Year Junior High Schools In California

PDF

The Internal Administrative Organization Of Three-Year Junior High Schools

PDF

Conflicts In Role Expectations For Academic Deans In Church-Related Colleges

PDF

Vocational Education Programs Offered In The Metropolitan Public High Schools Of The United States

PDF

Internal Administrative Organization In Secondary Schools Of The Los Angeles City Unified School District

Asset Metadata

Creator Roth, Eldon Sherwood (author)

Core Title Geology In The Junior College

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education, general,Geology

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, general,Geology,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Pullias, Earl Vivon (committee chair), LaFranchi, Edward H. (committee member), Stone, Richard O. (committee member), Wilbur, Leslie (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-692688

Unique identifier UC11361381

Identifier 6913076.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-692688 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6913076.pdf

Dmrecord 692688

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Roth, Eldon Sherwood

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA