University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Programs For Professional Preparation Of Instructors For California Public Junior Colleges

(USC Thesis Other)

Programs For Professional Preparation Of Instructors For California Public Junior Colleges

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received 69-4520 CASHIN, Jr., Harold John, 1932- PROGRAMS FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES. University of Southern California, Ed.D., 1968 Education, teacher training University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan PROGRAMS FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the School of Education University of Southern California In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education by i Harold John Cashin, Jr. June 19 68 This dissertation, written under the direction of the Chairman of the candidate's Guidance Committee and approved by all members of the Committee, has been presented to and accepted by the Faculty of the School of Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education. Date......................................fe n e ,...1 .9.68 .............................. Guidance Committeei / Chairman Dean TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES v Chapter I. THE PROBLEM 1 Background of the Problem Statement of the Problem Purpose of the Study _ Information to be Researched Hypotheses Assumptions Delimitations Limitations Procedures Definitions of Terms Organization of the Remainder of the Study Studies Concerned with Junior College Instructor Preparation Unique Instructional Characteristics Associated with the Junior College Authoritative Opinion Concerning the Appropriate Preparation of Junior College Instructors Summary Delineating the Area of Study Contacting the Program Coordinators Securing Approval of the Study Searching the Literature Developing the Questionnaire Circulating and Collecting the Questionnaire II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 15 III. THE PROCEDURE 34 ii Chapter Page Analyzing the Findings Organizing the Conclusions Summary IV. FINDINGS CONCERNING THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF CALIFORNIA PROGRAMS .......................... 54 Legal Specifications Affecting Professional Preparation of Junior College Instructors California Institutions Offering Programs for Professional Preparation of Junior College Instructors The Nature of the Current California Programs for Professional Preparation of Junior College Instructors Summary V. FINDINGS CONCERNING THE NATURE OF INSTRUCTOR PREPARATION ............................ 65 ' Opinion Regarding Instructional Characteris tics Associated with the Public Junior College Categories of Responding Deans, Coordinators, and Instructors Reporting of Opinion Regarding Components Criteria for Inclusion of Components Analyzing the Tables of Opinion Regarding Components Null-Hypotheses Rejected Patterns of Ranking Components Included and Rejected Suggestions for Additional Components from "Open-Ended" Comments Suggestions for "New Directions" for Instructor Training Programs Summary VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . 158 .Summary of the Findings Conclusions Recommendations APPENDIXES Appendix A: Preliminary Survey Letter ........... 175 Appendix B: Letter to Program Coordinators .... 178 iii Chapter Page Appendix C: Instructor Questionnaire .............. 180 Appendix D: Dean of Instruction Questionnaire . . 182 Appendix E: Coordinator of Junior College Instruc tor Training Program Questionnaire . . 184 Appendix F: Questionnaire Cover Letter to Program Coordinators ........................... 186 Appendix G: Cover Letter to Accompany Reminder to Deans.............................. 188 Appendix H: Cover Letter to Accompany Reminder to Coordinators..................... 190 BIBLIOGRAPHY.......................................... . 192 fi iv i Table 1. 2 . 3. 4. 5. 6. LIST OF TABLES Page Characteristics Authoritatively Suggested to be Closely Related to Unique Aspects of Junior College Instruction Listed with Bibliograph ical References to Leading Junior College Authors Citing Them.......................... 20 Authoritative Opinion Concerning Appropriate Professional Preparation of Junior College Instructors as Reflected in an Analysis of Selected Samples of Published Literature . . 30 Summary of Questionnaire Distribution and Responses Reported by Numbers and Percentages of Instructor, Dean, and Coordinator Forms . 48 California Colleges and Universities which. Offer Programs for the Professional Prepa ration of Junior College Instructors and/or are Accredited to Recommend Candidates for the Standard Teaching Credential with a Specialization in Junior College Teaching . . 58 Opinions of Instructors, Deans, and Coordinators with Regard to the Desirability of Certain Items Being Associated with the Junior College...................................... 67 Responding Instructors Grouped According to Size of Junior College Faculty, Number of Education Units Completed, Years of Junior College Teaching, and Portion of Teaching Assignment in Transfer, Terminal-Occupa tional, and Developmental Remedial Course W o r k ......................................... 72 Responding Instructors Categorized According to Masters' and Doctors' Degrees, Creden tial, Experience, and Subject Teaching A r e a ......................................... 75 v Table 8. A 9. A 10. A 11. B 12. B 13. B 14. C 15. C 16. C 17. D Supervised Teaching, Teaching Internship: Comparisons between Instructor, Dean and Coordinator Opinion Regarding the Desir ability of Its Inclusion as a Component of a Program for Professional Prepara tion, of Instructors for California Public Junior Colleges .......................... Supervised Teaching, Teaching Internship: Relationships between Instructor Opin ion Regarding the Desirability of Its Inclusion as a Component of a Program for Professional Preparation of Instruc tors for California Public Junior Col leges and Instructor Education, Experi ence, Institutional Size, and Opinion Regarding Junior College Functions . . . Supervised Teaching, Teaching Internship: Rankings of Instructor Opinion Regarding the Desirability of Preparation of Instructors for California Public Junior Colleges According to Degree, Credential, Experience and Teaching Area Categories . Planning and Organizing a Course of Study: Comparisons between Instructor, Dean and Coordinator .......................... Planning and Organizing a Course of Study: Relationships between Instructor Opinion........................ . . . . Planning and Organizing a Course of Study: Rankings of Instructor Opinion ......... Innovative Techniques in^Classroom Presen tations: Comparisons between Instruc tor, Dean and Coordinator ........ Innovative Techniques in Classroom Presen tations: Relationships between Instruc tor Opinion .............................. Innovative Techniques in Classroom Presen tations: Rankings of Instructor Opinion Use and Application of Teaching Devices and Equipment: Comparisons between Instruc- vi Page 81 83 84 85 86 87 89 90 91 Table Page tor, Dean and Coordinator............... 93 18. D. Use and Application of Teaching Devices and Equipment: Relationships between Instruc tor Opinion............................... 94 19. D. Use and Application of Teaching Devices and Equipment: Rankings of Instructor Opinion................................... 95 20. E. Test Construction and Analysis: Compari sons between Instructor, Dean and Coordinator............................... 96 21. E. Test Construction and Analysis: Relation ships between Instructor Opinion .... 97 22. E. Test Construction and Analysis: Rankings of Instructor Opinion ...................... 9 8 23. F. Purposes and Methods of Grading and Evalu ation: Comparisons between Instructor, Dean and Coordinator..................... 100 ,24. F. Purposes and Methods of Grading and Evalu ation: Relationships between Instructor Opinion................................... 101 25. F. Purposes and Methods of Grading and Evalu ation: Rankings of Instructor Opinion . 102 26. G. Psychology of Learning: Comparisons between Instructor, Dean and Coordinator 103 27. G. Psychology of Learning: Relationships between Instructor Opinion ............... 105 28. G. Psychology of Learning: Rankings of Instructor Opinion ....................... 106 29. H. Motivations and Attitudes of Junior College Students: Comparisons between Instructor, Dean and Coordinator .... 107 30. H. Motivations and Attitudes of Junior College Students: Relationships between Instructor Opinion ........................ 108 vii Table Page 31. H. Motivations and Attitudes of Junior College Students: Relationships between Instruc tor Opinion................................ 109 32. I. Aptitudes and Abilities of Junior College Students: Comparisons between Instructor, Dean and Coordinator..................... Ill 33. I. Aptitudes and Abilities of Junior College Students: Relationships between Instruc tor Opinion...................... 112 34. I. Aptitudes and Abilities of Junior College Students: Rankings of Instructor Opinion................................... 113 35. J. History and Development of the Junior College: Comparisons between Instruc tor, Dean and Coordinator............... 114 36. J. History and Development of the Junior College: Relationships between Instructor Opinion ...................... 115 37. J. History and Development of the Junior College: Rankings of Instructor Opinion................................... 116 38. K. Purposes and Functions of the Junior College: Comparisons between Instruc tor, Dean and Coordinator............... 118 39. K. Purposes and Functions of the Junior College: Relationships between Instructor Opinion ...................... 119 40. K. Purposes and Functions of the Junior College: Rankings of Instructor Opinion................................... 120 41. L. Scope and Content of the Junior College Curriculum: Comparisons between Instructor, Dean and Coordinator .... 122 42. L. Scope and Content of the Junior College Curriculum: Relationships between Instructor Opinion ...................... 123 viii Table Page 43. L. Scope and Content of the Junior College Curriculum: Rankings of Instructor Opinion..................................... 124 44. M. Laws Relating to California Public Junior Colleges: Comparisons between Instruc tor, Dean and Coordinator.................. 125 45. M. Laws Relating to California Public Junior Colleges: Relationships between Instructor Opinion ...................... 126 46. M. Laws Relating to California Public Junior Colleges: Rankings of Instructor Opinion............................ 12 7 47. N. Financing and Budgeting Problems and Pro cedures of Junior College: Comparisons between Instructor, Dean and Coordinator 129 48. N. Financing and Budgeting Problems and Pro cedures of Junior College: Relation ships between Instructor Opinion .... 130 49. N. Financing and Budgeting Problems and Pro cedures of Junior College: Rankings of Instructor Opinion .................... 131 50. 0. Administrative Organization of Junior Colleges: Comparisons between Instruc- tor, Dean and Coordinator........ 132 51. O. Administrative Organization of Junior Colleges: Relationships between Instructor Opinion ...................... 133 52. 0. Administrative Organization of Junior Colleges: Rankings of Instructor Opinion............................ 134 53. P. Purposes and Accomplishments of Faculty Organization: Comparisons between Instructor, Dean and Coordinator .... 136 54. P. Purposes and Accomplishments of Faculty Organization: Relationships between Instructor Opinion ...................... 137 ix Table Page 55. 56. 57. 58. 59 . 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. P. Purposes and Accomplishments of Faculty Organization: Rankings of Instructor Opinion .... .......................... Q. Procedures for Locating and Applying for Positions: Comparisons between Instructor, Dean and Coordinator . . . . Q. Procedures for Locating and Applying for Positions: Relationships between Instructor Opinion ...................... Q. Procedures for Locating and Applying for Positions: Rankings of Instructor Opinion ................................... R. Field Trips to Junior Colleges to Observe Teaching, etc.: Comparisons between Instructor, Dean and Coordinator . . . . R. Field Trips to Junior Colleges to Observe Teaching, etc.: Relationships between Instructor Opinion ............. R. Field Trips to Junior Colleges to Observe Teaching, etc.: Rankings of Instructor Opinion ................................... Opinions of Deans and Coordinators Regarding the Value of the College or University Recommendation in Assisting Deans to Choose Instructors for Positions in a Junior College .............................. Hypothetical Statements Upheld or Rejected in Component Contexts .......................... Mean Responses of Opinion Regarding the Desir ability of Inclusion of Potential Components in Programs for the Professional Preparation of Instructors for California Public Junior Colleges by Deans, Coordinators and Those Instructors Having Received Preparation in the Component ............................ 138 139 140 142 143 144 145 149 150 154 x CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Background of the Problem Historically, the California State Board of Educa tion has specified the professional preparation for Califor nia public school teachers through the vehicle of issuing credentials which required professional, as well as subject field and general education, preparation.- The traditional teaching credentials were the gen eral elementary, for grades of kindergarten through eight, and the general secondary, for grades seven through four teen. However, an increasing need for teachers necessitated the creation.of several more specialized credentials for junior high, junior college, etc. The creation of these additional credentials resulted in a complex credentialing situation and, conse quently, a demand for a general credential revision. One consequence of this revision, and subsequent credential modifications, has been the creation of a Standard Teaching Credential with specializations in elementary or secondary or junior college teaching. The requirements for the Standard Teaching Creden tial with Specialization in Junior College Teaching do specify certain subject field and general education require ments, including a master's or doctor's degree in a subject field commonly taught in junior college, but do not include a specified program of professional preparation. This omission has led each of the various California colleges and universities with schools of education which train junior college instructors to develop its own program of profes sional preparation based upon the skills, abilities, and understandings it considers necessary and adequate for a junior college instructor. Therefore, each institution which offers course work for the professional preparation of junior college instruc tors is in a position of being able to specify its own pro gram of professional preparation for junior college instructors. Completion of the institution's program makes its teaching candidates eligible for its institutional recommendation. Statement of the Problem The need for this study has arisen as a result of the omission of a specified program of professional prepara tion as a requirement for the Standard Teaching Credential with a Specialization in Junior College Teaching. This omission has given rise to confusion and lack of agreement as to what should be the nature of a junior college instructor's professional preparation and has fostered con siderable diversity between the programs of the various col leges and universities which offer such programs. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was twofold: (1) to review and analyze existing college and university programs for the professional preparation of instructors for Califor nia public junior colleges, and (2) to determine components (existing or potential) which are considered to be most appropriate for inclusion in programs for the professional preparation of instructors for California public junior colleges. Information to be Researched To carry out the purpose of this study certain information had to be gathered, organized, and analyzed with the specific intent being to seek answers to the following questions: 1. What unique instructional characteristics are most generally associated with the public junior college and what professional preparation is considered necessary for junior college instructors to promulgate these character istics, as reflected in authoritative literature? 2. What accrediting and credentialing guidelines and procedures have been established, which institutions of higher learning in California have received accreditation 4 and/or established programs for the professional preparation of junior college instructors, and what is the nature of those programs? 3. What value is placed upon institutional recom mendations given to instructors by deans of instruction, as opposed to coordinators of junior college instructor train ing programs? 4. Which of the instructional characteristics fre quently associated with the public junior college are con sidered essential or important by junior college instruc tors, deans of instruction, and coordinators of instructor training programs? 5. What relative attitudes are registered toward certain potential components of programs for professional preparation by instructors of differing masters degrees, doctors degrees, credential types, experience prior to junior college teaching, and teaching subject areas? 6. What, if any, is the relationship between junior college faculty size, quantity of professional education course work completed, years of junior college teaching experience, types of teaching assignments, opinions regard ing the desirability of certain junior college instructional characteristics and instructors' opinions regarding the desirability of including certain potential components in programs for the professional preparation of instructors for public junior colleges? 5 7. With regard to what components should be included in programs for the professional preparation of junior college instructors, what variations in attitude are registered between instructors, deans, and coordinators, and also between those instructors who have had and those instructors who have not had preparation in each potential component? 8. What should be included as components of pro grams for professional preparation of junior college instructors according to the opinions of deans of instruc tion, coordinators of junior college instructor training programs, and those instructors who have received prepara tion in each potential component? Hypotheses As part of an effort to determine the value of each one of a set of eighteen potential components of programs for professional preparation of instructors for California public junior colleges, the following statistically testable hypotheses are stated: A. With regard to the desirability of including each of the potential components in programs for profes sional preparation of instructors for California public junior colleges, there are no significant differences between the opinions of: 1. junior college instructors and junior col- lege deans of instruction. 2. junior college deans of instruction and coordinators of junior college instructor training programs. 3. coordinators o?f junior college instructor training programs and junior college instructors. ~ - 4. instructors whose programs of instructor preparation included a particular component and instructors whose program of instructor preparation did not include that component. B. With regard to the desirability of including each of the potential components in programs for profes sional preparation of instructors for California public junior colleges, there is no significant relationship between the degree of favor instructors register toward the inclusion of the component and: 5. the size of the faculty of the junior col lege in which they teach. 6. the number of units of professional educa tion course work they have completed. 7. the number of years they have taught in junior college. 8. the portion of their formal assignment which is spent in teaching transfer course work. 9. the portion of their formal assignment which is spent in teaching terminal-occupational course work. 10. the portion of their formal assignment which is spent in teaching developmental or remedial course work. 11. the degree of favor they register toward the association of developmental or reme dial education with the junior college. 12. the degree of favor they register toward the association of academic and vocational counseling and guidance with the junior college. 13. the degree of favor they register toward the association of unrestricted admission, "the open door," with the junior college. C. There is no significant difference between the opinions of junior college deans of instruction and coordi nators of junior college instructor training programs regarding the value of the college or university recommenda tion in assisting deans in the selection of instructors for positions in junior colleges. Assumptions The following assumptions were basic to this study: 1. Presently, with the omission of a specified program of professional preparation from the requirements for the Standard Teaching Credential with a specialization in Junior College Teaching, the various California schools of education require the completion of substantially differ ent programs to be eligible for their recommendation. 2. The college or university recommendation requirements are a reasonably accurate reflection of what the school of education considers appropriate and adequate professional preparation for junior college instructors. 3. A meaningful set of potential components of pro grams for professional preparation can be ascertained, delineated, and used as common denominators between programs of the various institutions. 4. Junior college instructor, dean of instruction, and coordinator of junior college instructor training pro gram opinion regarding the content of programs for the pro fessional preparation of instructors for California junior colleges, can be measured. 5. Coordinators of junior college instructor train ing programs, junior college deans of instruction, and junior college instructors are sufficiently cognizant of both the nature of programs of professional preparation and the needs of junior college instructors to evaluate one against the other. Delimitations The scope of this study was delimited by the follow-? ing factors: 1. The schools of education have been limited to those located in California which have professional prepara tion programs specifically designed for the preparation of junior college instructors who plan to apply for the Stand ard Teaching Credential with specialization in junior col lege teaching. 2. The junior colleges' studies have been limited to public institutions located in California. 3. Only the professional aspects of junior college instructor preparation were included in this study. 4. The sampling of junior college instructors was drawn from rosters of full-time faculty, only. 5. Regardless of the size or organization of the various junior colleges in California, only one administra tive officer with responsibility for the supervision of instruction was included in the survey. Limitations The accuracy of this study will be limited to the extent that: 1. Components of professional preparation, as listed, are meaningful to those participating in the survey 2. All potential components of programs of profes sional preparation of junior college instructors have been discovered and included. 10 3. The questionnaires which were completed and returned were representative of the total sample receiving questionnaires. Procedures A preliminary questionnaire was circulated to all institutions accredited to recommend for California creden tials to determine which schools of education offered course work specifically designed for the preparation of junior college instructors. From each institution which indicated it offered a junior college instructor training program, a list of spe cific requirements for their recommendation and a descrip tion of each course required for the recommendation was obtained. Approval of the study was requested from appropriate professional organizations. A careful review of the literature pertaining to the professional preparation of junior college instructors was conducted. The content of_programs of professional preparation of junior college instructors as well as the professional literature relating to their professional preparation was reviewed and a set of components of programs of profes sional preparation of junior college instructors was organized. 11 A questionnaire was constructed and administered to a group of instructors and deans in a pilot study. The questionnaire was then revised and administered to coordi nators of junior college instructor training programs, deans of instruction, and junior college instructors. From the data collected, findings were organized and conclusions were drawn and recommendations were made rela tive to programs for the professional preparation of junior college instructors. Definitions of Terms The following terms, when they are used in this study, should be construed to have the meanings as here indicated: Transfer Education.— Those courses and programs which are considered by the state university and state col leges as part of a Bachelor's degree program and are taught at the junior college level. Terminal Occupational Education.— Those courses and programs which are considered by the junior college as preparation for occupational competency after a two-year or less program of instruction and training. Developmental or Remedial Education.— Those courses and programs which are considered by the junior college as having the function of correcting or fulfilling deficiencies 12 to an educational level generally achieved at the completion of high school. Co-Curricular Activities and Experiences.— That part of the junior college student experience which is organized outside the regular required and elective course work. Academic and Vocational Counseling and Guidance.— Includes all counseling and guidance services performed by the student personnel staff. Unrestricted Admission.--No requirements for admis sion other than age or high school graduation, residence, and the ability to profit from the junior college experience are implied here. Significant Differences (or Relationships).— A sig nificant difference (or relationship) is one in which the null hypothesis, that the difference (or relationship) is due to chance only, can be rejected at the ______ per cent level of confidence. The chances are ______ in 100 (or 1000) that the difference (or relationship) is a real one and not the result of sampling procedures. Program.— A "program" is a program of professional preparation of instructors for California public junior col leges. Also used interchangeably is a "professional prepa ration program." 13 Dean.— Refers to the chief instruction officer of a California public junior college, whether his title be offi cially "dean" or not. Coordinator. --^JThe senior institution faculty member or administrator responsible for the operation of a profes sional preparation program for junior college instructors. Also referred to as "program coordinator," etc. Component.— A specific topic or unit of material potentially to be included in professional preparation pro grams for junior college instructors. Group.— A number of individuals with a particular aspect in common, such as masters' degrees in professional education, experience in college or university, etc. Category.— A collection of groups which differ in a particular aspect, such as a category of "masters degree" would have a group of instructors with a professional mas ter's degree, another with a subject field master's degrees, etc. Instructional Characteristics.— Features and func tions commonly associated with the junior college which have a direct relationship to instruction and tend to be of direct concern to instructors. Organization of the Remainder of the Study Chapter II contains a review of the literature, including studies relating to the professional preparation of junior college instructors, authoritative opinion con cerning unique instructional characteristics of the junior college, and authoritative opinion concerning the appropri ate nature of the pre-service instructor professional prep aration necessary to implement those characteristics. The procedures used in conducting the study and in gathering and organizing the data for the study are related in Chapter III. In Chapter IV is included both a description of the legal basis for current junior college instructor training programs and a description of the programs currently opera tive in California. Chapter V contains a statistical report of the find ings of the questionnaires circulated in the study and also a detailed discussion of these findings, including a compar ison of the opinions of instructors, deans, and coordina tors, regarding appropriate professional preparation for junior college instructors. Chapter VI consists of a summary of the findings of the study as well as the conclusions and recommendations that emanate therefrom. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE This review of the literature has three purposes: (1) to identify and examine other studies and surveys which have been concerned with the topic of junior college instructor preparation in order to adequately assess the need for additional research on the subject, (2) to seek out those unique instructional characteristics most frequently associated with the junior college, (3) to survey authorita tive literary opinion concerning what professional prepara tion is considered necessary to enable junior college instructors to implement these instructional characteris tics . Found especially valuable as research tools for achieving these objectives were the research aids by Carter, which suggested methods of locating educational information (1), and Eells, which was a bibliography of books, articles, and research relating to college teachers and teaching (12: 55-60). Other research aids which were found useful in the study as a whole were Borg's Educational Research: An Introduction (5) and Oppenheim's Questionnaire Design and 15 Attitude Measurement (27). Studies Concerned with Junior College Instructor Preparation Numerous studies have been undertaken with the objective of gaining information relative to the general topic of junior college and college instructor preparation, but only a limited number bear upon the specific subject of this study, the professional preparation of instructors for junior college. Two California studies have been undertaken which ■ appear to have been somewhat related to the topic of this research. One of these by Ehmann was principally concerned with the general education aspects of junior college teacher preparation in California (100). He identified certain pro fessional aspects of junior college teacher preparation which were required for the Junior College Teaching Creden tial at the time of his study, and he analyzed how these requirements were then implemented by the University of Cal ifornia at Los Angeles (100:218). The other significant California study was conducted by Merson in 1952 (106). Merson's research was centered about the specific problem of California certification standards for junior college teachers. In his study, Merson identified a number of "factors" which he felt potentially comprised programs of junior college instructor profes sional preparation at that time (106:367). Although he made a valuable contribution to the subject of preparation of junior college instructors at that point of time, the nature of the problem and the California credential situa tion has undergone such changes that this research has been rendered largely obsolete. Each of these studies dealt tangentially with the subject of this study, but neither was concerned with pro fessional preparation as its principal purpose. Several studies which relate to junior college instructor professional preparation have been conducted in other states. Carter studied the relationship of pre service preparation and prior experience of instructors to their merit rating evaluations and found "very significant," in regard to merit rating, teachers having enrolled in and received credit for a course in "tests and measurements" (98) . Dolan, in his Colorado study (99), and La Grandeur, in his Oregon study (105), gave attention to the relative importance of subject matter, general education, and profes sional preparation of junior college instructors. Of spe cial importance, La Grandeur concluded that the preparation of junior college instructors should include a period of supervised teaching or internship, as well as preparation focused upon the community college and its students, includ ing an understanding of community college philosophy and functions, and a knowledge of learning processes, growth 18 and development, and other characteristics of community col lege students. Siehr studied the problems of 2783 new faculty mem bers from 429 United States community colleges (107) . Through his study he uncovered several areas of "void" in professional preparation including factors of dealing with individual student situations and problems as well as prob lems of orienting faculty to the policies and practices of junior colleges. In an American Association of Junior Colleges' study, Edmund Gleazer listed over 200 colleges and universi ties which indicated they offered training in junior college instructor professional preparation (103). Four research studies which have been made of the preparation of college teachers in general are also note worthy. These studies include those by Prall (28), Martin (24), Clark (95), and Kidd (104). Of special importance was the study by Clark, which led to the conclusion that "assistantship is an unsuitable framework within which to attempt to develop an effective preparation program” (95). Kidd, whose study dealt generally with undergraduate teacher preparation, made some reference to the importance of pro fessional preparation (104). It was concluded, after this portion of the litera ture was reviewed, that there had been an inadequate amount of current research carried out regarding the problem of the 19 professional preparation of instructors for California Pub lic Junior Colleges, and therefore, that additional research could be useful and was desirable. — Unique Instructional Characteristics Associated with the Junior College The number of ways of describing the particular functions, features, and purposes of the junior college are as numerous as the authors who attempt to describe them. It was felt, however, that it was important to attempt to identify first the particular aspects of the junior college which were of an instructional nature and then to discover what particular features of professional preparation of instructors would be necessary to implement most success fully those characteristics. Although there is a considerable degree of variation in the particular instructional characteristics authorities on the junior college associate with the institution, cer tain of these features do seem to be rather consistently mentioned by these authors. Of course, each author uses different terms to describe the unique features he sees associated with the junior college. However, as indicated on Table 1, these concepts seem to be able to be classified into some ten general categories: (1) transfer education, (2) terminal-occupational education, (3) developmental or remedial education, (4) co-curricular activities and experi ences, (5) academic and vocational counseling and guidance, 20 TABLE 1 CHARACTERISTICS AUTHORITATIVELY SUGGESTED TO BE CLOSELY RELATED TO UNIQUE ASPECTS OF JUNIOR COLLEGE INSTRUCTION LISTED WITH BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES TO LEADING JUNIOR COLLEGE AUTHORS CITING THEM Characteristic Blocker (3) Bocpie Clark (9) Garrison (14) 1 Hillway ; (18) 1 Medsker (26) l 1 Starrak (32) Thornton (34) Transfer Education 272 54 41-85 4 62ff 177-9 65 59 Terminal- Occupational Education 271 54 41-85 4 62f f 177-9 66 59 Developmental or Remedial Education 272 54 41-85 62ff 177-9 Co-Curricular Activities and Experiences- 2-59 62ff 162 261 Academic and Vocational Counseling and Guidance 275 54 71-75 62f f 176-7 68 59 Unrestricted Admission-"the open door" 270 53 41-85 4 62f f 183-6 34 Community Services 4 59 Adult Education 54 4 59 General Education 271 54 59 Superior Teaching 62f f 40 21 (6) unrestricted admission— "the open door," (7) community services, (8) adult education, (9) general education, and (10) superior teaching. Probably the most universally associated instruc tional characteristic was transfer education. Most authors refer to it by that title, although Bogue described it as "lower division training" (4:54), Hillway refers to the "preparatory function" (18:62ff), and Thornton listed "transfer or pre-professional education" (34:59). Authors described the terminal-occupational educa tion feature with such terms as "technical-occupational" used by Blocker (3:270), and Clark (9:41-85), "occupational education of post high school level" by Garrison (34:59), and "terminal" by Hillway (18:62ff) and Bogue (4:54). Hillway refers indirectly to the developmental or remedial function (18:62ff) while Bogue lists "removal of matriculation difficulties" (4:54) as a responsibility of the junior college. Blocker makes general reference to the desirability of co-curricular activities (3:259), as does Thornton (34: 261). Both Medsker (26:162) and Hillway (18:62ff) see student-centered activities as very important. Almost universal agreement was registered by the authors on the feature of counseling and the general concept of unrestricted admission. However, considerably less agreement was noted regarding the features of community 22 services, adult education, general education, and superior teaching as unique instructional characteristics. There may be reasonable explanation for these vari ations. The more recent studies of Thornton and Garrison each mentioned community services. This feature of the junior college, studied extensively by Cohen (96), appears to be increasing in its importance in the public junior col leges of some states. The concepts of "adult education" and "general education" have wide variations in"meaning and have quite different application in different educational set tings, which may account for the rather isolated reference to these characteristics. Superior Teaching was mentioned by both Thornton (34:40) and Hillway (18:62ff) as an important characteristic of the junior college. Thornton attributes this feature to the fact that the junior college instructor spends all of his time in teaching rather than in research, and also that he has generally received substantial preparation in "instructional technique" (34:41). In addition to the authors cited above, many others who have written books and articles could be cited. In particular, one might note the writings of Whitney (35:45- 50) and Proctor (29:12), each of whom listed the junior col lege functions as preparatory, popularization, terminal, and guidance. In a collection of articles edited by Henry, gen eral education and community service were added to this 23 list (16:69). To this list could also be added the landmark works by Leonard Koos (22), and many others who have written of the junior college. Each of these sought to interpret the role of the junior college/ but the concepts suggested fell generally within the categories noted in Table 1 and described above. These junior college characteristics have also been noted in various California studies. In 19 4 7 A Report of a Survey of the Needs of California in Higher Education listed terminal education, general education, orientation and guidance, lower division transfer courses, adult education, and removal of matriculation difficulties (33:21). In 1955 A Restudy of the Needs of California in Higher Education delineated occupational education, general education, lower division college education, guidance, and community services (19:27). More recently, the California Junior College Asso ciation stated the role of the junior college to include transfer education, technical-vocational education, guid ance, and community services (93:2). The purpose of delineating these functions was to establish a theoretical framework about which one could organize the purposes of junior college instructor profes sional preparation. The characteristics which appear to be most widely mentioned and most universally understood are transfer education, terminal-occupational education, devel opmental or remedial education, co-curricular activities and 24 experiences, academic and vocational counseling and guid ance, and unrestricted admission— "the open door." It is this group of instructional characteristics, therefore, which has been adapted for use in this study. In the search for the unique characteristics of the junior college, attention was also given to the unique characteristics and variations in training and experience of the faculty. Of most value in this respect were the studies by Medsker (26:194-195), Fitzgerald (101:30-32), and Koile (47:24-26). Medsker found differences in opinions between teachers in varying subject fields of different experience and philosophy. Fitzgerald stratified into five pairs of teachers by length of service, high school or college expe rience, those who did and those who did not attend a junior college, those in transfer and those in vocational-technical classes, and division chairmen and faculty association presidents. He also stratified into five pairs of junior colleges according to size, urban-rural, independent or non- independent district, old and new, northern and southern California. Koile and Tatem studied the relative orienta tion toward the student by junior college, four-year college and secondary school faculty by comparing them by sex, degree, teaching field, teaching experience, age, size of institution, and geographic region. Thus, six institutional characteristics frequently associated with the public junior college were identified 25 and verified through an analysis of the content of litera ture by leading junior college authors. In addition, cer tain areas of potential variation in opinion by various segments of the junior college instructional staff were noted. Authoritative Opinion Concerning the Appropriate Preparation of Junior College Instructors In order to determine what content might be included in a program of professional preparation of junior college instructors, various areas of the literature were examined, including doctoral dissertations, periodical articles, and comprehensive studies of the junior college. The general problem of professional preparation of junior college instructors was of concern to several authors. Priest displayed concern over the "wholesale employment of personnel who do not understand the mission of the junior college or who are not in sympathy with it"- (53: 7), and Pricert saw a need for research in the whole area of junior college teacher preparation (52:50). Perhaps the issue was most succinctly put by Edmund Gleazer when he pointed out that although there must be a common foundation in the preparation of teachers for college level instruc tion, "the characteristics of the junior college, particu larly the community college offering a comprehensive cur riculum, suggests the need for special preparation extending beyond academic competence or technical excellence in non 26 academic subjects" (41:3). Several authors included comments regarding instruc tor preparation in their comprehensive studies of the junior college. Bogue felt that instructors should "have some understanding of the philosophy of the junior college, some knowledge of the student he will encounter," and some idea of "how to teach" (4:133). Hillway listed three areas as important for preparation of the junior college instructor: his role in the college; his function as a teacher; and the junior college curriculum (18:193-194). Thornton suggested courses in professional education to equal about one semester's total, including: a. Educational psychology, junior college student characteristics, principles of learning, guidance and counseling b. A course in history, purposes, status and problems of the junior college c. Methods and techniques of teaching-in the junior college including evaluation d. Supervised teaching or internship in a junior col lege (34:142-144) Several authors writing in periodicals described a rather comprehensive program of preparation. Cohen presented his "rationale for junior college teacher preparation" and laid out certain specific aspects of preparation which he felt were necessary to accomplish it (38:22-24; 37:23-24). Gordon and Whitfield discovered a number of items which were rated "on a par" of importance with instructional competence by a group of 29 community college instructors from the 27 Pacific Northwest (43:26-28). Included among these items were a command of a range of instructional techniques, abil ity to communicate effectively, and the skill to cope with learning problems. One of the most comprehensive listings of profes sional preparation elements was by Leonard Koos. Specifi cally, he lists the following (48:314): 1. Philosophy and place of the junior college 2. Organizing and administering junior college 3. Junior college curriculum 4. Psychology of post or late adolescence 5. Student personnel problems in junior college 6. Methods of teaching in junior college 7. Apprentice or practice teaching Pyle suggested that such professional preparation should consist of three courses of three units each (54: 531) : 1. Junior college history, Philosophy, and educa tional theory 2. Junior college administration, curriculum, stu dent guidance and activities 3. Teaching internship Several specific features were listed by Stone as requisite for inclusion in a professional preparation pro gram (55:368-369). He included principles of junior col lege education, educational psychology, growth and develop- 28 ment characteristics of junior college students, curriculum materials and techniques, and student teaching in a junior college. Siemens, et al., compiled a junior college syllabus to be used as structural material for the preparation of junior college instructors at the University of Southern California (31:37-39). The book was compiled through a sur vey of instructor needs and contains many suggestions regarding preparation. One of the most recent and comprehensive surveys of junior college faculty problems was conducted by Roger Garrison for the American Association of Junior Colleges (14:70-74). From his study, Garrison suggests that appro priate professional preparation should include supervised teaching and a seminar to include "history of education, the nature of the learning process, the psychology (and problems) of students, the nature of teaching, and the like." Several authors made limited, specific but important suggestions regarding junior college instructor preparation. Included in these were Henderson, who studied internship programs (45:388-389), Wilson's discussion of junior college student teachers (57:142-146), LaGrandeur1s study of Oregon preparation programs (105), Medsker's comments on practice teaching (26:195), and Carter's research on pre-service preparation and its relationship to merit ratings of Florida 29 junior college teachers (98) . In all/ over two dozen authors indicated in greater or lesser detail what they considered to be appropriate pre service professional education for junior college instruc tors. Several of these authors indicated in considerable detail what they felt to be such preparation, and these authors and their recommendations are indicated on Table 2. As each of these publications was reviewed, it was noted that the recommendations of each author could be categor ized into 14 general "components" of professional education coursework. As each author's work was examined the various components were revised and reorganized in an effort to dis cover a small but comprehensive^set of components. Follow ing this reorganization of components the most valuable authors were re-examined in detail and their recommendations were organized into these component categories. The ten authors listed on Table 2 appeared to give the greatest depth of attention to the problem of the study and to present the most comprehensive coverage of potential components. Most widely included by these authors were supervised teaching or teaching internship, purposes and functions of the junior college, and motivations, attitudes, aptitudes, and abilities of junior college students. This combination of importance indicates a widespread feeling among authors that the most important aspect of junior col lege instructor professional preparation is related to the TABLE 2 AUTHORITATIVE OPINION CONCERNING APPROPRIATE PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF JUNIOR COLLEGE INSTRUCTORS AS REFLECTED IN AN ANALYSIS OF SELECTED SAMPLES OF PUBLISHED LITERATURE Authors and the Components They Indicated to Be Appropriate Professional for Inclusion in Professional Preparation of Instructors Education ________________________________________________________________ Course work Components Gar- Gor- Hill- 1 Sie- Thorn- Bogue Cohen rison don way Koos Pyle mens Stone ton A. Supervised teach- (4: (38: (14: (48: (54: (55: (34: ing, intern, etc. 133) 24) 74) 314) 531) 369) 143) B. Plan & organize (38: (14: (48: (34: course of study 24) 74) 314 143) C. Innovative class- (37: (43: (48: (55: room techniques 22) 28) 314) 369) D. Use of teaching (43: (55: devices, equipment 28) 369) E. Test construction (18: (31: (56: and analysis 194) 37-9) 364) F. Purposes, methods (38: (18: (31: (56: of grading 24) 194) 37-9) 364) G. Psychology of (14: (43: (18: (48: ’ (55: (34: learning 74) 28) 194) 314) 369) 143) TABLE 2— Continued Professional Education Course Work Components Authors and the Components They Indicated to Be Appropriate for Inclusion in Professional Preparation of Instructors Gar- Gor- Hill- Sie- Thorn- Bogue Cohen rison don way Koos Pyle mens Stone ton H. Motivations and attitudes of JCS's (4: 133) (14: 74) (18: 194) (48: 314) (54: 531) (31: 18-24) (55: 369) (34: 143) I. Aptitudes, abil ities of JCS's (4: 133) {37: 23) (14: 74) 1 (18: 1 194) 1 (48: 314) (54: 531) (55: 369) (34: 143) J. History & devel opment of the JC (4: 133) (14: 74) (18: 193) (54: 531) (55: 369) (34: 143) K. Purposes & func tions of the JC (4: 133) (38: 24) (18: 193) (48: 314) (54 : 531) (55: 369) (34: 143) L. Scope & content of JC curriculum (4: 133) (18: 194) (48: 314) (54: 531) (31: 59-75) (55: 369) (34: 143) M. Administrative organization of JC (48: 314 i r (54: 531) N. Field trips to observe JC's (31: 2-4) 32 special nature of the junior college student, how to teach him, and the philosophy of his institution. Numerous studies of College and University instruc tor preparation have also been undertaken, and although they are not directly of concern to this paper, it is felt that some mention should be made of them. Justman and Mais list certain "essentials of preparation" in their book {21:56- 58), Simpson and Brown drew conclusions regarding teaching effectiveness after an intensive study of teachers of vari ous fields (66:70), while Byram (7:69-70), Clark (95), and Prall (28:203) all studied the aspects of pre-service pro fessional preparation of college teachers. In addition, certain general considerations and interesting insights into college teaching techniques are described in books by Pullias and Lockhart (30), Educator’s Washington Dispatch (64), and Cooper (11). Summary It was the purpose of this chapter to present an overview of the literature relating to the professional preparation of junior college instructors. In this regard, three topics are worthy of summation: 1. Although studies relating to instructor prepara tion have been carried out, no study has been recently conducted in California which dealt specifically with the professional aspect of junior college instructor preparation. Any concept that there is a need for specific forms of professional preparation for junior college instructors must be based upon the premise that there are certain unique instruc tional characteristics of the junior college. This review of the literature delineated six such characteristics. The purpose of junior college instructor profes sional preparation is to equip the instructor to implement and make operative the unique charac teristics of the junior college. • This review of authoritative opinion revealed some 14 potential components of professional preparation programs which were widely mentioned as being useful in enabling the junior college instructor to better perform his function. CHAPTER III THE PROCEDURE The procedures for organizing and carrying out this study of programs for professional preparation of instruc tors for California public junior colleges included these steps: (1) delineating the area of study, (2) contacting the program coordinators, (3) securing approval of the study, (4) searching the literature, (5) developing the questionnaire, (6) circulating and collecting the question naires, (7) analyzing the findings, (8) organizing the con clusions. These procedures are discussed in this chapter. Delineating the Area of Study Periodically, the Bureau of Teacher Education and Certification of the California State Department of Educa tion publishes a list of "Institutions Accredited to Recom mend for Credentials" (20). The June, 1967, edition of this document listed fifty-seven institutions of higher learning in California as being accredited to recommend for one or more California public school credentials. This list was used as a basis for locating those California institutions which offer programs for professional preparation of 34 35 instructors for California public junior colleges. Of the above described list of fifty-seven institu tions, fifteen were designated as accredited to recommend for the Standard Teaching Credential with a Specialization in Junior College Teaching. However, so as not to omit any California institution of higher education which might have some form of junior college instructor training program, a preliminary survey letter (see Appendix A) was mailed to the dean of the school of education or chairman of the division of education of all of the fifty-seven credential-granting institutions. All of the fifty-seven institutions responded to the survey. Twenty-four of these institutions indicated they had some form of junior college instructor preparation pro gram, seventeen indicated they were accredited to recommend for the Standard Teaching Credential with Specialization in Junior College Teaching, and twenty-one listed a specific faculty member as being charged with the administration of the program. An analysis of the returns from this preliminary survey and an examination of the college catalogs of the institutions which indicated they had a junior college pro gram indicated a wide variation in the programs1 organiza tion and content. It appeared that the lack of a specified professional preparation program being included as a re quirement for the Standard Teaching Credential with a 36 Specialization in Junior College Teaching allowed institu tions wide latitude in the nature of their programs. As a result of these preliminary observations it was decided that there was a need for this study of Programs for Professional Preparation of Instructors for California Pub lic Junior Colleges. Contacting the Program Coordinators To gain additional information regarding the nature of these instructor training programs, individual letters were written to the coordinators at each of the 2 4 institu tions which had indicated they were accredited to offer or did offer course work specifically designed for preparation of junior college instructors. (See Appendix B.) The nature of the study was explained in the letter, and the coordinators were asked to allow the inclusion of their institution in the study. They were also requested to forward: 1. A list of specific requirements for [their] institu tional recommendation for the junior college cre dential specialization of the standard teaching credential, and 2. A catalog-type description of each of the profes sional education courses required for this recommendation. Two institutions replied that their programs were not sufficiently comprehensive to be included in the study. All of the remaining twenty-two institutions responded to the letter, agreed to be included in the study, and provided 37 the requested materials. Securing Approval of the Study It was felt that it would be both appropriate and valuable to gain the recognition and approval of principal junior college professional organizations. Accordingly, approval was sought and received from: 1. California Junior College Association, by action of the Board of Directors, September 29, 1967. 2. California Junior College Faculty Association, by action of the Board of Governors, October, 1967. 3. California Teachers Association Junior College Council, by action of the Executive Board, December, 1967. During its 1967 session, the California State Senate passed a resolution requesting the Coordinating Council for Higher Education to investigate the potential interest in and content of a doctor's degree which would have a teaching orientation. This action was taken largely as a result of urging by the California Junior College Faculty Association, and, when the request for approval of this study was made to CJCFA, it was suggested by that organization that there was some possibility for coordination of research. As a conse quence, a series of meetings was held which included repre sentatives from the Coordinating Council, CJCFA, and the author of this study, and it was decided that it would be 38 mutually advantageous if one survey instrument could include questions pertaining to both junior college instructor preparation and the potential teaching doctorate. Consequently, although approval of the study was not given by formal action of the Coordinating Council, the Coordinating Council staff was frequently consulted in the development of the questionnaire. The Coordinating Council shared substantially in the expense of developing, circula ting, and processing the survey instrument, since the Council will make use of the information gathered therefrom. Searching the Literature A review of the search of the literature was pre sented in Chapter II. In this search efforts were made to discover pertinent previous research studies, a set of the most universally accepted instructional characteristics of the public junior college, and an insight into the widest and most authoritative opinion concerning what components of professional preparation of instructors are considered necessary to compliment these characteristics. Chapter IV contains an overview of the nature and content of the current California Junior College instructor training programs. It includes a review of the accrediting and credential requirements that have been established to insure such professional preparation. To determine what programs had been developed by colleges and universities to implement or supplement such legal requirements, and to 39 ascertain the content of these programs, college catalogs and pamphlets were compared and analyzed. This search revealed divergence between opinions of what constituted appropriate professional preparation/ and the programs designed to provide such professional prepara tion. As a conseguence, it was decided to develop a survey instrument which could gather representative current and informed opinion as to what should constitute the optimum program of professional preparation of instructors for Cali fornia public junior colleges. Developing the Questionnaire Through the above described search of the litera ture, extensive discussions with junior college faculty and administration and examination of questionnaires on topics of similar substance, a tentative set of survey items was developed. These items were of five types: 1. Personal Data: Included questions to distinguish experience, education, responsibilities, etc., of respondents. 2. Junior College Instructional Characteristics: Included a series of items, which related to instruction, frequently associated with the junior college. 3. Components of Professional Education Programs: Included a series of potential components of pro- 40 grams of professional preparation. 4. Doctor of Arts Degree; Included a number of ques tions relative to the potential doctor of arts degree. 5. Open-Ended Questions: Included a series of optional "open-ended" questions. It was deemed appropriate to distribute the ques tionnaire to three segments of the junior college community: Instructors; Deans of Instruction; and Coordinators of Junior College Instructor Training Programs. There would be three forms of the questionnaire; the forms would be kept as nearly parallel as possible. This tentative set of survey items was submitted to a representative sample of interested personnel for their suggestions and criticisms. The criteria for the selection of these people, their names and their positions were as follows: A. Junior College Instructor Training Program Coordi- tors 1. Dr. Leslie Wilbur, Associate Professor of Higher Education and Junior College Instructor Training Program Coordinator, University of Southern Cal ifornia. 2. Dr. Donald Wilson, Professor of Education and Director of Teacher Education, University of Southern California. 41 B. Junior College Administrators 3. Dr. George Merrill, Dean of Social Sciences, El Camino College. 4. Mr. William Ostrom, former president of Barstow Junior College. 5. Mr. Merle Dietz, Assistant Dean of the Evening Division, Los Angeles Harbor College. C. Junior College Instructors 6. Dr. Stanley Fitch, Psychology Instructor, El Camino College. 7. Mr. Donald Singer, History Instructor, El Camino College. D. Representatives of Cooperating Associations 8. Dr. Franklin Matsler, Chief Research Analyst, Coordinating Council for Higher Education. 9. Dr. Benjamin Gold, Chairman of the Committee on Research and Development, California Junior College Association. 10. Mrs. Mary Wortham, California Junior College Faculty Association. 11. Dr. George Starrett, Executive Secretary, Cali fornia Teachers Association Junior College Council. Each of these individuals made valuable suggestions regarding the format and content of the questionnaire. These suggestions were incorporated into the questionnaire 42 and it was organized for the pilot study. Permission was sought and received from Dr. Stuart Marsee, President of El Camino College, to conduct a pilot study among the staff of El Camino College during the month of December, 19 67. Two forms of the questionnaire were used in the pilot study. An "instructor" form was circulated to a randomly selected sample of ten per cent of the El Camino College faculty. A "dean" form was circulated to all ten of the El Camino College instructional division deans. All of the questionnaires were distributed on December 6, 19 67, and were accompanied by an intra-college mail envelope and a covering memorandum which read as follows: Dean Faculty Colleague: As a prelude to the wider distribution of my doctoral dissertation questionnaire, I am asking some of my El Camino faculty colleagues to assist me by completing the attached pilot copy of my questionnaire. I would greatly appreciate it if you could take a few minutes of your time to complete it and return it to me in the attached envelope. Thank you. John Cashin Social Science Division Questionnaires were completed and returned by nine of the ten deans and by twenty-five of the sample of thirty- five instructors to whom they were circulated. The responses and the many helpful suggestions and comments on the questionnaires were carefully analyzed, and needed 43 changes were incorporated into the various forms of the questionnaire. Following the pilot study the questionnaires were readied for printing. As noted earlier, there were to be three different forms: instructor, dean, and coordinator. To increase the ease of processing, each of these was printed on a different color of paper: instructor on pink; dean on yellow; coordinator on green. To provide statistically usable data, the question naires were organized so the responses could be read and transferred directly to data processing key-punch cards. As may be observed in Appendices C, D, and E, the question naires were organized into four parts with the following variations between the three forms: 1. Personal Data: Column 1 was used to designate the form and, in the case of the instructor form, to designate the size of Quartiles of California junior colleges (Quartile #1 was the largest 25% of the junior colleges, etc.) and location (northern most 50% and southernmost 50%) of the instructor's junior college. Columns 2, 3, and 4 identified the respondent. Columns 5 to 14 were identical on all three forms, 5 identifying the respondent's sex; 6, the number of professional education units com pleted; and 7 to 14, his academic degree status. On the instructor form, column 15 identified his ere- dential; 16, his pre-junior college experience; 17, his length of junior college teaching experience; 18, his teaching subject area; and 19 to 23, the amount of his assignment spent in teaching transfer course work, teaching terminal-occupational course work, administration and counseling, respectively. On the dean and coordinator forms, column 15 records respondents' opinions of the value of college or university recommendations in assisting deans to choose instructors for positions in a junior col lege, and column 16 records their opinions regarding the most desirable position from which to employ junior college instructors. Opinionnaire: On all three forms, columns 24 to 29 provide sets of five ranked responses for respond ents to indicate their opinion as to the desirabil ity of six items frequently associated with the junior college. On all three forms, odd-numbered columns 31 to 65 provide sets of five ranked responses for respondents to indicate their opinion as to the desirability of eighteen potential com ponents of pre-service programs of professional preparation for junior college instructors. On the instructor's and dean's forms, even-numbered col umns 30 to 64 provide spaces for respondents to indicate whether their own preparation included each 45 component, and on the coordinator form the respon dent is asked to indicate whether his college's pro gram includes that component. 3. A Possible Doctor of Arts Degree; Columns 66 to 80 were used to record responses relative to a poten tial doctor of arts degree, on all three forms. 4. Optional Items: Each form of the questionnaire included similar "open-ended questions" as "optional." Circulating and Collecting the Questionnaire In order to achieve a random sample of junior col lege instructors as well as an adequate number of instruc tors in subject field, credential, degree, experience, and college "size groups," it was determined that between 900 and 1000 instructor questionnaires should be circulated. A rough count of the rosters of full-time junior college instructors in the 1967-1968 California School Directory (8) and, where it was incomplete, certain junior college catalogs (72, 77, 70, 83, 82, 84, 75) revealed a total Cal ifornia state junior college faculty close to 11,000. It was decided, therefore, to randomly select approximately 9% of that 11,000 by choosing every eleventh name listed in that directory and/or these catalogs. Through this process 948 instructors were selected for the sample., The dean form of the questionnaire was distributed 46 to the chief instructional officer of each of the 83 junior colleges listed as currently operating by the 1967-1968 Cal ifornia School Directory (8). Two copies of the coordinator form were distributed to the program coordinator of each of the 22 participating colleges. Each coordinator was asked to complete and return one of the copies himself, and to ask an associate in his program to complete and return the other. It was felt that this dual response would lend breadth to the response. To prepare for the mailing, triplicate copies of address stickers were typed. Each sticker was coded with numbers from questionnaire columns 1 to 4. One copy of the address sticker was placed on an envelope. As each ques tionnaire and an accompanying stamped self-addressed envel ope were placed in the outside envelope, the code number was copied from the sticker onto the questionnaire. For coordi nators, two questionnaires, two return envelopes, and an explanatory cover letter were enclosed in the envelope (See Appendix F). A total of 1,175 questionnaires were mailed on Fri day, December 29, 1967, as indicated on Table 3. As they were returned they were checked against the second and third copies of the address stickers. Those stickers not checked were used for the second mailing. Over 50% of each of the three forms had been returned by February 5, 1968, the date on which a second copy of the questionnaire was mailed to each individual who had not responded. Four hundred forty- three of the instructors had not responded, and they were sent the second form together with a hand-written cover note and a second return envelope. Thirty deans had not responded, and they were sent a second copy with a letter written on letterhead stationary (See Appendix G) and a sec ond return envelope. No response had been received from six of the participating institutions. The coordinators of these colleges were sent two copies of the questionnaire, two return envelopes, and an explanatory letter (see Appen dix H) on letterhead stationary. In response to the reminder, 172 instructors, 19 deans, and six coordinator questionnaires were returned. The coordinator response still did not include two partici pating institutions. Long distance telephone calls were then made to each of these institutions. Coordinators from both institutions responded immediately. The collection of the questionnaires was terminated on February 26, 1968, over eight weeks after the original mailing. With the elimination of late and unmarked ques tionnaires, the total usable return of the instructor form was 651 (69%) , the dean form 72 (89%) , and the coordinator form 34 (78%). Of more importance regarding the coordina tors 1 form was the fact that the questionnaire had been com pleted and returned from at least one coordinator of all 22 (100%) of the 22 participating colleges. (See Table 3). f TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE DISTRIBUTION AND RESPONSE REPORTED BY NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES OF INSTRUCTOR, DEAN, AND COORDINATOR FORMS Questionnaire Form Total Number Mailed Number Returned from First Mailing l i Final Number Returned Number Returned Too Late or Unanswered Total Number of Usable Questions Percentage of Original Mailing Returned and Usable Instructor 948 505 677 (26) 651 69% Dean 83 53 72 (0) 72 87% Coordinator (individuals) 44 26 35 (1) 34 78% Coordinator (institutions represented) 22 16 22 22 100% i CO 49 Analyzing the Findings As the questionnaires were returned they were taken to the University of Southern California Computer Sciences Laboratory so that the data could be placed on key-punch cards. These punched cards were then sorted and counted to determine which response groupings should be selected for statistical analysis and detailed study. The following were so selected for comparison: A. Paired Groups: Compared opinions of: 1. all instructors with all deans 2. all deans with all coordinators 3. all coordinators with all instructors 4. instructors with preparation in the component with instructors with no preparation in the component B. Instructor Variations: Compared instructor opinion relative to: 5. size of the institution in which they teach 6. the number of professional education units they have completed 7. the number of years they have taught in a junior college 8. the portion of their formal assignment spent in _ teaching transfer course work 9. the portion of their formal assignment spent in 50 teaching terminal-occupational coursework 10. the portion of their formal assignment spent in teaching developmental or remedial course work 11. their opinion as to the desirability of devel opmental or remedial education being associated with the junior college 12. their opinion as to the desirability of aca demic and vocational guidance and counseling being associated with the junior college 13. their opinion as to the desirability of unre stricted admission— "the open door" being asso ciated with the junior college C. Instructor Categories: Groups' opinions ranked within categories of: 14. Masters degrees 15. Doctors degrees 16. experience immediately prior to junior college teaching 17. subject teaching assignment area Comparisons of the above instructor groupings were made relative to the instructors1 opinions as to the desira bility of each of the following as potential components of programs, for professional preparation of junior college instructors: 1. Supervised teaching, teaching internship, etc. 2. Planning and organizing a course of study. 51 3. Innovative techniques in classroom presentations and activities. 4. Use and application of teaching devices and equipment. 5. Test construction and analysis. 6. Purposes and methods of grading and evaluation. 7. Psychology of learning. 8. Motivations and attitudes of junior college students. 9. Aptitudes and abilities of junior college students. 10. History and development of the junior college. 11. Purposes and functions of the junior college. 12. Scope and content of the junior college curriculum. 13. Laws relating to California public junior colleges. 14. Financing and budgeting problems and procedures of junior colleges. 15. Administrative organization of junior colleges. 16. Purposes and accomplishments of junior college faculty organizations. 17. Procedures for locating and applying for junior college positions. 18. Field trips to junior colleges to observe teaching, activities, etc. For statistical treatment, a program was prepared for the Honeywell 800 computer and was processed in the Com puter Sciences Laboratory at the University of Southern Cal 52 ifornia to determine any significant differences between the instructor groupings compared relative to opinions regarding the proposed components. The program required the computa tion of a chi square or "t"-test to determine significance. Where significant differences were revealed, additional com putations were carried out to determine the nature of the difference as it related to the component. The above out lined statistical findings as well as other isolated find ings are presented in Chapter V . Organizing the Conclusions Based upon the findings of the study, an optimum program for professional preparation of junior college instructors was ascertained. This program and some general conclusions and recommendations are presented in Chapter VI. Summary In defining the area of the study, 22 California colleges and universities were identified as having some form of junior college instructor training program. Approval was thus gained for the study of those programs from several junior college professional organizations. A review of the literature and an examination of the catalog descriptions of the 22 programs revealed substantial divergence between theory and practice in junior college instructor professional preparation. It was therefore decided to conduct a survey to gain 53 a sample of informal and representative opinion concerning such preparation and a questionnaire was distributed to junior college instructors, deans, and program coordinators to gain such opinion. From an analysis of the existing programs and the findings of the questionnaire, conclusions were drawn, recommendations were made, and a model of "an optimum pro gram" was proposed. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS CONCERNING THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF CALIFORNIA PROGRAMS Although a substantial number of authors have expressed opinions regarding the need for professional preparation of junior college instructors, and many have made suggestions as to the content of such programs, little effort has been made to ascertain the nature and scope of programs currently in operation. The purpose of this chapter is to present the find ings of a study of California instructor training programs regarding (1) legal specifications affecting their opera tion, (2) specific institutions which offer such programs, and the (3) nature of these programs. Legal Specifications Affecting Professional Preparation of Junior College Instructors Two types of legal specifications were of concern in this study. These were the legal provisions and qualifica tions which have been prescribed as requisite for the accreditation of institutions to recommend for the Standard Teaching Credential with Specialization in Junior College 54 55 Teaching and the requirements prescribed for individuals to obtain this credential. The Joint Accreditation Schedule of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges and the State Board of Education prescribes the criteria by which institutions will be accredited as qualified to recommend for specific creden tials (20). To be accredited to recommend for the Standard Teaching Credential with Specialization in Junior College Teaching, an institution must have a master's degree program in at least one subject commonly taught in the junior col lege, it must be accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges for its graduate programs as a whole and for each master's degree for which it wishes to be accredited to recommend in particular, and it must provide the opportunity for students to include in their individual curricula courses designed to provide a degree of profi ciency and professional understanding relative to the junior college (20). To be awarded the Standard Teaching Credential with Specialization in Junior College Teaching a candidate need complete no professional education course work (20)• Howev er, if he wishes to gain his credential through the recom mendation of college or university he must comply with spe cified program of professional preparation as stated in the institution's bulletins and catalogs. Thus, although specific legal requirements are laid 56 down for institutions which wish to become accredited to recommend for the junior college instructor specialization, an individual may, if he holds a master's degree in a junior college teaching field from an accredited college or univer sity, and, if he fulfills certain other nonprofessional requirements, apply for and receive this credential without any professional preparation whatsoever. Furthermore, since no professional course work is specified for the credential, any institution can offer course work relative to the junior college instructor's needs. Therefore, it may be concluded that professional preparation programs of the nature above described, find no substantial basis in legal accreditation for credential recommendation. California Institutions Offering Programs for Professional Preparation of Junior College Instructors As explained in Chapter III, fifty-seven colleges and universities were accredited to recommend for one or more California credentials as of June, 1967. In responding to the preliminary survey, twenty-two of those fifty-seven institutions answered affirmatively the question, "Does [your] institution offer coursework specifically designed for the professional preparation of junior college instructors?" Fifteen of these twenty-two institutions were accredited to recommend candidates for the Standard Teaching 57 Credential with Specialization in Junior College Teaching. Two of these twenty-two institutions, one accredited and one non-accredited, replied that they were terminating their programs. An examination of the catalogs and pamphlets aug mented by correspondence and additional materials from the program coordinators of the remaining twenty institutions gave indication that twelve of the fourteen accredited institutions and four of the six non-accredited institutions offered distinct junior college instructor course work. The remaining six augmented their secondary teacher professional preparation programs with special individualized seminars, counseling, and junior college supervised teaching for stu dents preparing to be junior college instructors. Table 4 lists the twenty-two institutions by name according to their accreditation and program. As noted, two institutions are terminating their programs. Reasons given for this action include the following: 1. Recent changes in credentialing requirements have encouraged direct application (without institutional recommendation) for credentials. 2. In the University of California, Berkeley, the move ment of people away from seeking a master's degree has eliminated many potential program participants. 3. An oversupply of instructors is available in areas where candidates were previously trained. 4. Because of the difficulty in instructor dismissal, 58 TABLE 4 CALIFORNIA COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES WHICH OFFER PROGRAMS FOR THE PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF JUNIOR COLLEGE INSTRUCTORS AND/OR ARE ACCREDITED TO RECOMMEND CANDIDATES FOR THE STANDARD TEACHING CREDENTIAL WITH A SPECIALIZATION IN JUNIOR COLLEGE TEACHING College or University Accredited to Recom mend for S.T.C. with Specialisation in junior College Teaching? Is Professional Prep aration Course Work Specifically Designed for Junior College Instructors Offered? 1. UC Los Angeles yes yes 2. UC Santa Barbara yes yes 3. CSC Fullerton yes yes 4. CSC Hayward yes yes 5. CSC Long Beach yes yes 6. CSC Los Angeles yes yes 7. San Diego SC yes yes 8. San Fernando Valley SC yes yes 9. San Francisco yes yes 10. San Jo3e SC yes yes 11. Stanford University yes yes 12. Univ. of Southern California yes yes 13. UC Davis no yes 14. UC Riverside no yes 15. Fresno SC no yes 16. Sacramento SC no yes 17. UC Berkeley * * 18. Univ. of the Pacific * * 19 . Mills College yes ** 20. Occidental College yes ** 21. California Western Univ. no ** 22. Loma Linda University no ** ♦Terminating accreditation and junior college instructor professional preparation. ♦♦Information provided by institution indicated junior college instruc tor preparation was on individual basis and carried out in close conjunction with secondary teacher preparation program. 59 junior colleges hesitate to hire inexperienced and "untried" teachers. It should be noted, however, that although two institutions are discontinuing their programs, several institutions are developing new programs and others are increasing their enrollments and formal course offerings. Several coordinators pointed out considerable success in their programs, and no noticeable trend was discerned in the direction of terminating programs. The Mature of the Current California Programs for Professional Preparation of Junior College Instructors The nature of the professional preparation program is probably best reflected in the specific formal course work it includes. For this reason, only the sixteen insti tutions which provided specific information regarding such course work will be included in this section. An examination of catalogs, pamphlets, and other materials supplied by coordinators indicated that four classifications of courses are included in programs for junior college instructor professional preparation. All institutions do not require all four types nor do they all subdivide the course work into the same categories, but the similar titles and course descriptions reoccur with a suffi cient frequency as to allow some generalization in this regard. The four course classifications are (1) Student 60 Teaching, (2) Junior College Instruction, (3) Nature of the Junior College, and (4) Learning Process. Some considera tion may be given to each of these course types: Student Teaching.— The sixteen institutions with formal programs all require completion of this course. Nine of the institutions refer to it as "student teaching," four as "supervised teaching," and three as "directed teaching." Institutions' varying uses of semesters and quarters make an "average" number of units difficult to ascertain. However, the most frequent student teaching requirement is that a student teacher must teach three hours per week for one aca demic year, or the semester (or quarter) equivalent. The student teaching requirement normally does not require additional formal class attendance, but individual counsel ing is implied. Junior College Instruction.— Although there is no agreement as to what this course should be entitled, some thing of its nature is required by thirteen of the sixteen institutions. The course commonly includes the study of instructional materials, observation of instruction, student characteristics, and course planning. It usually meets three hours per week, on a semester basis, and four hours per week, in a quarterly program. Nature of the Junior College.— This course deals 61 with the general principles underlying the junior college. Twelve of the sixteen institutions require such a course. In eight of the institutions this course is entitled simply, "The Junior College." Institutions on semester plans gener ally have it meet three hours per week, quarter-plan insti tutions schedule it three or four hours per week. Educational Psychology.— Courses of this type are required in only three of the sixteen institutions. The course deals with the psychology of learning and individual student guidance. It would appear that the content of this course is included in the "Junior College Instruction" course, if only three courses are required. On an average, institutions require about nine semester hours of work (or the quarter equivalent). These hours are most frequently divided between three and four courses. Completion of the prescribed set of professional courses brings the student expectations of either credential or placement recommendations and implies evidence of profes sional proficiency, and an indication of specific interest and dedication regarding the junior college. In Chapter II of this study a list of fourteen pro- Yr fessional education coursework components was suggested (see Table 2) as a result of a review of authoritative opinion in published literature. These same components were specifi cally referred to or indirectly implied in the catalog 62 descriptions, course outlines, and correspondence with coordinators regarding professional education courses of the various junior college programs. In addition to these four teen components, however, four other areas of study were listed by one or more institutions. The following potential components include these added course features: 1. Laws relating to California public junior colleges 2. Financing and budgeting problems and procedures of junior colleges 3. Purposes and accomplishments of junior college faculty organizations 4. Procedures for locating and applying for junior col lege positions The form of the various programs may be generally categorized into two types, "regular" and "internship." Both programs cover approximately the same material. The regular program generally includes two or three formal courses and six semester hours (or equivalent) of supervised teaching. Upon satisfactory completion of this program the student seeks a regular teaching position. Although internship programs vary between different institutions, their form usually includes a summer and fall schedule. The summer program features intensive study, gen erally through a seminar approach. The fall portion includes a continuation of the seminars, on a less frequent basis, and a full-time teaching assignment in a junior col- 63 lege. Admission to the seminar program, therefore, is sub ject to appointment to an intern teaching position in a junior college. Advocates of the seminar program point out that it places the instructor in a more real working situation. They also believe the instructor is better able to locate a regular position, since he has "shown himself" as a full time instructor. Advocates of the regular program include in its advantages that it is less demanding on student time, it may be spread out over a longer period of time and that it may be integrated with preparation in the subject matter fields. Summary In this chapter it was noted that, although legal specifications do exist for the accreditation of junior col lege instructor training programs, nothing about these accrediting or credentialing requirements precludes an institution from offering such a program without accredi tation. It was also noted that twenty institutions offer some form of such professional preparation and that sixteen of these institutions offer specific formal preparation. It seemed apparent that although the nature of the programs varies between "regular" and "internship" forms, that they tend to include preparation involving teaching experience, methodology in teaching competence, and an understanding of the unique nature of the junior college. It was further pointed out that although two insti tutions are terminating their junior college instructor professional preparation programs, there appears to be no general trend in this direction. CHAPTER V FINDINGS CONCERNING THE NATURE OF APPROPRIATE INSTRUCTOR PREPARATION The purpose of this chapter is to present the find ings of the study as they were revealed from an analysis of the survey of junior college instructors, deans of instruc tion, and instructor training program coordinators. Specif ically, four types of findings will be presented in the chapter: (1) opinion as to which instructional character istics are desirable to have associated with the junior col lege; (2) opinions of instructors, deans, and coordinators regarding the most desirable components to include in pro grams for professional preparation of instructors; (3) rela tionships between certain instructor variables and instruc tor opinions concerning potential components of professional preparation; and (4) rankings of favor toward the potential components as expressed by certain groups of instructors. A five-point scale was used to allow the respondents to record their opinions with regard to both a set of six instructional characteristics of the public junior college and a set of eighteen potential components of programs for 65 66 professional preparation of junior college instructors. The questionnaire response boxes were numbered on a scale of one to five and were associated with descriptive and evaluative words as follows: 1— essential; 2— important; 3— desirable; 4— unnecessary; 5— undesirable. For purposes of statistical presentation and analysis, mean responses have meaning as follows: .50 - 1.49 = essential; 1.50 - 2.49 = important; 2.50 - 3.49 = desirable; 3.50 - 4.49 = unnecessary; 4.50 - 5.59 = undesirable. References to groups tending to "favor" indicates a tendency toward a lower mean score. Opinion Regarding Instructional Characteristics Associated with the Public Junior College Six instructional characteristics were indicated in Chapter III as being most frequently associated with the public junior college by the authors researched (see Table 1). On each of the three forms of the questionnaire respon dents were asked to indicate, through the use of the five- point scale, how desirable they felt the association of each of those six characteristics was to the junior college. The responses "By instructors, deans, and coordinators presented in Table 5 show a strong degree of favor toward "transfer education," "terminal-occupational education," and "aca demic and vocational counseling and guidance" as character istics which should be associated with the junior college. Substantially less favor is registered toward "developmental < £ ■ < TABLE 5 OPINIONS OF INSTRUCTORS, DEANS, AND COORDINATORS WITH REGARD TO THE DESIRABILITY OF CERTAIN ITEMS BEING ASSOCIATED WITH THE JUNIOR COLLEGE Opinions of: Number of Cases % ESS 1 % % IMP DES 2 3 % UNN 4 % UND 5 Mean Transfer Education: INSTRUCTORS 645 87.9 8.7 3.3 .0 .2 1.16 DEANS 72 94.4 5.6 .0 .0 .0 1.06 COORDINATORS 33 81.8 15.2 3.0 .0 .0 1.21 Terminal-Occupational Education: INSTRUCTORS 643 77.6 14.9 6.1 . 6 .8 1.32 DEANS 72 97.2 2.8 .0 .0 .0 1.03 COORDINATORS 33 87.9 9.1 3.0 .0 .0 1.15 OY • > J . TABLE 5— Continued Opinions of: Number of Cases % ESS 1 % IMP 2 % % DES UNN 3 4 % UND 5 Mean Developmental or Remedial. Education: INSTRUCTORS 645 29.3 28.7 29.5 6.5 6.0 2.31 DEANS 71 76.1 16.9 7.0 .0 .0 1.31 COORDINATORS 33 60. 6 15.2 18.2 3.0 3.0 1.73 Academic and Vocational Counseling and Guidance: INSTRUCTORS 646 60.8 24.9 12.2 1.9 .2 1.56 DEANS 72 84.7 13.9 1.4 .0 .0 1.17 COORDINATORS 33 81.8 15.2 3.0 .0 .0 1.21 c r . c o TABLE 5— Continued Opinions of: Number of Cases % ESS 1 % IMP 2 % DES 3 % . UNN 4 % UND 5 Mean Unrestricted Admission— | "the open door" INSTRUCTORS 644 31.8 23.1 24.8 5.4 14.8 2.48 DEANS 72 72.2 19 .4 8.3 .0 .0 1.36 COORDINATORS 33 71.9 9.4 9.4 6.2 3.1 1.60 Co-Curricular Activities and Experiences: INSTRUCTORS 632 27.4 32.6 33.4 5.4 1.3 2.21 DEANS 72 61.1 27.8 11.1 .0 .0 1.50 COORDINATORS 33 45.5 21.2 30.3 3.0 • 0 . 1.91 Cl \o 70 or remedial education/' "unrestricted admission," and "co- curricular experiences." The relative attitudes of instructors, deans, and coordinators were quite consistent. An examination of the mean response of the three groups regarding each character istic reveals that in every instance the deans were most favorable toward the characteristic and the instructors were the least favorable. All three groups had a mean response of 2.49 or less. The purpose of including these six instructional characteristics in the questionnaire was to determine what, if any, relationship might exist between instructor opinion toward each characteristic and each of the eighteen compon ents. However, such a strong degree of favor was expressed toward both "transfer education" and "terminal-occupational education" that it was decided that any attempted measure of such relationships would be more misleading than valuable. The characteristic "co-curricular activities and experiences" was also omitted from the comparisons with the potential components because many instructors expressed confusion regarding its exact meaning. Specifically, they questioned whether it referred to subject area clubs, social activities, student government, or athletics. Many instruc tors indicated they would have different attitudes, depend ing on the intended meanings. This lack of understanding caused the decision to omit this characteristic from the 71 component by component evaluation. Therefore, five instructional characteristics were found to be widely favored by instructors, deans, and coor dinators. Three of them, developmental or remedial educa tion, academic and vocational counseling and guidance, and unrestricted admission were selected to be tested for pos sible relationships with any of the eighteen potential components. Categories of Responding Deans, Coordinators, and Instructors As indicated above, there were three forms of the survey instrument--instructor, dean, and coordinator forms. In this presentation of findings, the 33 usable coordinator questionnaires, the 72 usable dean questionnaires, and the 651 usable instructor questionnaires have each been treated as distinct and separate groups. In addition, the instruc tor questionnaires have been subdivided according to those who have had, and those who have not had, preparation in the particular component under consideration. In Table 6, instructors have been grouped according to the size of their junior college faculties, the number of education units they have completed, the number of years of junior college teaching they have completed, and the portion of their assignment they spend teaching transfer, terminal- occupational, and developmental remedial course work. As nearly as possible, each faculty size quartile TABLE 6 RESPONDING INSTRUCTORS GROUPED ACCORDING TO SIZE OF JUNIOR COLLEGE FACULTY, NUMBER OF EDUCATION UNITS OOMPLETED, YEARS OF JUNIOR COLLEGE TEACHING, AND PORTION OF TEACHING ASSIGNMENT IN TRANSFER, TERMINAL-OCCUPATIONAL, AND DEVELOPMENTAL REMEDIAL COURSE WORK Groupings of Instructors by: Variables Size of Junior College Faculty QUARTILE: Ql Q2 Q3 Q4 FACULTY SIZE: 390-191 190-126 125-66 65-18 NUMBER OF COLLEGES: = 21 20 20 21 NUMBER RESPONDING: 322 175 103 51 PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL: 49.5% 26.9% 15.7% 7.9% Number of Profes sional Education UNITS COMPLETED: none 1-12 13-30 over 30 Units Completed NUMBER RESPONDING: 12 87 186 354 PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL: 1.9% 13.6% 29.1% 55.4% to TABLE 6— Continued Groupings of Instructors by: Variables Number of Years of QUARTILE: Ql Q2 Q3 Q4 Junior College Teaching YEARS COMPLETED: 0-1 1-3 3-10 over 10 NUMBER RESPONDING: 63 147 249 191 PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL: 9.7% 22.6% 38.3% 29.4% Portion of Their Assignment Spent in Teaching PORTION: none 1/3 or less 1/3 to 2/3 2/3 or more all TRANSFER COURSE WORK: NUMBER- PERCENTAGE- 160 24.7% 71 11.0% 95 14.7% 118 18.2% 203 31.4% TERMINAL-OCCUPATIONAL COURSE WORK: NUMBER- PERCENT AGE - 411 63.5% 82 12.7% 48 7.4% 47 7.3% 59 9.1% DEVELOPMENTAL OR REMEDIAL COURSE WORK:- NUMBER-f PERCENTAGE- 515 79.5% 81 12.5% 35 5.4% 10 1.5% 7 1.1% includes the faculties of 25% of the California public junior colleges. (Ql contains the largest colleges, and consequently has the largest sample, etc.) Through prelimi nary investigations it was determined that four education unit groupings would be most representative in that area of variation. These were "none," representing institutions with no education units; 1-12 representing those with mini mum professional preparation; 13-30, representing those with more than minimum but less than master's degree education course requirements; and "over 30," representing those with at least master's degree or equivalent preparation. The years of experience groupings represent new instructors (0- 1 years), non-tenured instructors (1-3 years), moderately experienced tenured instructors (3-10 years), and highly experienced instructors (over 10 years). The portions of course work groupings were organized into five categories so as to provide, as nearly as possible, continuous instructor variations in transfer, terminal-occupational, and develop mental-remedial course work assignments. In Table 7 instructors have been categorized accord ing to types of doctors' degrees, masters' degrees, and cre dentials as well as to teaching experience immediately prior to teaching in junior college, and subject area of teaching assignment. Since some respondents held neither masters' nor doctors' degrees and some did not respond to every question, the percentages in Table 7 do not total 100%. 75 TABLE 7 RESPONDING INSTRUCTORS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO MASTERS' AND DOCTORS' DEGREES, CREDENTIAL-, EXPERIENCE, AND SUBJECT TEACH ING AREA Category Responding Instructors Percentage of Total Responses Mas ter's Degree: Professional Education 253 38.9% Teaching Subject Field 292 44.9% Doctor's Degree: Professional Education 17 2.6% Teaching Subject Field 51 7.8% Credential Type: Junior College 180 27. 7% Secondary 295 45.3% Vocational 68 10. 4% Position Prior to Junior College Teaching: Secondary School College or University Non-Education Institution Student Status 291 129 120 80 44 . 7% 19.8% 18.4% 12.3% Subject Teaching Area: Business 65 10.0% Communications/Humanities 130 20.0% Fine Arts 31 4.8% Technology/Occupations 109 16. 8% Science/Mathematics 138 21. 2% Physical Education 62 9.6% Social Sciences 108 16.9% NOTE: Total of percentages do not equal 100% since some respondents did not answer, some responded to items not included in this table, etc. 76 The groupings in Table 7 are reported as recorded by respondents with these exceptions: five professional edu cation Ph.D. and twelve Ed.D. instructors with General Sec ondary Teaching Credentials and eleven instructors with Standard Teaching Credentials with Specialization in Second ary School Teaching were combined into one "secondary" cate gory; one hundred forty-nine instructors with Junior College Teaching Credentials and thirty-one instructors with Stand ard Teaching Credential in Junior College Teaching were com bined into one "Junior College" category; forty-one instruc tors with Special Secondary Vocational Class "A" or Class "B" Credentials and twenty-seven instructors with Standard Designated Subjects Teaching Credentials were combined into one "vocational" category; fifty-two instructors who teach in industry and technology subject areas and fifty-seven instructors who teach in special occupational areas were combined into one "technology/ occupations" category. Reporting of Opinion Regarding Components The statistical findings of^ opinion regarding each of the eighteen potential components have been presented in three types of tables. The first type, exemplified by Table 8, presents data for each of the total groups of instructors, deans, and coordinators and also for two subdivisions of the instructor group, those who had received preparation in the component 77 and those who had not. The total number of responses, the percentage of responses in each of the five scaled cate gories, the mean response, and tests of significance were presented for each group. A "t"-test was used to determine to what level, if any, a significant difference existed between the responses of the deans and coordinators and between each of those and the instructors. A "chi square" statistical technique was used to determine the significance of the difference between responses of instructors who did and did not have preparation in the component. Table 9, exemplifying a second type, presents a set of instructor variables derived from the six variables described in Table 6 and the three usable instructor opinion variables (regarding junior college characteristics) from Table 5. Through the use of chi square tests of significant difference it was determined what relationship, if any, exists between each of those nine variables and each of the eighteen components. For each variable where a significance is found to be at the .05 level or higher, the raw data was examined and, through observation, a determination was made as to whether an increase or decrease in the variable indi cated more favor toward inclusion of the component. Table 10 exemplifies the third type of table. Using the groups delineated on Table 7, presentation is made of the number of respondents for each group, the percentage of responses registered by each group for each of the five 78 scaled responses and the mean response. To add clarity the responses have been rounded off to the nearest whole per centage point. To present a basis for comparison of each category of groups a rank has been assigned to the mean response of each group in each category, according to its relative favor toward inclusion of the component. Criteria for Inclusion of Components The purpose of presenting the data in the following tables is to provide a descriptive analysis of opinions from various groups regarding each component and to provide a basis for inclusion or exclusion of each potential component as a part of a professional preparation program. An examination of tables similar to Table 8 reveals that for every component a significant difference beyond the .001 level was found to exist between those who had received preparation in the component and those who had not, and greater favor toward the component was always expressed by those who had received preparation in it. To determine which potential components should be included or excluded, a set of criteria was developed. It was decided that the three most comprehensive, uniform, and knowledgeable groups were the total groups of deans and coordinators and those instructors who had received prepara tion in the component. Furthermore, it was determined that a mean response of 2.49 or lower would indicate a predomi- 79 nance of favor toward the inclusion of the component (since .50-1.59 = essential and 1.50-2.49 = important). Therefore, the criterion was established that only when a mean response of 2.49 or lower was registered by deans, coordinators, and those instructors who had received preparation in the component would it be considered appro priate for inclusion in professional preparation programs. A mean of 2.50 or higher by any one of the three groups would thus be sufficient to exclude it as a component. Analyzing the Tables of Opinion Regarding Components The following pages contain the above described tables and an analysis thereof. This analysis will be limited to data and relation ships which are unique to individual components. An exami nation of the tables similar to Table 9 revealed that in sixteen of the eighteen potential components, there was a relationship between approval of the component and the number of education units completed. In every case the approval tended to increase in relationship to the increase in units completed. Similarly, in seventeen of the eighteen components a positive relationship was noted between favor toward the inclusion of the component and favor toward aca demic and vocational counseling and guidance as a character istic of public junior colleges. Where these three exceptions resulted and only in those cases will either of 80 these relationships be discussed in the following component by component analysis. To avoid needless and rather meaningless repetition, no reference will be made, in the component by component analysis, to significant differences between instructors, deans, and coordinators as noted in tables similar to Table 8 . Following the analysis of individual components, a summary analysis of the findings will isolate the most definitive relationships and differences. In all tables and analyses of the study, the levels of significance reported will be at the .05, .01, and .001 levels. (Significant "relationships" were reported only at .05 and .01 levels.) Potential Component A: Supervised Teaching, Teach ing Internship.— Widespread support was expressed for the inclusion of some form of supervised teaching by instruc tors, deans, and coordinators as indicated on Table 8. Over 75 per cent of the instructors considered such preparation either essential or important, only 6.2 per cent considered it unnecessary or undesirable. It is also noteworthy that over 40 per cent of the instructors who had no such training indicated it to be essential or important. Except as previously mentioned, no relationships were found to exist between favor shown toward the component 81 TABLE 8 A. SUPERVISED TEACHING, TEACHING INTERNSHIP: COMPARISONS BETWEEN INSTRUCTOR, DEAN AND COORDINATOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES Opinion of Total Group of: Num ber of Cases % ESS 1 7 . IMP 2 % DES 3 7. UNN 4 % UND 5 MEAN Level of Significant Difference: With Instr Betwn Pair INSTRUCTORS 644 47.4 27. 8 18. 6 5.6 .6 1. 84 DEANS 72 47.2 44.4 8.3 .0 .0 1. 61 .05 .01 COORDINATORS 33 84-. 8 12.1 . 0 3.0 .0 1.21 . 001 INSTRUCTORS WITH PREPARATION IN COMPONENT 506 55.1 28.1 14.2 2.4 .2 1.62 o by x4 yes, at .001 level INSTRUCTORS WITH OUT PREPARATION IN COMPONENT 117 13 .7 27.4 37.6 19 . 7 1.7 2. 68 and the variables listed on Table 9. Illustrated by Table 10 is the favor shown by instructors with secondary-type credentials, as opposed to the junior college type, and instructors hired from second ary school, as opposed to those hired from a college or uni versity. Finally, widespread support for supervised teach ing is evidenced by the fact that over two-thirds of the instructors of every teaching subject area indicated it to be essential or important. Since a mean response of less than 2.49 was calcu lated for deans, coordinators, and those instructors who had supervised teaching, the component meets the criterion for inclusion in professional preparation programs. Potential Component B; Planning and Organizing a Course of Study.— ’ An examination of Table 11 indicates strong support for inclusion of "planning and organizing a course of study" by deans, instructors, and coordinators, with over 75 per cent of all three groups indicating it to be either essential or important. Table 12 exposes no relationships, other than those aforementioned. Table 13 suggests that instructors with secondary school preparation and experience and professional degrees are more favorable toward the component than their counter parts who are more oriented toward higher education and/or 83 TABLE 9 A. SUPERVISED TEACHING, TEACHING INTERNSHIP: Relationships between instructor opinion regarding the desirability of ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES AND INSTRUCTOR EDUCATION, EXPERIENCE, INSTITUTIONAL SIZE AND OPINION REGARDING JUNIOR COLLEGE FUNCTIONS Variable With Which Instructor Opinion Regarding Component Is Potentially Related By Use of x2. Level of Significant Difference/ Relationship Relationship Indicates Instructors Tend to be More Favorable Toward Inclusion of Component as: Number of: FACULTY IN THE JUNIOR COLLEGE IN WHICH HE TEACHES no EDUCATION UNITS THE INSTRUCTOR HAS COMPLETED . 01 units increase YEARS THE INSTRUCTOR HAS TAUGHT IN JUNIOR COLLEGE no Portion of Instructor's Formal Assignment which is in: TEACHING TRANSFER COURSEWORK no TEACHING TERMINAL- OCCUPATIONAL COURSEWORK no TEACHING DEVELOPMENTAL OR REMEDIAL COURSEWORK no Opinion of Instructors With Regard to the Desirability of the Association with the Junior College of: DEVELOPMENTAL OR REMEDIAL EDUCATION no ACADEMIC AND VOCATIONAL COUNSELING AND GUIDANCE H O • opinion becomes more favorable UNRESTRICTED ADMISSION - "the open door" no 84 TABLE 10 A. SUPERVISED TEACHING, TEACHING INTERNSHIP: RANKINGS OF INSTRUCTOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES ACCORDING TO DEGREE, CREDENTIAL, EXPERIENCE AND TEACHING AREA CATEGORIES Categories and Groups Nuro- ier of Cases % ESS 1 % IMP 2 % DES 3 % UNN 4 % UND 5 MEAN Rank of Favor Masters Degrees: PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 250 58 22 16 3 1 1.65 1 TEACHING SUBJECT FIELD 287 40 31 21 7 1 1.96 2 Doctors Degrees: PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 17 53 23 12 12 0 1.82 1 TEACHING SUBJECT FIELD 51 35 35 22 8 0 2.02 2 Credential Types: JUNIOR COLLEGE 175 35 27 27 10 1 2.14 2 SECONDARY 294 56 26 14 3 0 1.66 1 VOCATIONAL 68 34 34 27 4 1 2.60 3 Experience Immediately Prior to Junior Co 1 aoo Ceachi SECONDARY SCHOOL 291 55 27 13 4 1 1.67 1 COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY 124 41 28 19 10 2 2.02 3 NON-EDUCATION 118 35 30 30 4 1 2.06 4 STUDENT STATUS 80 45 29 20 6 0 1. 87 2 Teaching Subject Area: BUSINESS 64 47 27 23 3 0 1.83 3 COMMUNICATNS/HUMANITIES 126 44 26 24 6 0 1.93 6 FINE ARTS 31 52 32 10 3 3 1.74 2 TECHNOLOGY/OCCUPATION 109 49 28 16 5 2 1.83 4 SCIENCE/MATHEMATICS 137 39 31 22 8 0 1.98 7 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 62 71 19 5 3 2 1.45 1 SOCIAL SCIENCE 107 46 29 19 6 0 1.86 5 85 TABLE 11 B. PLANNING AND ORGANIZING A COURSE OP STUDY: COMPARISONS BETWEEN INSTRUCTOR, DEAN AND COORDINATOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES Opinion of Total Group of: Num ber of Cases % ESS 1 % IMP 2 % DES 3 % UNN 4 % UND 5 MEAN Level of Significant Difference: With Instr Betwn Pair INSTRUCTORS 643 44.8 30. 8 18.2 5.6 . 6 1. 86 DEANS 72 38.9 40.3 20. 8 .0 .0 1. 82 no no COORDINATORS 33 51.5 27.3 18.2 3.0 .0 1.73 no INSTRUCTORS WITH PREPARATION IN COMPONENT 492 52. 8 30.3 13.4 2.8 . 6 1.68 • y by x yes, at .001 level INSTRUCTORS WITH OUT PREPARATION IN COMPONENT 129 16.3 32. 6 34.1 16.3 .8 2.53 86 - TABLE 12 B. PLANNING AND ORGANIZING A COURSE OF STUDY: Relationships between instructor opinion regarding the desirability of ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES AND INSTRUCTOR EDUCATION, EXPERIENCE, INSTITUTIONAL SIZE AND OPINION REGARDING JUNIOR COLLEGE FUNCTIONS Variable With Which Instructor Opinion Regarding Component Is Potentially Related By Use of , Level of Significant Difference/ Relationship Relationship Indicates Instructors Tend to be More Favorable Toward Inclusion of Component as: Number of: FACULTY IN THE JUNIOR COLLEGE IN WHICH HE TEACHES no EDUCATION UNITS THE INSTRUCTOR HAS COMPLETED .01 units increase YEARS THE INSTRUCTOR HAS TAUGHT IN JUNIOR COLLEGE no Portion of Instructor's Formal Assignment which is in: TEACHING TRANSFER COURSEWORK no TEACHING TERMINAL- OCCUPATIONAL COURSEWORK no TEACHING DEVELOPMENTAL OR REMEDIAL COURSEWORK no Opinion of Instructors With Regard to the Desirability of the Association with the Junior College of: DEVELOPMENTAL OR REMEDIAL EDUCATION no ACADEMIC AND VOCATIONAL COUNSELING AND GUIDANCE .01 opinion becomes more favorable UNRESTRICTED ADMISSION - "the open door" no TABLE 13 87 B. PLANNING AND ORGANIZING A COURSE OF STUDY RANKINGS OF INSTRUCTOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES ACCORDING TO DEGREE, CREDENTIAL, EXPERIENCE AND TEACHING AREA CATEGORIES Categories and Groups Num- ier of Cases % ESS I % IMP 2 % DES 3 % UNN 4 % 1 UND 5 | MEAN Rank of Favor Masters Degrees: PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 248 52 27 17 4 4 1.75 1 TEACHING SUBJECT FIELD 289 37 33 20 9 1 2.04 2 Doctors Degrees: PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 17 47 23 29 0 1 1. 82 1 TEACHING SUBJECT FIELD 50 28 28 32 12 0 2.28 2 Credential Types: JUNIOR COLLEGE 178 32 34 22 10 2 1.25 1 SECONDARY 290 46 32 17 5 0 1.82 3 VOCATIONAL 68 57 28 15 0 0 1.57 2 Experience Immediately Prior to Junj[or .CoJ Teach ii : SECONDARY SCHOOL 289 49 30 16 5 0 1.77 1 COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY 126 41 2 7 22 8 2 2.02 4 NON-EDUCATION 118 46 31 19 3 1 1.83 2 STUDENT STATUS 79 35 38 18 8 1 2.01 3 Teaching Subject Area: BUSINESS 65 45 32 15 8 0 1.86 4 COMMUNICATNS/HUMANITIES 126 44 29 18 9 0 1.92 5 FINE ARTS 31 52 35 13 0 0 1.61 2 TECHNOLOGY/OCCUPATION 109 59 29 9 3 0 1.56 1 SC IENC E /MATH EMATIC S 137 33 31 26 9 1 2.13 7 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 62 56 26 16 2 0 1.63 3 SOCIAL SCIENCE 105 36 35 22 4 3 2.02 6 88 subject field disciplines. The mean response criterion having been met, the component is considered appropriate for inclusion in profes sional preparation programs. Potential Component C; Innovative Techniques in Classroom Presentations.— Table 14 reveals rather strong support for inclusion of "innovative techniques in classroom presentations" by all three groups, with over three-quarters of the deans and coordinators and over three-fifths of the instructors indicating favor toward it. Interpreting Table 15, one notices a relationship between favor toward the inclusion of the component and favor toward developmental/remedial education as well as counseling and guidance as junior college characteristics. However, an inverse relationship seems to exist between favor toward the component and the portion of assignment spent in teaching developmental/remedial course work. Table 16 indicates that those instructors of second ary education and experience and stronger professional prep aration background tend to be more favorable toward the component. The mean response criterion having been met, the component is considered appropriate for inclusion in profes sional preparation programs. Potential Component D: Use and Application of 89 f TABLE 14 C. INNOVATIVE TECHNIQUES IN CLASSROOM PRESENTATIONS: COMPARISONS BETWEEN INSTRUCTOR, DEAN AND COORDINATOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES Opinion of Total Group of: Num ber of Cases 7. ESS 1 % IMP 2 7. DES 3 7. UNN 4 % UND 5 MEAN Level of Signifleant Difference: With Instr Betwn Pair - INSTRUCTORS 632 29.3 35.4 29 .0 5.4 .9 2.13 DEANS 72 27.8 50 .0 22.2 .0 .0 1.94 no no COORDINATORS 33 45. 5 36.4 18. 2 .0 .0 1.73 .05 INSTRUCTORS WITH PREPARATION IN COMPONENT 385 36.1 37.4 22.1 3.6 .8 1.95 by x2 yes, at .001 level Instructors with out PREPARATION IN COMPONENT 222 18.9 32.0 39. 6 9.0 .5 2.40 90 TABLE 15 C. INNOVATIVE TECHNIQUES IN CLASSROOM PRESENTATIONS: RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN INSTRUCTOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES AND INSTRUCTOR EDUCATION, EXPERIENCE, INSTITUTIONAL SIZE AND OPINION REGARDING JUNIOR COLLEGE FUNCTIONS Variable With Which Instructor Opinion Regarding Component Is Potentially Related By Use of x^. Level of Significant Difference/ Relationship Relationship Indicates Instructors Tend to be More Favorable Toward Inclusion of Component as: Number of: FACULTY IN THE JUNIOR COLLEGE IN WHICH HE TEACHES no EDUCATION UNITS THE INSTRUCTOR HAS COMPLETED ■ o H units increase YEARS THE INSTRUCTOR HAS TAUGHT IN JUNIOR COLLEGE no Portion of Instructor's Formal Assignment which is in: TEACHING TRANSFER COURSEWORK no TEACHING TERMINAL- OCCUPATIONAL COURSEWORK no TEACHING DEVELOPMENTAL OR REMEDIAL COURSEWORK .05 portion decreases Opinion of Instructors With Regard to the Desirability of the Association with the Junior College of: DEVELOPMENTAL OR REMEDIAL EDUCATION .01 opinion becomes more favorable ACADEMIC AND VOCATIONAL COUNSELING AND GUIDANCE .01 opinion becomes more favorable UNRESTRICTED ADMISSION - '•the open door" no 91 TABLE 16 C. INNOVATIVE TECHNIQUES IN CLASSROOM PRESENTATIONS: RANKINGS OF INSTRUCTOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES ACCORDING TO DEGREE, CREDENTIAL, EXPERIENCE AND TEACHING AREA CATEGORIES Categories and Groups Num ber of Cases % ESS 1 % IMP 2 % DES 3 % UNN 4 7 . UND 5 MEAN Rank of Favor Masters Degrees: PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 247 36 36 24 3 1 1.96 1 TEACHING SUBJECT FIELD 280 26 32 33 9 0 2.27 2 Doctors Degrees: PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 17 12 47 41 0 0 2.29 1 TEACHING SUBJECT FIELD 50 14 36 38 12 0 2. 48 2 Credential Types: JUNIOR COLLEGE 174 22 32 35 10 1 2.35 3 SECONDARY 288' 32 37 26 4 1 2.05 1 VOCATIONAL 66 30 30 35 5 0 2.14 2 Experience Immediately Prior to JunJor Co] uz: SECONDARY SCHOOL 286 35 38 22 4 1 1.97 1 COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY 126 27 27 36 9 1 2.31 3 NON-EDUCATION 115 23 36 33 6 2 2.27 2 STUDENT STATUS 75 16 40 37 7 0 2.35 4 Teaching Subject Area: BUSINESS 64 39 36 23 2 0 1.87 2 COMMUNICATNS/HUMANITIES 126 31 29 31 7 2 2.19 5 FINE ARTS 30 17 60 20 3 0 2.10 4 TECHNOLOGY/OCCUPATION 106 33 38 26 3 0 1.99 3 SCIENCE/MATHEMATICS 130 21 34 33 11 1 2.34 7 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 62 37 40 23 0 0 1.85 1 SOCIAL SCIENCE 106 23 33 35 6 3 2.31 6 92 Teaching Devices and Equipment.--Table 17 indicates substan tial support for inclusion of "use and application of teach ing devices and equipment" by all three groups with the deans showing a special interest in its inclusion. Table 18 suggests a number of significant relation ships regarding the desirability of including the component. Instructors with smaller portions of transfer and develop mental/remedial course work tend to be more favorable, also. Table 19 indicates a substantial difference in opin ion between physical education faculty and social science faculty regarding the component. Physical education faculty tend to view it as much more important. The mean response criterion having been met, the component is considered appropriate for inclusion in profes sional preparation programs. Potential Component E: Test Construction and Analysis.— Table 20 reveals rather strong support for inclu sion of "test construction and analysis" by all three groups with over three-quarters of the deans and coordinators and over three-fifths of the instructors indicating favor toward it. Table 21 suggests that some antipathy toward inclu sion of the component develops as one teaches a greater pro portion of transfer course work. Table 22 indicates that terminal-program oriented instructors, including those with vocational-type creden- 93 TABLE 17 D. USE AND APPLICATION OF TEACHING DEVICES AND EQUIPMENT: COMPARISONS BETWEEN INSTRUCTOR, DEAN AND COORDINATOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES Opinion of Total Group of: Num ber of Cases % ESS 1 % IMP 2 % DES 3 % UNN 4 % UND 5 MEAN Level of Signifleant Difference: With Instr Betwn Pair INSTRUCTORS 642 28.0 34.0 26.6 10 .4 .9 2.22 DEANS 70 30. 0 51.4 14.3 4.3 . 0 1.93 .05 no COORDINATORS 33 42.4 30.3 21.2 6.1 .0 1.91 no INSTRUCTORS WITH PREPARATION IN COMPONENT 501 32. 5 34.3 23.4 8.8 1.0 2.11 by x2 yes, at .001 level INSTRUCTORS with out PREPARATION IN COMPONENT 121 10. 7 31.4 39.7 17.4 .8 2.66 94 TABLE 18 D. USE AND APPLICATION OF TEACHING DEVICES AND EQUIPMENT: RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN INSTRUCTOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES AND INSTRUCTOR EDUCATION, EXPERIENCE, INSTITUTIONAL SIZE AND OPINION REGARDING JUNIOR COLLEGE FUNCTIONS Variable With Which Instructor Opinion Regarding Component Is Potentially Related By Use of x , Level of Significant Difference/ Relationship Relationship Indicates Instructors Tend to be More Favorable Toward Inclusion of Component as: Number of: FACULTY IN THE JUNIOR COLLEGE IN WHICH HE TEACHES no EDUCATION UNITS THE INSTRUCTOR HAS COMPLETED . 01 units increase YEARS THE INSTRUCTOR HAS TAUGHT IN JUNIOR COLLEGE no Portion of Instructor’s Formal Assignment which is in: TEACHING TRANSFER COURSEWORK . 05 portion decreases TEACHING TERMINAL- OCCUPATIONAL COURSEWORK no TEACHING DEVELOPMENTAL OR REMEDIAL COURSEWORK .01 portion decreases Opinion of Instructors With Regard to the Desirability of the Association with the Junior College of: DEVELOPMENTAL OR REMEDIAL EDUCATION no ACADEMIC AND VOCATIONAL COUNSELING AND GUIDANCE .01 opinion becomes more favorable UNRESTRICTED ADMISSION - "the open door" no 95 TABLE 19 D. USE AND APPLICATION OF TEACHING DEVICES AND EQUIPMENT: RANKINGS OF INSTRUCTOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES ACCORDING TO DEGREE, CREDENTIAL, EXPERIENCE AND TEACHING AREA CATEGORIES Categories and Groups Num ber of Cases % ESS 1 % IMP 2 % DES 3 % UNN 4 % UND 5 MEAN Rank of Favor Masters Degrees: PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 249 35 36 21 7 1 2.03 1 TEACHING SUBJECT FIELD 288 20 31 32 15 2 2.46 2 Doctors Degrees: PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 17 29 35 29 6 1 2.12 1 TEACHING SUBJECT FIELD 51 20 37 29 14 0 2.37 2 Credential Types: JUNIOR COLLEGE 176 16 31 34 18 1 2. 57 3 SECONDARY 292 28 38 25 8 1 2.15 2 VOCATIONAL 68 38 31 21 10 0 2.03 1 Experience Immediately Prior to Junior CoLlepe Teachi le: SECONDARY SCHOOL 291 32 38 22 7 - 1 2.08 1 COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY 125 25 34 23 17 1 2.37 3 NON-EDUCATION 117 27 32 32 8 1 2 . 24 2 STUDENT STATUS 78 13 30 42 15 0 2 : * , . 6 0 4 Teaching Subject Area: BUSINESS 65 35 39 18 8 0 1.98 3 COMMUNICATNS/HUMANITIES 127 20 34 30 14 2 2. 45 6 FINE ARTS 31 19 32 39 10 0 2.39 5 TECHNOLOGY/OCCUPATION 108 42 31 23 4 0 1.91 2 SCIENCE/MATHEMATICS 136 22 33 30 15 0 2 „ 38 4 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 62 47 37 14 0 2 1.73 1 SOCIAL SCIENCE 105 18 33 33 14 2 2.49 7 96 TABLE 20 E. TEST CONSTRUCTION AND ANALYSIS: COMPARISONS BETWEEN INSTRUCTOR, DEAN AND COORDINATOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES Opinion of Total Group of: Num ber of Cases % ESS 1 % IMP 2 7 . DES 3 7. UNN 4 % UND 5 MEAN Level of Significant Difference: With Instr Betwn Pair - INSTRUCTORS 644 37.4 34.2 23. 0 4.8 . 6 1.9' -"tJy t-test''" DEANS 72 40.3 40.3 19 .4 .0 .0 1.7S no no COORDINATORS 33 57. 6 33. 3 6.1 3_.0 .0 1.54 .01 INSTRUCTORS WITH PREPARATION IN COMPONENT 472 43.9 34.5 18.6 2.5 .4 1.8] by x2 yes, at .001 level Instructors with out PREPARATION IN COMPONENT 148 18. 9 33.1 36.5 10.8 .7 2.31 97 TABLE 21 E. TEST CONSTRUCTION AND ANALYSIS: Relationships between instructor opinion regarding the desirability of its inclusion as a component of a program for professional preparation of INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES AND INSTRUCTOR EDUCATION, EXPERIENCE, INSTITUTIONAL SIZE AND OPINION REGARDING JUNIOR COLLEGE FUNCTIONS Variable With Which Instructor Opinion Regarding Component Is Potentially Related By Use of x2, Level of Significant Difference/ Relationship Relationship Indicates Instructors Tend to be More Favorable Toward Inclusion of Component as: Number of: FACULTY IN THE JUNIOR COLLEGE IN WHICH HE TEACHES no EDUCATION UNITS THE INSTRUCTOR HAS COMPLETED .01 units increase YEARS THE INSTRUCTOR HAS TAUGHT IN JUNIOR COLLEGE no Portion of Instructor’s Formal Assignment which is in: TEACHING TRANSFER COURSEWORK .01 portion decreases TEACHING TERMINAL- OCCUPATIONAL COURSEWORK no TEACHING DEVELOPMENTAL OR REMEDIAL COURSEWORK no Opinion of Instructors With Regard to the Desirability of the Association with the Junior College of: DEVELOPMENTAL OR REMEDIAL EDUCATION no ACADEMIC AND VOCATIONAL COUNSELING AND GUIDANCE .01 opinion becomes more favorable UNRESTRICTED ADMISSION - ’ ’ the open door" no 98 TABLE 22 E. TEST CONSTRUCTION AND ANALYSIS: RANKINGS OF INSTRUCTOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES ACCORDING TO DEGREE, CREDENTIAL, EXPERIENCE AND TEACHING AREA CATEGORIES Categories and Groups Num ber of Cases 7 . ESS 1 X IMP 2 X DES 3 % UNN 4 X UND 5 MEAN Rank of Favor Masters Degrees: PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 249 45 34 19 2 0 1.80 1 TEACHING SUBJECT FIELD 288 29 33 29 8 1 2.17 2 Doctors Degrees: PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 17 41 47 12 0 0 1.71 1 TEACHING SUBJECT FIELD 51 18 37 33 12 0 2.39 2 Credential Types: JUNIOR- COLLEGE 177 23 29 36 10 2 2.38 3 SECONDARY 292 39 38 19 4 0 1.88 2 VOCATIONAL 68 47 32 21 0 0 1.73 1 Experience Immediately Prior to Junior Co 1 ofo leach ii ■ u z : SECONDARY SCHOOL 290 40 37 10 4 0 1. 86 1 COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY 126 37 27 27 6 3 2.09 3 NON-EDUCATION 119 37 33 27 2 1 1.96 2 STUDENT STATUS 79 31 34 25 10 0 2.15 4 Teaching Subject Area: BUSINESS 65 43 35 19 | 3 0' 1.81 3 COMMUNICATNS/HUMANITIES 126 32 32 29 6 1 2.11 5 FINE ARTS 30 17 43 30 10 0 2.33 7 TECHNOLOGY/OCCUPATION 109 53 30 15 2 0 1. 65 1 SCIENCE/MATHEMATICS 137 32 34 23 10 1 2.14 6 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 62 45 37 18 0 0 1.73 2 SOCIAL SCIENCE 107 31 35 29 3 2 2. 09 4 99 tials and those who teach in technology/occupation, busi ness, and physical education areas, tend to show greater favor toward the inclusion of test construction professional preparation programs. The mean response criterion having been met, the component is considered appropriate for inclusion in profes sional preparation programs. Potential Component F: Purposes and Methods of Grading and Evaluation.— Substantial variation in opinion between deans, and coordinators, and instructors is regis tered in Table 23 regarding the inclusion of "purposes and methods of grading and evaluation" as a component. Although all three groups favor its inclusion, instructors are much less united in their opinion. Table 24 suggests that faculty favor toward the com ponent grows as the proportion of transfer and develop mental/remedial course work decreases, and as opinion toward developmental/remedial course work becomes more favorable. The mean response criterion having been met, the component is considered appropriate for inclusion in profes sional education programs. Potential Component G: Psychology of Learning.— Much greater favor is indicated toward inclusion of "psy chology of learning" by deans and coordinators than by instructors, as is evident from an examination of Table 26. 100 TABLE 23 F. PURPOSES AND METHODS OF GRADING AND EVALUATION: COMPARISONS BETWEEN INSTRUCTOR, DEAN AND COORDINATOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES Opinion of Total Group of: Num ber of Cases % ESS 1 % IMP 2 % DES 3 % UNN 4 % UND 5 MEAN Level of Signlf icant Difference: With Instr Betwn Pair INSTRUCTORS 641 35.1 34. 6 22.8 6.7 .8 2.03 DEANS 72 51.4 34.7 13.9 .0 .0 1.62 .001 no COORDINATORS 33 63.6 33.3 3.0 .0 .0 1. 39 .001 INSTRUCTORS WITH PREPARATION IN COMPONENT 473 41.4 36.2 17. 8 4.0 . 6 1.86 by x^ yes, at ,00T level InSTrucTORs with out PREPARATION IN COMPONENT 144 16.0 29.9 38.9 14.6 .7 2. 54 101 TABLE 24 F. PURPOSES AND METHODS OF GRADING AND EVALUATION: RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN INSTRUCTOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES AND INSTRUCTOR EDUCATION, EXPERIENCE, INSTITUTIONAL SIZE AND OPINION REGARDING JUNIOR COLLEGE FUNCTIONS Variable With Which Instructor Opinion Regarding Component Is Potentially Related By Use of Level of Significant Difference/ Relationship Relationship Indicates Instructors Tend to be More Favorable Toward Inclusion of Component as: Number of: FACULTY IN THE JUNIOR COLLEGE IN WHICH HE TEACHES no EDUCATION UNITS THE INSTRUCTOR HAS COMPLETED .01 units increase YEARS THE INSTRUCTOR HAS TAUGHT IN JUNIOR COLLEGE no Portion of Instructor's Formal Assignment which is in: TEACHING TRANSFER COURSEWORK i —1 O • portion decreases TEACHING TERMINAL- OCCUPATIONAL COURSEWORK no TEACHING DEVELOPMENTAL OR REMEDIAL COURSEWORK .05 portion decreases Opinion of Instructors With Regard to the Desirability of the Association with the Junior College of: DEVELOPMENTAL OR REMEDIAL EDUCATION .01 opinion becomes more favorable ACADEMIC AND VOCATIONAL COUNSELING AND GUIDANCE .01 opinion becomes more favorable UNRESTRICTED ADMISSION - "the open door" no 102 TABLE 25 F. PURPOSES AND METHODS OF GRADING AND EVALUATION: RANKINGS OF INSTRUCTOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES ACCORDING TO DEGREE, CREDENTIAL, EXPERIENCE AND TEACHING AREA CATEGORIES Categories and Groups Num ber of Cases % ESS I % IMP 2 % DES 3 % UNN 4 % UND 5 MEAN Rank of Favor Masters Degrees: PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 248 42 39 15 4 0 1.81 1 TEACHING SUBJECT FIELD 287 28 30 30 11 1 2.28 2 Doctors Degrees: PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 17 59 23 18 0 0 1. 59 1 TEACHING SUBJECT FIELD 50 18 40 28 14 0 2.38 2 Credential Types: JUNIOR COLLEGE 177 22 29 33 14 2 2.45 3 SECONDARY 290 36 39 20 5 0 1.95 2 VOCATIONAL 68 37 41 19 3 0 1. 88 1 Experience Immediately Prior to JuniLor Col loae Teachi le: SECONDARY SCHOOL 289 39 38 18 5- 0 1. 89 1 COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY 126 33 30 23 11 3 2.20 3 NON-EDUCATION 119 29 37 29 4 1 2.10 2 STUDENT STATUS 76 30 28 32 10 0 2 . 22 4 Teaching Subject Area: BUSINESS 65 43 35 17 5 0 1.83 3 COMMUNICATNS/HUMANITIES 126 31 31 31 6 1 2.15 5 FINE ARTS 31 10 51 29 10 0 2.39 7 TECHNOLOGY/OCCUPATION 108 45 36 16 3 0 1.76 2 SCIENCE/MATHEMATICS 135 30 30 26 13 1 2.27 6 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 62 42 42 16 0 0 1.74 1 SOCIAL SCIENCE 106 34 35 22 7 2 2.08 4 103 TABLE 2 6 G. PSYCHOLOGY OF LEARNING: COMPARISONS BETWEEN INSTRUCTOR, DEAN AND COORDINATOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES Opinion of Total Group of: Num ber of Cases % ESS 1 % IMP 2 % DES 3 % UNN 4 % UND 5 MEAN Level of Significant Difference: With Instr Betwn Pair INSTRUCTORS 644 33.2 30.0 28.6 7.3 .9 2.13 "Ijy t-test'" DEANS 72 58.3 30. 6 11.1 .0 . 0 1.53 .001 no COORDINATORS 33 48.5 39.4 12.1 .0 .0 1.64 .01 INSTRUCTORS WITH PREPARATION IN COMPONENT 539 37.5 30.2 25.6 5.9 . 7 2.02 by x2 yes, at .001 level Instructors with out PREPARATION IN COMPONENT 82 7.3 31.7 45.1 14.6 1.2 2.71 104 Over 85 per cent of both deans and coordinators consider it essential or important, while less than 65 per cent of the instructors consider it such. Table 27 indicates that instructors favor toward the component increases as favor toward developmental/remedial education and unrestricted admission, increase. However, faculty favor toward the component decreases as one'.s assignment includes a greater portion of transfer course work. These relationships may indicate a greater "student orientation," by certain members of the faculty. The mean response criterion having been met, the component is considered appropriate for inclusion in profes sional education programs. Potential Component H; Motivations and Attitudes of Junior College Students.— Although all three groups favor inclusion of a study of "motivations and attitudes of junior college students," they do so by quite different degrees. Table 29 records over 85 per cent of the coordinators as feeling that the component is essential or important, over 75 per cent of the deans so indicating and only a little over 50 per cent of the instructors seeing it as such. Similar to the previous potential component, Table 30 suggests instructors with a certain altruism toward stu dents tend to favor the component, for there appears to be a relationship between favor for remedial education, and a belief in the "open door," and a favorable attitude toward 105 TABLE 27 G. PSYCHOLOGY OF LEARNING: RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN INSTRUCTOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES AND INSTRUCTOR EDUCATION, EXPERIENCE, INSTITUTIONAL SIZE AND OPINION REGARDING JUNIOR COLLEGE FUNCTIONS Variable With Which Instructor Opinion Regarding Component Is Potentially Related By Use of x2, Level of Significant Difference/ Relationship Relationship Indicates Instructors Tend to be More Favorable Toward Inclusion of Component as: Number of: FACULTY IN THE JUNIOR COLLEGE IN WHICH HE TEACHES no EDUCATION UNITS THE INSTRUCTOR HAS COMPLETED . 01 units increase YEARS THE INSTRUCTOR HAS TAUGHT IN JUNIOR COLLEGE no Portion of Instructor's Formal Assignment which is in: TEACHING TRANSFER COURSEWORK .01 portion decreases TEACHING TERMINAL- OCCUPATIONAL COURSEWORK no TEACHING DEVELOPMENTAL OR REMEDIAL COURSEWORK no Opinion of Instructors With Regard to the Desirability of the Association with the Junior College of: DEVELOPMENTAL OR REMEDIAL EDUCATION .05 opinion becomes more favorable ACADEMIC AND VOCATIONAL COUNSELING AND GUIDANCE .01 opinion becomes more favorable UNRESTRICTED ADMISSION - "the open door” . 05 opinion becomes more favorable 106 TABLE 28 G. PSYCHOLOGY OF LEARNING RANKINGS OF INSTRUCTOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES ACCORDING TO DEGREE, CREDENTIAL, EXPERIENCE AND TEACHING AREA CATEGORIES Categories and Groups Num ber of Cases % ESS 1 X IMP 2 % DES 3 % UNN 4 % UND 5 MEAN Rank of Favor Masters Degrees: PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 250 43 30 23 3 1 1.89 1 TEACHING SUBJECT FIELD 287 28 28 33 9 2 2.29 2 Doctors Degrees: PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 17 35 41 18 6 0 1.94 1 TEACHING SUBJECT FIELD 51 16 37 29 18 0 2.49 2 Credential Types: JUNIOR COLLEGE 177 19 28 40 11 2 2.50 3 SECONDARY 292 36 32 25 6 1 2.03 1 VOCATIONAL 68 31 32 28 9 0 2.15 2 Experience Immediately Prior or Co 1 oo-ta Teach iiie: SECONDARY SCHOOL 289 34 33 27 5 1 2.07 1 COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY 127 32 28 30 9 1 2.17 3 NON-EDUCATION 118 33 28 30 8 1 2.16 2 STUDENT STATUS 79 29 27 34 9 1 2. 27 4 Teaching Subject Area: BUSINESS 65 48 29 23 0 0 1.75 1 COMMUNICATNS/HUMANITIES 127 27 33 29 10 1 2.25 5 FINE ARTS 31 23 32 32 13 0 2.35 6 TECHNOLOGY/OCCUPATION 109 42 28 23 6 1 1.94 3 SCIENCE/MATHEMATICS 136 18 27 41 12 2 2.54 7 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 62 39 32 27 2 0 1.92 2 SOCIAL SCIENCE 106 39 31 23 6 1 2.00 4 107 TABLE 29 H. MOTIVATIONS AND ATTITUDES OF JUNIOR COLLEGE STUDENTS: COMPARISONS BETWEEN INSTRUCTOR, DEAN AND COORDINATOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES Opinion of Total Group of: Num ber of Cases % ESS 1 % IMP 2 % DES 3 % UNN 4 % UND 5 MEAN Level of Significant Difference: With Instr Betwn Pair INSTRUCTORS 643 21.6 29. 5 34.7 12 .3 1.9 2.43 '^Pt-te^' DEANS 71 36. 6 40.8 21.1 1.4 .0 1.87 .001 no COORDINATORS 33 54.5 33.3 6.1 6.1 .0 1. 64 .001 INSTRUCTORS WITH PREPARATION IN COMPONENT 164 38.4 32.3 22.6 6.1 .6 1.98 by x2 yes, at .001 level INSTRUCTORS WITH OUT PREPARATION IN COMPONENT 450 15.3 29.1 39.3 14.2 2.0 2.58 108 TABLE 30 H. MOTIVATIONS AND ATTITUDES OF JUNIOR COLLEGE STUDENTS: RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN INSTRUCTOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES AND INSTRUCTOR EDUCATION, EXPERIENCE, INSTITUTIONAL SIZE AND OPINION REGARDING JUNIOR COLLEGE FUNCTIONS Variable With Which Instructor Opinion Regarding Component Is Potentially Related By Use of x . Level of Significant Difference/ Relationship Relationship Indicates Instructors Tend to be More Favorable Toward Inclusion of Component as: Number of: FACULTY IN THE JUNIOR COLLEGE IN WHICH HE TEACHES no EDUCATION UNITS THE INSTRUCTOR HAS COMPLETED i—1 o • units increase YEARS THE INSTRUCTOR HAS TAUGHT IN JUNIOR COLLEGE no Portion of Instructors Formal Assignment which is in: TEACHING TRANSFER COURSEWORK .05 portion decreases TEACHING TERMINAL- OCCUPATIONAL COURSEWORK no TEACHING DEVELOPMENTAL OR REMEDIAL COURSEWORK no Opinion of Instructors With Regard to the Desirability of the Association with the Junior College of: DEVELOPMENTAL OR REMEDIAL EDUCATION I— 1 o • opinion becomes more favorable ACADEMIC AND VOCATIONAL COUNSELING AND GUIDANCE .01 opinion becomes more favorable UNRESTRICTED ADMISSION - "the open door" .01 opinion becomes more favorable 109 TABLE 31 H. MOTIVATIONS AND ATTITUDES OF JUNIOR COLLEGE STUDENTS: RANKINGS OF INSTRUCTOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES ACCORDING TO DEGREE, CREDENTIAL, EXPERIENCE AND TEACHING AREA CATEGORIES Categories and Groups Num ber of Cases 7. ESS 1 % IMP 2 % DES 3 % UNN 4 7. UND 5 MEAN Rank of Favor Masters Degrees: PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 250 26 32 32 8 2 2.28 1 TEACHING SUBJECT FIELD 287 22 24 35 16 3 2.53 2 Doctors Degrees: PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 17 18 41 41 0 0 2.24 1 TEACHING SUBJECT FIELD 49 12 31 35 20 2 2. 69 2 Credential Types: JUNIOR COLLEGE 177 19 23 37 18 3 2.64 3 SECONDARY 292 21 32 34 11 2 2.40 2 VOCATIONAL 68 23 31 34 12 0 2.34 1 Experience Immediately Prior to Junjor Co: 1 OCT o reach iiie: SECONDARY SCHOOL 290 19 33 35 12 1 2.41 3 COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY 125 22 25 35 15 3 2.54 4 NON-EDUCATION 119 25 28 31 14 2 2.39 1 STUDENT STATUS 78 24 26 38 9 3 2.40 2 Teaching Subject Area: BUSINESS 65 26 35 31 8 0 2.20 1 COMMUNICATNS/HUMANITIES 127 23 24 34 16 3 2.52 5 FINE ARTS 31 16 29 32 23 0 2.61 6 TECHNOLOGY/OCCUPATION 109 27 28 33 11 1 2.31 3 SCIENCE/MATHEMATICS 136 13 24 44 16 3 2.71 7 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 62 21 34 40 5 0 2 .29 2 SOCIAL SCIENCE 106 23 37 27 10 3 2.34 4 110 the inclusion of this component. Furthermore, those who are less involved in transfer coursework seem to be more favor able toward the components inclusion. The mean response criterion having been met, the component is considered appropriate for inclusion in profes sional education programs. Potential Component I: Aptitudes and Abilities of Junior College Students.— Only 47 per cent of the instruc tors consider "aptitudes and abilities of junior college students" as an essential or important part of an instructor training program while over three-quarters of the deans and almost nine-tenths of the coordinators consider it such, according to Table 32. Table 3 3 indicates the same "student orientation" emerging in instructors, relative to this component, as was noted regarding the last two components discussed. Here again a relationship is noticed between instructors who favor the inclusion of the component and those who favor remedial education and open door characteristics for the junior college. The mean response criterion having been met, the component is considered appropriate for inclusion in profes sional education programs. Potential Component J: History and Development of the Junior College.— Tables 35, 36, and 3 7 show a rather Ill TABLE 32 I. APTITUDES AND ABILITIES OF JUNIOR COLLEGE STUDENTS: COMPARISONS BETWEEN INSTRUCTOR, DEAN AND COORDINATOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES Opinion of Total Group of: Num ber of Cases % ESS I 7 . IMP 2 % DES 3 % UNN 4 % UND 5 MEAN Level of Significant Difference: With Instr Betwn Pair INSTRUCTORS 635 L8.7 28.5 38.6 12 .3 1.9 2.50 '^Pt-te^?^ DEANS 71 38.0 36.6 21.1 4.2 . 0 1.91 .001 no COORDINATORS 33 48.5 36.4 12.1 3.0 .0 1.70 .001 INSTRUCTORS WITH PREPARATION IN COMPONENT 152 37.5 30.3 27.0 5.3 .0 2.00 by yes, at .001 level INSTRUCTORS WITH OUT PREPARATION IN COMPONENT 456 12.1 28.3 42 .3 15.1 2.2 2.67 112 TABLE 33 I. APTITUDES AND ABILITIES OF JUNIOR COLLEGE STUDENTS: RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN INSTRUCTOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES AND INSTRUCTOR EDUCATION, EXPERIENCE, INSTITUTIONAL SIZE AND OPINION REGARDING JUNIOR COLLEGE FUNCTIONS Variable With Which Instructor Opinion Regarding Component Is Potentially Related By Use of x2. Level of Significant Difference/ Relationship Relationship Indicates Instructors Tend to be More Favorable Toward Inclusion of Component as: Number of: FACULTY IN THE JUNIOR COLLEGE IN WHICH HE TEACHES no EDUCATION UNITS THE INSTRUCTOR HAS COMPLETED .01 units increase YEARS THE INSTRUCTOR HAS TAUGHT IN JUNIOR COLLEGE no Portion of Instructor’s Formal Assignment which Is in: TEACHING TRANSFER COURSEWORK no TEACHING TERMINAL- OCCUPATIONAL COURSEWORK no TEACHING DEVELOPMENTAL OR REMEDIAL COURSEWORK no Opinion of Instructors With Regard to the Desirability of the Association with the Junior College of: DEVELOPMENTAL OR REMEDIAL EDUCATION I —1 o • opinion becomes more favorable ACADEMIC AND VOCATIONAL COUNSELING AND GUIDANCE .01 opinion becomes more favorable UNRESTRICTED ADMISSION - "the open door" .01 opinion becomes more favorable 113 TABLE 34 I. APTITUDES AND ABILITIES OF JUNIOR COLLEGE STUDENTS: RANKINGS OF INSTRUCTOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES ACCORDING TO DEGREE, CREDENTIAL, EXPERIENCE AND TEACHING AREA CATEGORIES Categories and Groups Num ber of Cases % ESS 1 % IMP 2 % DES 3 % UNN 4 % UND 5 MEAN Rank of Favor Masters Degrees: PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 245 23 28 40 7 2 2.36 1 TEACHING SUBJECT FIELD 283 22 24 35 17 2 2. 55 2 Doctors Degrees: PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 16 25 31 31 13 0 2.31 1 TEACHING SUBJECT FIELD 48 6 40 31 21 2 2.73 2 Credential Types: JUNIOR COLLEGE 173 16 28 36 16 4 2.63 3 SECONDARY 289 18 28 41 12 1 2.15 1 VOCATIONAL 68 19 31 37 13 0 2. 44 2 Experience Immediately Prior to Junior Co Im p Teachine: SECONDARY SCHOOL 288 18 29 40 12 1 2.47 2 COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY 125 19 24 38 16 3 2.60 4 NON-EDUCATION 116 19 33 32 14 2 2.48 3 STUDENT STATUS 76 21 26 41 9 3 2.46 1 Teaching Subject Area: BUSINESS 63 25 27 41 5 2 2.30 1 COMMUNICATNS/HUMANITIES 126 19 26 34 18 3 2.60 5 FINE ARTS 29 17 24 38 21 0 2.62 6 TECHNOLOGY/OCCUPATION 108 18 29 44 8 1 2.44 4 SCIENCE/MATHEMATICS 135 11 26 45 16 2 2.73 7 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 61 16 31 46 7 0 2.43 3 SOCIAL SCIENCE 105 23 35 29 10 3 2.35 2 114 TABLE 35 J. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE JUNIOR COLLEGE: COMPARISONS BETWEEN INSTRUCTOR, DEAN AND COORDINATOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES Opinion of Total Group of: Num ber of Cases % ESS I % IMP 2 % DES 3 7. UNN I * % UND 5 MEAN Level of Signifleant Difference: With Instr Betrwn Pair INSTRUCTORS 641 4.815.1 42.1 33.7 4.2 3.17 DEANS 72 22.220. 8 51. 4 4.2 1.4 2. 42 .001 no COORDINATORS 33 27.327.3 36.4 6.1 3.0 2.30 .001 INSTRUCTORS WITH PREPARATION IN COMPONENT 229 9.6 20.1 41.9 25.8 2.6 2.92 5 by yes, at .00! level InSTRUCtORs with out PREPARATION IN COMPONENT 385 1. 612.7 42.6 38.4 4.7 3.32 115 TABLE 36 J. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE JUNIOR COLLEGE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN INSTRUCTOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES AND INSTRUCTOR EDUCATION, EXPERIENCE, INSTITUTIONAL SIZE AND OPINION REGARDING JUNIOR COLLEGE FUNCTIONS Variable With Which Instructor Opinion Regarding Component Is Potentially Related By Use of x^. Level of Significant Difference/ Relationship Relationship Indicates Instructors Tend to be More Favorable Toward Inclusion of Component as: Number of: FACULTY IN THE JUNIOR COLLEGE IN WHICH HE TEACHES .05 size decreases EDUCATION UNITS THE INSTRUCTOR HAS COMPLETED < —1 o ■ units increase YEARS THE INSTRUCTOR HAS TAUGHT IN JUNIOR COLLEGE Portion of Instructor's Formal Assignment which is in: TEACHING TRANSFER COURSEWORK no TEACHING TERMINAL- OCCUPATIONAL COURSEWORK no TEACHING DEVELOPMENTAL OR REMEDIAL COURSEWORK no Opinion of Instructors With Regard to the Desirability of the Association with the Junior College of: DEVELOPMENTAL OR REMEDIAL EDUCATION . 01 opinion becomes more favorable ACADEMIC AND VOCATIONAL COUNSELING AND GUIDANCE .01 opinion becomes more favorable UNRESTRICTED ADMISSION - "the open door" * o H opinion becomes more favorable 116 TABLE 37 J. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE JUNIOR COLLEGE: RANKINGS OF INSTRUCTOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES ACCORDING TO DEGREE, CREDENTIAL, EXPERIENCE AND TEACHING AREA CATEGORIES Categories and Groups Num ber of Cases % ESS 1 % IMP 2 % DES 3 % UNN U % UND 5 MEAN Rank of Favor Masters Degrees: PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 250 8 14 45 30 3 3. 06 1 TEACHING SUBJECT FIELD 284 5 15 37 37 6 3.24 2 Doctors Degrees: PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 16 6 19 37 31 7 3.12 1 TEACHING SUBJECT FIELD 50 2 18 26 48 6 3.38 2 Credential Types: JUNIOR COLLEGE 175 3 12 37 40 8 3.38 3 SECONDARY 292 5 16 43 33 3 3.11 2 VOCATIONAL 68 6 13 47 34 0 3. 09 1 Experience Immediately Prior to Junilor Co 1ooo Teach iis: SECONDARY SCHOOL 288 4 16 42 35 3 3.16 1 COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY 124 5 17 38 29 11 3 .25 4 NON-EDUCATION 119 4 13 46 35 2 3.17 2 STUDENT STATUS 79 6 11 42 38 3 3.19 3 Teaching Subject Area: BUSINESS 65 6 17 43 32 2 3.06 3 COMMUNICATNS/HUMANITIES 125 7 11 42 33 7 3.22 6 FINE ARTS 30 0 33 30 37 0 3.03 2 TECHNOLOGY/OCCUPATION 109 4 19 44 29 4 3.10 5 SC IENCE/MATHEMATICS 135 3 7 39 46 5 3.43 7 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 62 5 11 61 23 0 3.02 1 SOCIAL SCIENCE 107 6 20 38 30 6 3.08 4 117 consistent opinion against the inclusion of "history and development of the junior college" in professional prepara tion programs. Even so, an examination of Table 3 6 shows the same "student oriented instructor" trend toward favoring its inclusion that was discussed for the previous three compon ents. Also some relationship seems to exist between the smallness of the college and the favor expressed for study of the component. The mean response of instructors with preparation in the component was 2.92. This was beyond the cut-off mean of 2.49, and, therefore, the component is considered inappro priate for inclusion in professional preparation programs. Potential Component K: Purposes and Functions of the Junior College.— Table 38 indicates very strong favor toward "purposes and functions of the junior college" by deans and coordinators with almost 85 per cent of each group expressing opinions that it is either essential or impor tant for instructors to have it included in a preparatory program. These opinions, however, are shared by only 44.5 per cent of the instructors sampled. Table 39 again evidences the "student oriented instructor." Here, as in the previous four components, a significant relationship indicates that instructors tend to be more favorable toward remedial education and unrestricted admission as characteristics of the junior college. It is 118 TABLE 38 K. PURPOSES AND FUNCTIONS OF THE JUNIOR COLLEGE: COMPARISONS BETWEEN INSTRUCTOR, DEAN AND COORDINATOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES Opinion of Total Group of: Num ber of Cases % ESS I % IMP 2 % DES 3 % UNN 4 % UND 5 MEAN Level of Signif icant Difference: With Instr Betwn Pair INSTRUCTORS 642 18.1 26. 5 41.6 11.7 2.2 2.53 DEANS 72 48.6 36.1 15.3 .0 .0 1.67 .001 no COORDINATORS 33 57.6 27.3 12.1 .0 3.0 1.64 .001 INSTRUCTORS WITH PREPARATION IN COMPONENT 245 27.3 28.6 36.7 6.5 .8 2. 25 by x2 yes, at .001 level INSTRUCTORS WITH OUT PREPARATION IN COMPONENT 371 11. 6 25.1 45.0 15.6 2.7 2.73 119 TABLE 39 K. PURPOSES AND FUNCTIONS OF THE JUNIOR COLLEGE: RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN INSTRUCTOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES AND INSTRUCTOR EDUCATION, EXPERIENCE, INSTITUTIONAL SIZE AND OPINION REGARDING JUNIOR COLLEGE FUNCTIONS Variable With Which Instructor Opinion Regarding Component Is Potentially Related By Use of x^. Level of Significant Difference/ Relationship Relationship Indicates Instructors Tend to be More Favorable Toward Inclusion of Component as: Number of: FACULTY IN THE JUNIOR COLLEGE IN WHICH HE TEACHES no EDUCATION UNITS THE INSTRUCTOR HAS COMPLETED .01 units increase YEARS THE INSTRUCTOR HAS TAUGHT IN JUNIOR COLLEGE no Portion of Instructor's Formal Assignment which is in: TEACHING TRANSFER COURSEWORK no TEACHING TERMINAL- OCCUPATIONAL COURSEWORK no TEACHING DEVELOPMENTAL OR REMEDIAL COURSEWORK .01 portion decreases Opinion of Instructors With Regard to the Desirability of the Association with the Junior College of: DEVELOPMENTAL OR REMEDIAL EDUCATION .01 opinion becomes more favorable ACADEMIC AND VOCATIONAL COUNSELING AND GUIDANCE t«rw . 01 opinion becomes more favorable UNRESTRICTED ADMISSION - "the open door" H O a opinion becomes more favorable 120 TABLE 40 K, PURPOSES AND FUNCTIONS OF THE JUNIOR COLLEGE: RANKINGS OF INSTRUCTOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES ACCORDING TO DEGREE, CREDENTIAL, EXPERIENCE AND TEACHING AREA CATEGORIES Categories and Groups Num ber of Cases % ESS 1 % IMP 2 % DES 3 % UNN 4 7 . UND 5 MEAN Rank of Favor Masters Degrees: PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 249 24 27 39 9 1 2.35 1 TEACHING SUBJECT FIELD 286 16 25 42 14 3 2.63 2 Doctors Degrees: PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 16 25 38 6 25 6 2.50 1 TEACHING SUBJECT FIELD 50 12 30 34 20 4 2.74 2 Credential Types: JUNIOR COLLEGE 176 15 21 44 17 3 2.73 3 SECONDARY 291 18 27 45 9 1 2.49 1 VOCATIONAL 68 15 31 44 9 1 2.51 2 Experience Immediately Prior to JunJLor Co] 1 ooo Teach iiuz: SECONDARY SCHOOL 288 16 30 42 11 1 2.50 2 COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY 125 18 24 37 14 7 2.66 4 NON-EDUCATION 119 19 23 45 11 2 2.52 3 STUDENT STATUS 79 20 24 43 13 0 2.48 1 Teaching Subject Area: BUSINESS 65 22 23 42 12 1 2.49 4 COMMUNICATNS/HUMANITIES 125 17 24 39 16 4 2. 66 6 FINE ARTS 30 10 53 34 3 0 2.30 1 TECHNOLOG Y/OCCUPAT ION 109 23 23 45 7 2 2.42 3 SC IENCE/MATHEMATIC S 136 9 28 48 14 1 2.71 7 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 62 18 27 50 5 0 2.41 2 SOCIAL SCIENCE 107 24 24 34 13 5 2.5C 5 121 interesting, however, that this positive relationship which exists between opinions of the component and opinions of developmental/remedial education is accompanied by an equally significant negative relationship between instructor opinions of the component and portions of instructor teach ing assignments which are in developmental/remedial course work. The mean response criterion having been met, the component is considered appropriate for inclusion in profes sional preparation programs. Potential Component L; Scope and Content of the Junior College Curriculum.--Three-quarters of the coordina tors see an understanding of the "scope and content of the junior college curriculum" as essential or important for the preparation of instructors, according to Table 41. Only two-thirds of the deans and two-fifths of the instructors share these opinions of its importance. The mean response criterion having been met, the component is considered appropriate for inclusion in profes sional preparation programs. Potential Component M; Laws Relating to California Public Junior Colleges.— Tables 44, 45, and 46 indicate mild instructor approval of a study of "laws relating to Cali fornia public junior colleges" being included in programs for professional preparation. 122 TABLE 41 L. SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE JUNIOR COLLEGE CURRICULUM: COMPARISONS BETWEEN INSTRUCTOR, DEAN AND COORDINATOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES Opinion of Total Group of: Num ber of Cases % ESS I % IMP 2 % DES 3 7 . UNN U % UND 5 MEAN Level of Slgnifleant Difference: With Instr Betvn Pair INSTRUCTORS 639 13.9 29.7 38. 5 16.1 1.7 2.62 DEANS 72 30.6 37. 5 27. 8 4.2 . 0 2.06 .001 no COORDINATORS 33 33.3 42.4 24.2 .0 .0 1.91 .001 INSTRUCTORS WITH PREPARATION IN COMPONENT 182 25.3 29.1 37.4 6.6 1.6 2.30 by x2 yes, at .00! level INSTRUCTORS WITH OUT PREPARATION IN COMPONENT 428 8.9 30.1 38.8 20.8 1.4 2.76 123 TABLE 42 L. SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE JUNIOR COLLEGE CURRICULUM: RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN INSTRUCTOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES AND INSTRUCTOR EDUCATION, EXPERIENCE, INSTITUTIONAL SIZE AND OPINION REGARDING JUNIOR COLLEGE FUNCTIONS Variable With Which Instructor Opinion Regarding Component Is Potentially Related By Use of x , Level of Significant Difference/ Relationship Relationship Indicates Instructors Tend to be More Favorable Toward Inclusion of Component as: Number of: FACULTY IN THE JUNIOR COLLEGE IN WHICH HE TEACHES no EDUCATION UNITS THE INSTRUCTOR HAS COMPLETED .01 units increase YEARS THE INSTRUCTOR HAS TAUGHT IN JUNIOR COLLEGE no Portion of Instructor’s Formal Assignment which is in: TEACHING TRANSFER COURSEWORK no TEACHING TERMINAL- OCCUPATIONAL COURSEWORK no TEACHING DEVELOPMENTAL OR REMEDIAL COURSEWORK no Opinion of Instructors With Regard to the Desirability of the Association with the Junior College of: DEVELOPMENTAL OR REMEDIAL EDUCATION no ACADEMIC AND VOCATIONAL COUNSELING AND GUIDANCE .01 opinion becomes more favorable UNRESTRICTED ADMISSION - "the open door" no 124 TABLE 43 L. SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE JUNIOR COLLEGE CURRICULUM: RANKINGS OF INSTRUCTOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES ACCORDING TO DEGREE, CREDENTIAL, EXPERIENCE AND TEACHING AREA CATEGORIES Categories and Groups Num ber of Cases % ESS 1 % IMP 2 % DES 3 % UNN 4 7 , UND 5 MEAN Rank of Favor Masters Degrees: PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 246 16 32 39 13 0 2.49 1 TEACHING SUBJECT FIELD 287 14 26 36 22 2 2.73 2 Doctors Degrees: PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 16 25 44 13 12 6 2.31 1 TEACHING SUBJECT FIELD 50 10 32 38 16 4 2. 72 2 Credential Types: JUNIOR COLLEGE 175 11 23 37 26 3 2.86 3 SECONDARY 292 13 32 41 13 1 2.55 2 VOCATIONAL 67 15 33 39 12 1 2.52 1 Experience Immediately Prior to JuniLor Co] 1 Pae Ceach i ie: SECONDARY SCHOOL 290 12 32 39 16 1 2. 60 2 COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY 124 15 27 34 19 5 2. 72 4 NON-EDUCATION 118 15 30 39 14 2 2.58 1 STUDENT STATUS 77 16 22 44 17 1 2.66 3 Teaching Subject Area: BUSINESS 65 22 22 41 15 0 2. 51 3 COMMUNICATNS/HUMANITIES 125 16 22 38 20 4 2.74 6 FINE ARTS 30 10 47 23 20 0 2.53 4 TECHNOLOGY/OCCUPATION 108 16 34 38 10 2 2.48 2 SCIENCE/MATHEMATICS 136 7 31 41 20 1 2.78 7 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 62 16 37 34 13 0 2.43 1 SOCIAL SCIENCE 105 14 27 43 13 3 2.64 5 125 TABLE 44 M. LAWS RELATING TO CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES: COMPARISONS BETWEEN INSTRUCTOR, DEAN AND COORDINATOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES Opinion of Total Group of: Num ber of Cases % ESS 1 % IMP 2 7 . DES 3 % UNN 4 % UND 5 MEAN Level of Significant Difference: With Instr Betwn Pair INSTRUCTORS 640 10.6 25. 2 43.3 18.9 2.0 2.77 j > < r "iJy t-test'" DEANS 71 14.1 21.1 56.3 8.5 .0 2.59 no no COORDINATORS 33 6.1 36.4 39.4 18.2 .0 2. 70 no INSTRUCTORS WITH PREPARATION IN COMPONENT 177 20.3 29.9 40.7 7.9 1.1 2.40 by x^ yes, at .001 level Instructors with out PREPARATION IN COMPONENT 432 6.2 22.7 45.6 23.1 2.3 2.93 126 TABLE 45 M. LAWS RELATING TO CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGE: RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN INSTRUCTOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES AND INSTRUCTOR EDUCATION, EXPERIENCE, INSTITUTIONAL SIZE AND OPINION REGARDING JUNIOR COLLEGE FUNCTIONS Variable With Which Instructor Opinion Regarding Component Is Potentially Related By Use of x , Level of Significant Difference/ Relationship Relationship Indicates Instructors Tend to be More Favorable Toward Inclusion of Component as: Number of: FACULTY IN THE JUNIOR COLLEGE IN WHICH HE TEACHES no EDUCATION UNITS THE INSTRUCTOR HAS COMPLETED .01 units increase YEARS THE INSTRUCTOR HAS TAUGHT IN JUNIOR COLLEGE no Portion of Instructor's Formal Assignment which is in: TEACHING TRANSFER COURSEWORK . 05 portion decreases TEACHING TERMINAL- OCCUPATIONAL COURSEWORK no TEACHING DEVELOPMENTAL OR REMEDIAL COURSEWORK no Opinion of Instructors With Regard to the Desirability of the Association with the Junior College of: DEVELOPMENTAL OR REMEDIAL EDUCATION no ACADEMIC AND VOCATIONAL COUNSELING AND GUIDANCE .05 opinion becomes more favorable UNRESTRICTED ADMISSION - "the open door" no 127 TABLE 46 M. LAWS RELATING TO CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES: RANKINGS OF INSTRUCTOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES ACCORDING TO DEGREE, CREDENTIAL, EXPERIENCE AND TEACHING AREA CATEGORIES Categories and Groups Num ber of Cases % ESS 1 % IMP 2 % DES 3 % UNN 4 7 . UND 5 MEAN Rank of Favor Masters Degrees: PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 249 13 29 43 14 1 2.62 1 TEACHING SUBJECT FIELD 286 7 22 43 25 3 2.93 2 Doctors Degrees: PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 17 12 18 41 23 6 2.94 2 TEACHING SUBJECT FIELD 50 6 20 54 18 2 2.90 1 Credential Types: JUNIOR COLLEGE 176 5 19 48 25 3 3.02 3 SECONDARY 292 11 29 42 17 1 2.67 2 VOCATIONAL 67 15 34 34 14 3 2.55 1 Experience Immediately Prior to Jun or CoLle^e Teaching: SECONDARY SCHOOL 286 11 29 40 19 1 2.70 1 COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY 125 8 26 39 23 4 2.90 3 NON-EDUCATION 119 13 23 47 15 2 2.72 2 STUDENT STATUS 79 8 19 49 23 1 2.91 4 Teaching Subject Area: BUSINESS 64 9 31 36 22 2 2.75 3 COMMUNICATNS/HUMANITIES 125 10 22 42 24 2 2. 88 5 FINE ARTS 30 0 33 47 20 0 2.87 4 TECHNOLOGY/OCCUPATION 109 17 25 42 13 3 2.59 2 SC IENCE/MATHEMATICS 135 7 18 53 21 1 2.89 7 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 62 19 36 37 8 0 2.34 1 SOCIAL SCIENCE 107 8 25 40 22 5 2.89 6 128 The mean response of instructors with preparation in the component is below the "cut-off" point. However, both the deans and coordinators registered mean responses greater than 2.49, and, therefore, the component is considered inap propriate for inclusion in professional preparation programs. Potential Component N: Financing and Budgeting Problems and Procedures of Junior Colleges.— Tables 47, 48, and 49 indicate a very low degree of favor toward the inclu sion of "financing and budgeting problems and procedures of junior colleges" by all three groups, instructors, deans, and coordinators. In Table 4 8 is the only instance where favor toward the potential component has a relationship with neither the number of education units completed nor favor toward aca demic and vocational counseling and guidance as a desirable characteristic of the public junior college. Deans, coordinators, and instructors with prepara tion in the component all show a mean response greater than 2.49, and, therefore, the component is considered imappro- priate for inclusion in a professional preparation program. Potential Component 0: Administration Organization of Junior Colleges.— An examination of Tables 50, 51, and 52 reveals little support for a study of "administrative organization of junior colleges" to be included in profes- 129 TABLE 47 N. FINANCING AND BUDGETING PROBLEMS AND PROCEDURES OF JUNIOR COLLEGE: COMPARISONS BETWEEN INSTRUCTOR, DEAN AND COORDINATOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES Opinion of Total Group of: Num ber of Cases % ESS 1 % IMP 2 % DES 3 % UNN U % UND 5 MEAN Level of Significant Difference: With Instr Betwn Pair INSTRUCTORS 640 5.8 18. 0 43.7 30.0 2.5 3.05 '^Pt-te^'' DEANS 72 6.9 15.3 62.5 15.3 .0 2. 86 no no COORDINATORS 33 6.1 15. 2 63. 6 12.1 3.0 2.91 no INSTRUCTORS WITH PREPARATION IN COMPONENT 143 13.3 30. 8 39.2 14.0 2 . 8 2. 62 n by x yes, at .001 level Instructors with out PREPARATION IN COMPONENT 467 3.0 14.3 44.8 36.0 1.9 3.19 130 TABLE 48 N. FINANCING AND BUDGETING PROBLEMS AND PROCEDURES OF JUNIOR COLLEGES: RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN INSTRUCTOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES AND INSTRUCTOR EDUCATION, EXPERIENCE, INSTITUTIONAL SIZE AND OPINION REGARDING JUNIOR COLLEGE FUNCTIONS Variable With Which Instructor Opinion Regarding Component Is Potentially Related By Use of , Level of Significant Difference/ Relationship Relationship Indicates Instructors Tend to be More Favorable Toward Inclusion of Component as: Number of: FACULTY IN THE JUNIOR COLLEGE IN WHICH HE TEACHES no EDUCATION UNITS THE INSTRUCTOR HAS COMPLETED no YEARS THE INSTRUCTOR HAS TAUGHT IN JUNIOR COLLEGE no Portion of Instructor’s Formal Assignment which is in: TEACHING TRANSFER COURSEWORK no TEACHING TERMINAL- OCCUPATIONAL COURSEWORK no TEACHING DEVELOPMENTAL OR REMEDIAL COURSEWORK no Opinion of Instructors With Regard to the Desirability of the Association with the Junior College of: DEVELOPMENTAL OR REMEDIAL EDUCATION no ACADEMIC AND VOCATIONAL COUNSELING AND GUIDANCE no UNRESTRICTED ADMISSION - "the open door" no TABLE 49 131 N. FINANCING AND BUDGETING PROBLEMS AND PROCEDURES OF JUNIOR COLLEGES: RANKINGS OF INSTRUCTOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES ACCORDING TO DEGREE, CREDENTIAL, EXPERIENCE AND TEACHING AREA CATEGORIES Categories and Groups Num- aer of Cases 7 . ESS 1 % IMP 2 % DES 3 % UNN 4 % UND 5 MEAN Rank of Favor Masters Degrees: PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 248 8 18 46 26 2 2.97 1 TEACHING SUBJECT FIELD 287 4 17 41 35 3 3.16 2 Doctors Degrees: PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 17 0 12 53 23 12 3.35 2 TEACHING SUBJECT FIELD 49 0 14 45 37 4 3.31 1 Credential Types: JUNIOR COLLEGE 176 5 11 41 40 3 3.27 3 SECONDARY 290 6 19 50 23 2 2.96 2 VOCATIONAL 67 10 27 34 27 2 2. 82 1 Experience Immediately Prior lor Co] reachi \z: SECONDARY SCHOOL 288 7 20 47 25 1 2.95 1 COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY 125 4 14 42 34 6 3.23 4 NON-EDUCATION 118 6 21 37 34 2 3.04 2 STUDENT STATUS 78 5 13 41 40 1 3.19 3 Teaching Subject Area: BUSINESS 65 6 16 49 29 0 3. 01 4 COMMUNICATNS/HUMANITIES 126 6 12 44 35 3 3.17 7 FINE ARTS 31 3 19 55 20 3 3.00 3 TECHNOLOGY/OCCUPATION 108 10 21 37 29 3 2.93 2 SCIENCE/MATHEMATICS 136 2 18 44 35 1 3.15 5-6 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 62 10 21 51 18 0 2.77 1 SOCIAL SCIENCE 104 4 20 38 32 6 3.15 5-6 132 TABLE 50 O. ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION OF JUNIOR COLLEGES: COMPARISONS BETWEEN INSTRUCTOR, DEAN AND COORDINATOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES Opinion of Total Group of: Num ber of Cases X ESS 1 % IMP 2 X DES 3 % UNN 4 % UND 5 MEAN Level of Signif icant Difference: With Instr Betwn Pair INSTRUCTORS 640 5.5 15.3 44.4 31.7 3.1 3.12 t-test''" DEANS 72 5.6 19.4 59.7 15.3 .0 2.85 .05 no COORDINATORS 33 12.1 24.2 54. 5 9.1 .0 2. 61 .01 INSTRUCTORS WITH PREPARATION IN COMPONENT 166 9.6 25.9 42.8 20.5 1.2 2. 78 by x2 yes, at .001 level INSTRUCTORS WITH OUT PREPARATION IN COMPONENT 445 3.4 11.5 45.4 36.2 3.6 3.25 133 TABLE 51 O. ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION OF JUNIOR COLLEGES: RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN INSTRUCTOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES AND INSTRUCTOR EDUCATION, EXPERIENCE, INSTITUTIONAL SIZE AND OPINION REGARDING JUNIOR COLLEGE FUNCTIONS Variable With Which Instructor Opinion Regarding Component Is Potentially Related By Use of x^, Level of Significant Difference/ Relationship Relationship Indicates Instructors Tend to be More Favorable Toward Inclusion of Component as: Number of: FACULTY IN THE JUNIOR COLLEGE IN WHICH HE TEACHES no EDUCATION UNITS THE INSTRUCTOR HAS COMPLETED _ . 01 units increase YEARS THE INSTRUCTOR HAS TAUGHT IN JUNIOR COLLEGE no Portion of Instructors Formal Assignment which is in: TEACHING TRANSFER COURSEWORK no TEACHING TERMINAL- OCCUPATIONAL COURSEWORK no TEACHING DEVELOPMENTAL OR REMEDIAL COURSEWORK no Opinion of Instructors With Regard to the Desirability of the Association with the Junior College of: DEVELOPMENTAL OR REMEDIAL EDUCATION no ACADEMIC AND VOCATIONAL COUNSELING AND GUIDANCE .01 opinion becomes more favorable UNRESTRICTED ADMISSION - "the open door" no 134 TABLE 52 O. ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION OF JUNIOR COLLEGES: RANKINGS OF INSTRUCTOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES ACCORDING TO DEGREE, CREDENTIAL, EXPERIENCE AND TEACHING AREA CATEGORIES Categories and Groups Num ber of Cases % ESS 1 % IMP 2 % DES 3 % UNN U % UND 5 MEAN Rank of Favor Masters Degrees: PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 249 7 17 47 27 2 3.01 1 TEACHING SUBJECT FIELD 285 4 13 40 38 5 3.26 2 Doctors Degrees: PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 17 6 24 41 23 6 3.00 1 TEACHING SUBJECT FIELD 49 0 10 49 37 4 3.35 2 Credential Types: JUNIOR COLLEGE 175 2 9 42 42 5 3.38 2 SECONDARY 291 6 17 47 28 2 3.01 1 VOCATIONAL 67 9 24 45 22 0 2. 81 3 Experience Immediately Prior Lor Col 1 pip Teach! iz: SECONDARY SCHOOL 288 6 18 44 30 2 3.01 1 COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY 125 2 16 43 32 7 3.24 3 NON-EDUCATION 118 7 14 44 33 2 3.08 2 STUDENT STATUS 79 6 7 46 37 4 3.24 4 Teaching Subject Area: BUSINESS 65 9 15 45 31 0 2.97 2 COMMUNICATNS/HUMANITIES 125 4 14 43 34 5 3.24 5 FINE ARTS 31 3 16 42 39 0 3.16 4 TECHNOLOGY/OCCUPATION 108 11 18 43 27 1 2.89 2 SC IENCE/MATHEMATICS 136 1 11 50 35 3 3.29 6-7 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 62 10 19 52 19 0 2.81 1 SOCIAL SCIENCE 105 4 15 38 34 9 3.29 6-7 135 sional preparation programs. Deans, coordinators, and those instructors with preparation in the component all show a mean response greater than 2.49, and, therefore, the component is consid ered inappropriate for inclusion in a professional prepara tion program. Potential Component P: Purposes and Accomplishments of Junior College Faculty Organizations.— Tables 53, 54, and 55 display little favor by any group regarding the inclusion of a study of "purposes and accomplishments of faculty organizations" as a component of a professional preparation program. Deans, coordinators, and those instructors with preparation in the component all show a mean response greater than 2.49, and, therefore, the component is consid ered inappropriate for inclusion in a professional prepara tion program. Potential Component Q: Procedures for Locating and Applying for Junior College Positions.— Mild favor toward inclusion of a study of "procedures for locating and apply ing for junior college positions" was registered by coordi nators and instructors in Table 56. In Table 57 no relationship was noted to exist between favor toward inclusion of the component and the num ber of education units completed. It is interesting to note 136 TABLE 53 P. PURPOSES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF FACULTY ORGANIZATIONS: COMPARISONS BETWEEN INSTRUCTOR, DEAN AND COORDINATOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES Opinion of Total Group of: Num ber of Cases % ESS 1 % IMP 2 % DES 3 % UNN 4 % UND 5 MEAN Level of Signlfleant Difference: With Instr Betwn Pair INSTRUCTORS 641 4.2 14.4 44. 8 32. 8 3.9 3.18 -"f>y t-test^ DEANS 71 7.0 12. 7 59.2 19.7 1.4 2.96 no no COORDINATORS 33 15. 2 15.2 51.5 18.2 . 0 2.73 .01 INSTRUCTORS WITH PREPARATION IN COMPONENT 61 14. 8 27. 9 39.3 16.4 1.6 2.62 >s by x2 yes, at .oot level INSTRUCTORS WITH OUT PREPARATION IN COMPONENT 547 2.7 13.0 45.7 34.6 4.0 3.24 X 137 TABLE 54 P. PURPOSES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF FACULTY ORGANIZATIONS: Relationships between instructor opinion regarding the desirability of ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES AND INSTRUCTOR EDUCATION, EXPERIENCE, INSTITUTIONAL SIZE AND OPINION REGARDING JUNIOR COLLEGE FUNCTIONS Variable With Which Instructor Opinion Regarding Component Is Potentially Related By Use of x , Level of Significant Difference/ Relationship Relationship Indicates Instructors Tend to be More Favorable Toward Inclusion of Component as: Number of: FACULTY IN THE JUNIOR COLLEGE IN WHICH HE TEACHES no EDUCATION UNITS THE INSTRUCTOR HAS COMPLETED .01 units increase YEARS THE INSTRUCTOR HAS TAUGHT IN JUNIOR COLLEGE no Portion of Instructor’s Formal Assignment which is in: TEACHING TRANSFER COURSEWORK no TEACHING TERMINAL- OCCUPATIONAL COURSEWORK no TEACHING DEVELOPMENTAL OR REMEDIAL COURSEWORK no Opinion of Instructors With Regard to the Desirability of the Association with the Junior College of: DEVELOPMENTAL OR REMEDIAL EDUCATION no ACADEMIC AND VOCATIONAL COUNSELING AND GUIDANCE i —1 o • opinion becomes more favorable UNRESTRICTED ADMISSION - "the open door" no 138 TABLE 55 P. PURPOSES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF FACULTY ORGANIZATION: RANKINGS OF INSTRUCTOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES ACCORDING TO DEGREE, CREDENTIAL, EXPERIENCE AND TEACHING AREA CATEGORIES Categories and Groups Num ber of Cases % ESS 1 % IMP 2 % DES 3 % UNN 4 % UND 5 MEAN Rank of Favor Masters Degrees: PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 249 6 14 45 31 4 3.13 1 TEACHING SUBJECT FIELD 286 54 12 41 37 5 3.26 2 Doctors Degrees: PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 17 0 30 35 35 0 3.06 1 TEACHING SUBJECT FIELD 48 2 13 48 35 2 3.23 2 Credential Types: JUNIOR COLLEGE 175 1 11 40 42 6 3.42 3 SECONDARY 291 5 14 49 29 3 3.11 2 VOCATIONAL 68 4 19 50 25 2 3.00 1 Experience Immediately Prior to JuniLor Co] ipffp Teach ii SECONDARY SCHOOL 288 6 15 45 32 2 3.12 1 COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY 125 2 20 32 39 7 2.27 3 NON-EDUCATION 119 5 10 53 29 3 3.15 2 STUDENT STATUS 78 1 10 49 37 3 3.29 4 Teaching Subject Area: BUSINESS 65 9 9 43 37 2 3.12 3 COMMUNICATNS/HUMANITIES 125 6 13 44 31 6 3.18 5 FINE ARTS 31 0 16 39 45 0 3.29 6 TECHNOLOGY/OCCUPATION 109 3 21 47 26 3 3.05 2 SCIENCE/MATHEMATICS 135 1 9 47 36 7 3 .3£ 7 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 62 3 20 50 27 0 3.02 1 SOCIAL SCIENCE 106 7 15 39 34 5 3.IE 4 139 TABLE 56 Q. PROCEDURES FOR LOCATING AND APPLYING FOR POSITIONS: COMPARISONS BETWEEN INSTRUCTOR, DEAN AND COORDINATOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES Opinion of Total Group of: Num ber of Cases % ESS 1 7 . IMP 2 7. DES 3 7. UNN A % UND 5 MEAN Level of Significant Difference: With Instr Betwn Pair INSTRUCTORS 642 9.7 23.7 43.1 21.3 2.2 2*82Lr^><^ May DEANS 71 8.5 16.9 53.5 19.7 1.4 2. 89 no .05 COORDINATORS 33 24. 2 24.2 39 .4 12.1 .0 2.39 .05 INSTRUCTORS WITH PREPARATION IN COMPONENT 83 26.5 39.8 25.3 6.0 2.4 2.18 by x yes, at .001 level INSTRUCTORS WITH OUT PREPARATION IN COMPONENT 526 6.3 21.1 46.4 24.0 2.3 2.95 140 TABLE 57 Q. PROCEDURES FOR LOCATING AND APPLYING FOR POSITIONS: RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN INSTRUCTOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES AND INSTRUCTOR EDUCATION, EXPERIENCE, INSTITUTIONAL SIZE AND OPINION REGARDING JUNIOR COLLEGE FUNCTIONS Variable With Which Instructor Opinion Regarding Component Is Potentially Related By Use of x^, Level of Significant Difference/ Relationship Relationship Indicates Instructors Tend to be More Favorable Toward Inclusion of Component as: Number of: FACULTY IN THE JUNIOR COLLEGE IN WHICH HE TEACHES no EDUCATION UNITS THE INSTRUCTOR HAS COMPLETED no YEARS THE INSTRUCTOR HAS TAUGHT IN JUNIOR COLLEGE no Portion of Instructor’s Formal Assignment which is in: TEACHING TRANSFER COURSEWORK no TEACHING TERMINAL- OCCUPATIONAL COURSEWORK no TEACHING DEVELOPMENTAL OR REMEDIAL COURSEWORK no Opinion of Instructors With Regard to the Desirability of the Association with the Junior College of: DEVELOPMENTAL OR REMEDIAL EDUCATION no ACADEMIC AND VOCATIONAL COUNSELING AND GUIDANCE .01 opinion becomes more favorable UNRESTRICTED ADMISSION - "the open door" no 141 that in Table 58 both subject field masters' and subject field doctors' degree holders showed more favor toward the component than did either of their professional education counterparts; this was the only instance of both such rankings. Although the mean responses of the instructors with preparation in the component and the coordinators were less than 2.49, the mean response of the deans exceeded it. Therefore, the component is considered inappropriate for inclusion in a professional preparation program. Potential Component R: Field Trips to Junior Col leges to Observe Teaching, Activities, etc..— Moderate, but consistent, favor was indicated toward inclusion of "field trips to junior colleges to observe teaching, activities, etc." in professional preparation programs by deans, coordi nators, and instructors, according to Table 59. Table 60 exhibits no unusual relationships and Table 61 displays an amazing uniformity of opinion regarding the potential component by all instructor groups. The mean response criterion having been met, the component is considered appropriate for inclusion in profes sional preparation programs. Null-Hypotheses Rejected In Chapter I, two hundred thirty-five null-hypothe- ses were proposed. Seventy-two of them were proposed in 142 TABLE 58 Q. PROCEDURES FOR LOCATING AND APPLYING FOR POSITIONS: RANKINGS OF INSTRUCTOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES ACCORDING TO DEGREE, CREDENTIAL, EXPERIENCE AND TEACHING AREA CATEGORIES Categories and Groups Num ber of Cases % ESS 1 % IMP 2 % DES 3 7 . UNN 4 7 . UND 5 MEAN Rank of Favor Masters Degrees: PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 248 9 21 45 22 3 2.87 2 TEACHING SUBJECT FIELD 287 12 22 41 32 3 2.84 1 Doctors Degrees: PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 17 0 29 47 24. - 0 2.94 2 TEACHING SUBJECT FIELD 50 8 30 40 18 4 2.80 1 Credential Types: JUNIOR COLLEGE 176 11 17 43 24 5 2.93 3 SECONDARY 292 11 23 45 19 2 2.72 2 VOCATIONAL 68 9 31 41 19 0 2.71^ 1 Experience Immediately Prior to JuniLor Co.Lleee Teachi le: SECONDARY SCHOOL 288 10 25 42 22 1 2.79 1 COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY 126 8 26 41 21 4 2. 87 4 NON-EDUCATION 119 10 22 44 22 2 2. 83 2 STUDENT STATUS 78 9 19 51 18 3 2.86 3 Teaching Subject Area: BUSINESS 64 12 14 45 27 2 2.91 6 COMMUNICATNS/HUMANITIES 127 9 24 40 24 3 2.85 4 FINE ARTS 31 7 23 48 19 3 2.90 5 TECHNOLOGY/OCCUPATION 108 9 28 44 19 0 2.72 2 SCIENCE/MATHEMATICS 136 7 20 48 21 4 2.9-! 7 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 62 10 32 42 16 0 2.6^ 1 SOCIAL SCIENCE 106 13 23 39 21 4 2. 7£ 3 143 TABLE 59 R. FIELD TRIPS TO JUNIOR COLLEGES TO OBSERVE TEACHING, ETC.: COMPARISONS BETWEEN INSTRUCTOR, DEAN AND COORDINATOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES Opinion of Total Group of: Num ber of Cases % ESS 1 % IMP 2 % DES 3 % UNN 4 % UND 5 MEAN Level of Signif icant Difference: With Instr Betwn Pair INSTRUCTORS 644 12.3 24.2 43.3 18. 6 1.6 2.73 ^Tfy t-test DEANS 72 18.1 23.6 54.2 2.8 1.4 2.46 .05 .05 COORDINATORS 33 42.4 18.2 33.3 6.1 .0 2.03 .001 INSTRUCTORS WITH PREPARATION IN COMPONENT 122 27.0 38.5 26.2 8.2 .0 2.16 by x‘ yes, at .001 level Instructors with out PREPARATION IN COMPONENT 492 7.9 20.9 48.0 21.3 1.8 2.86 144 TABLE 60 R. FIELD TRIPS TO JUNIOR COLLEGES TO OBSERVE TEACHING, ETC.: RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN INSTRUCTOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES AND INSTRUCTOR EDUCATION, EXPERIENCE, INSTITUTIONAL SIZE AND OPINION REGARDING JUNIOR COLLEGE FUNCTIONS Variable With Which Instructor Opinion Regarding Component Is Potentially Related By Use of x^. Level of Significant Difference/ Relationship Relationship Indicates Instructors Tend to be More Favorable Toward Inclusion of Component as: Number of: FACULTY IN THE JUNIOR COLLEGE IN WHICH HE TEACHES no EDUCATION UNITS THE INSTRUCTOR HAS COMPLETED .05 units increase YEARS THE INSTRUCTOR HAS TAUGHT IN JUNIOR COLLEGE no Portion of Instructor's Formal Assignment which is in: TEACHING TRANSFER COURSEWORK no TEACHING TERMINAL- OCCUPATIONAL COURSEWORK no TEACHING DEVELOPMENTAL OR REMEDIAL COURSEWORK no Opinion of Instructors With Regard to the Desirability of the Association with the Junior College of: DEVELOPMENTAL OR REMEDIAL EDUCATION no ACADEMIC AND VOCATIONAL COUNSELING AND GUIDANCE .05 opinion becomes more favorable UNRESTRICTED ADMISSION - "the open door" no 145 TABLE 61 R. FIELD TRIPS TO JUNIOR COLLEGES TO OBSERVE TEACHING, ETC.: RANKINGS OF INSTRUCTOR OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS INCLUSION AS A COMPONENT OF A PROGRAM FOR PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES ACCORDING TO DEGREE, CREDENTIAL, EXPERIENCE AND TEACHING AREA CATEGORIES Categories and Groups Num ber of Cases 7 . ESS 1 % IMP 2 % DES 3 % UNN 4 7 . UND 5 MEAN Rank of Favor Masters Degrees: PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 249 15 23 43 17 2 2. 68 1 TEACHING SUBJECT FIELD 288 11 25 41 19 3 2. 78 2 Doctors Degrees: PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 17 12 24 35 29 0 2.82 1 TEACHING SUBJECT FIELD 50 8 24 30 34 4 3.02 2 Credential Types: JUNIOR COLLEGE 177 13 22 41 22 2 2.78 3 SECONDARY 292 12 25 44 17 2 2.74 2 VOCATIONAL 68 10 21 56 13 0 2. 72 1 Experience Immediately Prior to Jun or Co! 1 Pffp reach I12: SECONDARY SCHOOL 289 10 27 45 17 1 2.71 2 COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY 126 14 25 35 22 4 2.77 3 NON-EDUCATION 119 13 22 50 13 2 2.70 1 STUDENT STATUS 79 14 16 43 27 0 2. 82 4 Teaching Subject Area: BUSINESS 64 14 30 41 15 0 2.58 1-2 COMMUNICATNS/HUMANITIES 127 14 24 42 17 3 2.72 4 FINE ARTS 31 13 23 32 32 0 2. 84 6 TECHNOLOGY/OCCUPATION 109 16 26 43 15 0 2.59 3 SC IENCE/MATHEMATICS 136 8 20 46 24 2 2.91 7 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 62 14 26 47 13 0 2.58 1-2 SOCIAL SCIENCE 107 10 22 46 18 4 2. 82 5 146 four statements of "no significant difference between the opinions" of two groups regarding the inclusion of each of a set of eighteen potential components. One hundred fifty- four of them were proposed in nine statements of "no signif icant relationship between the degree of favor instructors register toward the inclusion of the component" and certain variables regarding these instructors, concerning eighteen components. One null-hypothesis, stated individually, dealt with the attitudes of deans and coordinators regarding the value of institutional recommendations. Tables 8 to 61 indicate which of these hypotheses have been rejected on a component by component basis. Below, each hypothetical statement is restated. For each potential component where it was rejected, the level of rejection is indicated: A. With regard to the desirability of including each of the eighteen potential components (A,. B,---R) in programs for professional preparation of instructors for California public junior colleges, there are no significant differences between the opinions of: 1. junior college instructors and junior college deans of instruction: A - .05; D - .05; F - .001; G - .001; H - .001; I - .001; J - .001; K - .001; L - .001; Q - .05; R - .05. 2. junior college deans of instruction and coordi nators of junior college instructor training 147 programs: A - .01; Q - .05; R - .05. 3. coordinators of junior college instructor training programs and junior college instruc tors: A - .001; C - .05; E - .01; F - .001; G - .01; H - .001; I - .001; J - .001; K - .001; L - .001; O - .01; P - .01; Q - .05; R - .001. 4. instructors whose programs of instructor prepa ration included a particular component and instructors whose program of instructor prepa ration did not include that component: (null- hypotheses were rejected at .001 level for all potential components). B. With regard to the desirability of including each of the eighteen potential components (A, B, R) in programs for professional preparation of instructors for California public junior colleges, there is no significant relationship between the degree of favor instructors register toward the inclusion of the component and: 5. the size of the faculty of the junior college in which they teach: J - .05. 6. the number of units of professional education course work they have completed: A - .01; B - .01; C - .01; D - .01; E - .01; F - .01; G - .01; H - .01; I - .01; J - .01; K - .01; L - .01; M - .01; 0 - .01; P - .01; R - .05. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 148 the number of years they have taught in junior college: (none rejected). the portion of their formal assignment which is spent in teaching transfer course work: D - .05; E - .01; F - .01; G - .01; H - .05; M - .05. the portion of their formal assignment which is spent in teaching terminal-occupational course work: (none rejected). the portion of their formal assignment which is spent in teaching developmental or remedial course work: C - .05; D - .01; F - .05; K - .01. the degree of favor they register toward the association of developmental or remedial edu cation with the junior college: C - .01; F - .01; G - .05; H - .01; I - .01; J - .01; K - .01. the degree of favor they register toward the association of academic and vocational counsel ing and guidance with the junior college: A to L - .01; M - .05; O - .01; P - .01; Q - .01; R - .05. the degree of favor they register toward the association of unrestricted admission, "the open door," with the junior college: G - .05; 149 H - .01; I - .01; J - .01; K - .01. C. There is no significant difference between the opin ions of junior college deans of instruction and coordinators of junior college instructor training programs regarding the value of the college or university recommendation in assist ing deans in the selection of instructors for positions in junior college. The responses are indicated on Table 62. The null- hypothesis is rejected at the .001 level. There is, there fore, a significant difference between the opinions of deans and coordinators as to the value of the college or univer sity recommendation, with the coordinators tending to see it as more valuable than do the deans. TABLE 62 OPINIONS OF DEANS AND COORDINATORS REGARDING THE VALUE OF THE COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY RECOMMENDATION IN ASSISTING DEANS TO CHOOSE INSTRUCTORS ■ ■ - - FOR POSITIONS IN A JUNIOR COLLEGE Respondent Of Great Value 1 Of Some Value 2 Of No Value 3 Uncer tain 4 Level of Significant Difference DEANS 21 (29%) 51 (71%) 0 0 .001 COORDINATORS 14 (43%) 18 (54%) 0 1 (3%) Table 63 presents totals regarding the rejection or upholding of hypotheses. It will be noted that of the two 150 TABLE 63 HYPOTHETICAL STATEMENTS UPHELD OR REJECTED IN COMPONENT CONTEXTS Number Rejected Hypothesis at .05 Topic Level Number Rejected at .01 Level Number Rej ected at .001 Level Number Upheld A. Regarding significant components, there are no differences between: 1. INSTRUCTORS/ DEANS 5 0 7 6 2. DEANS/COORDS 2 1 0 15 3. COORDS/INSTRS 2 4 8 4 4. INSTRS W/WO 0 0 18 0 B . Regarding significant components, there is no relationship between: 5. FACULTY SIZE 1 0 0 17 6. EDUCATION UNITS 1 15 0 2 7. YEARS/JC TEACHING 0 0 0 18 8. ASSIGN/TRANSFER 3 3 0 12 9. ASSIGN/TERMINAL 0 0 0 18 10. AS SIGN/REMEDIAL 2 2 0 14 11. FAVOR/REMEDIAL 1 6 0 11 12. FAVOR/GUIDANCE 2 15 0 1 13. FAVOR/OPEN DOOR 1 4 0 13 151 TABLE 63— Continued Number Number Number Rejected Rejected Rejected Hypothesis at .05 at .01 at .001 Topic Level Level Level Number Upheld C. Regarding value of college or university recommendation: 0 0 1 0 TOTALS 20 50 34 131 152 hundred thirty-five null-hypotheses proposed, one hundred four were rejected; twenty at the .05 level, fifty at the .01 level, and thirty-four at the .001 level. Two hypo thetical statements were rejected in none of the eighteen component contexts; they were concerned with the relation ship of years taught and portion of assignment spent in teaching developmental/remedial course work to opinion of inclusion of the components. One hypothetical statement was rejected in all 18 component contexts, that which related to having or not having had preparation in the component. Patterns of Ranking In the tables similar to Table 10, 13, and 61, groups of instructors were placed in various categories and the groups were ranked within those categories according to the mean responses of the groups. Caution must be exercised in deriving conclusions from such a technique. These tables were presented primarily to bring additional information to bear upon the relative value attached to each component. Certain patterns in the ranking are evident, how ever, and seem worthy of mention. According to categories, they are as follows: 1. Masters Degrees: In 17 of 18 cases, instructors with professional education masters degrees showed more favor, than did those with masters degrees in teaching subject field, toward inclusion of the com- 153 ponent in a professional education program. 2. Doctors Degrees: In 15 of 18 cases, instructors with professional education doctors degrees showed more favor. . . . 3. Credential Type: In 15 of 18 cases instructors with junior college-type credentials showed less favor than either those with secondary or vocational types. Instructors with secondary credentials showed most favor 6 times; those with vocational credentials showed most favor 11 times. 4. Experience immediately Prior to Junior College Teaching: Instructors with secondary experience showed most favor with 13 of 18 first-place rank ings. Least favor was displayed by instructors with college or university experience, for they always ranked third or fourth in all 18 cases. 5. Teaching Subject Area: Physical education instruc tors were most favorable, ranking first in 12 of 18 cases. Communications/humanities instructors and science/mathematics instructors were least favorable with neither ever ranking above fourth. Components Included and Rejected Table 64 lists those potential components which were or were not rejected according to the mean response cri terion. It will be noted that of the 18 potential compon- 154 TABLE 64 MEAN RESPONSES OF OPINION REGARDING THE DESIRABILITY OF INCLUSION OF POTENTIAL COMPONENTS IN PROGRAMS FOR THE PRO FESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES BY DEANS, COORDINATORS, AND THOSE INSTRUC TORS HAVING RECEIVED PREPARATION IN THE COMPONENT Potential Component Mean Responses of • ■ Deans Coordi nator Instrs W/Prep Criteri on Met? A. Supervised teaching... 1.61 1.21 1.62 yes B. Planning & organizing 1. 82 1. 73 1. 68 yes C. Innovative techniques 1.94 1.73 1.95 yes D. Use & application... 1.93 1.91 2.11 yes E. Test construction... 1. 79 1. 54 1.81 yes F. Purposes & methods... 1. 62 1.39 1.86 yes G. Psychology of learning 1.53 1.64 2.02 yes H. Motivations & attitudes 1.87 1.64 1.98 yes I. Aptitudes & abilities 1.91 1. 70 2.00 yes J. History & development 2.42 2.30 2.92* no K. Purposes & functions 1. 67 1. 64 2.25 yes L. Scope & content... 2.06 1.91 2 .30 yes M. Laws relating to... 2.59* 2.70* 2.40 no N. Financing & budgeting 2.86* 2. 91* 2.62* no 0. Administrative org.... 2.85* 2. 61* 2.78* no P. Purposes & accomplish. 2.96* 2.73* 2.62* no Q. Procedures for locating 2. 89* 2.39 2.18 no R. Field trips to j. c. 2.46 2. 03 2.16 yes *mean response exceeds 2.49. 155 ents, 12 met the criterion for inclusion. Suggestions for Additional Components from "Open-Ended" Comments On all three forms of the questionnaire an opportun ity was extended for respondents to suggest additional com ponents. Although most suggestions were either included in the proposed set of potential components or related to non professional types of instructor preparation, a few helpful suggestions were made including those which urged the inclu sion of preparation in "professional attitudes," "curriculum development and design," "social setting of the junior col lege," "student movements," and "sensitivity training." Suggestions for "New Directions" for Instructor Training Programs Space was also provided on the questionnaire for comments regarding new directions for programs for junior college instructor professional preparation. Few tangible suggestions were made regarding these programs. However, three "directions" were at least tangentially referred to on numerous occasions. These included "internship" type pro grams, closer correlation of programs with the operating junior college, and more methods related to specific teach ing fields. All of these were mentioned repeatedly. Summary This chapter has been designed to present the find 156 ings from a questionnaire distributed to deans, instructors, and coordinators. It was found that over 50 per cent of the deans, coordinators, and instructors consider transfer education, terminal-occupational education, developmental/remedial edu cation, academic and vocational counseling and guidance, unrestricted admission, co-curricular activities and expe riences either "essential" or "important" with regard to the propriety of their being associated with the junior college. Most important of the findings was that 12 of 18 potential components for professional preparation programs scored a mean response in the area of "important" or "essen tial" by deans, coordinators, and those instructors who indicated they had preparation in the component. These 12 components met the criterion for inclusion in such programs. There was found to be no significant relationship between years of junior college teaching nor portion of assignment in developmental/remedial course work with regard to favor shown toward inclusion of components. The most important relationship seemed to be between favor toward a component and having had preparation in that component. In a similar vein, frequent relationships were noted between the completion of greater amounts of education course work and favor toward inclusion of components. Deans and coordinators were found to have similar views regarding the inclusion of components, with no signif 157 icant difference being found between them on 15 of the 18 potential components. Much greater differences in opinion were found between coordinators and instructors, who dif fered significantly 14 times, and between deans and instruc tors who differed significantly, 12 times. Regarding certain "student oriented" components, a relationship was noted between those instructors who favored inclusion of components relating to the junior college stu dent, and favor toward the "open door" and developmental/ remedial education as characteristics which should be asso ciated with the junior college. It was further found that instructors with masters and doctors degrees of a professional education nature, sec ondary or vocational credentials, secondary experience, and those of the less "academic" teaching areas tend to be more favorable toward the inclusion of components in professional education programs. Finally, it was noted that a significant difference does exist between the opinions of deans and instructors regarding the value of the college or university recommenda tion, coordinators seeing more value than do deans. C H A P T E R V I SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This study has been undertaken to gain information relative to the professional preparation of instructors for California public junior colleges. Methods of research have been to review authorita tive literature of the field, investigate existing Califor nia programs, and survey opinions of junior college instruc tors, deans of instruction, and coordinators of junior col lege instructor training programs. This chapter presents a summary of the findings of the research, conclusions arrived at from an analysis of those findings and recommendations proposed to implement those conclusions. Summary of the Findings Information was gathered, organized, and analyzed in this study to seek answers to eight questions posed in Chap ter I. This summary of findings is designed to present answers to these questions: QUESTION 1: Authoritative Opinion; What unique instruc- tional characteristics are most generally asso ciated with the public junior college and what 158 . 159 professional preparation is considered neces sary for junior college instructors to promul gate these characteristics, as reflected in authoritative literature? {a) Six instructional characteristics were most frequently associated with the public junior college by leading authors. These characteristics were transfer edu cation, terminal-occupational education, developmental or remedial education, co-curricular activities and experi ences, academic and vocational counseling and guidance, unrestricted admission, and developmental or remedial educa tion. Other characteristics, less frequently mentioned, were community services, adult education, general education, and superior teaching. (b) To promulgate the above characteristics, authors' suggestions for inclusion in programs for profes sional preparation of instructor include supervised teaching or teaching internship, planning and organizing a course^ of study, innovative techniques in classroom presentations and activities, use and application of teaching devices and equipment, test construction and analysis, purposes and methods of grading and evaluation, psychology of learning, motivations and attitudes of junior college students, apti tudes and abilities of junior college students, history and development of the junior college, purposes and functions of the junior college, scope and content of the junior college, and field trips to junior colleges to observe teaching, 160 activities, etc. (Authors used terminology generally dis tinguishable into these components.) QUESTION 2: Nature and Extent of California Programs: What accrediting and credentialing guidelines and procedures have been established, which insti tutions of higher education in California have received accreditation and/or established pro grams for professional preparation of junior college instructors, and what is the nature of those programs? (c) No professional preparation requirements are stipulated for the Standard Teaching Credential with a Spe cialization in Junior College Teaching. However, certain institutions have been accredited by the State Board of Edu cation to recommend candidates for this credential. An institution's recommendation for the credential implies the successful completion of the institution's program. There fore, the practical value of the accreditation is that it gives legal status to an institutional recommendation, and, consequently to its program requirements. It does not pre clude other institutions setting up programs and require ments without such accreditation, nor does it stipulate a uniform program of professional preparation for institutions which have such accreditation. (d) Twenty California institutions of higher educa tion are currently accredited and/or offer programs for pro fessional preparation of junior college instructors. Twelve institutions both are accredited to offer and do offer formal programs with course work specifically designed for 161 the professional preparation of junior college instructors. These include the two University of California campuses at Los Angeles and Santa Barbara: the eight California State Colleges at Fullerton, Hayward, Long Beach, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Fernando Valley, San Francisco, and San Jose; and two private universities, Stanford University and the Uni versity of Southern California. Four institutions offer programs but are not accredited. These are the University of California campuses at Davis and Riverside and the state colleges at Fresno and Sacramento. Four institutions offer individualized course work in close conjunction with their secondary teacher training programs. Two of these are accredited, Mills College and Occidental College, and two are not accredited, California Western University and Loma Linda University. Two other institutions (beyond the above twenty) are discontinuing their programs, the University of California at Berkeley and the University of the Pacific. (e) The nature of the programs offered by the six teen institutions which are both accredited and currently offering formal programs specifically designed for junior college instructor professional preparation is best de scribed in terms of their required course work. This course work is of four general types: Student Teaching; Junior College Instruction; the Nature of the Junior College; and Educational Psychology. Two to four of these courses are generally required and the number of units of credit varies between institutions. The content of these courses was found to differ greatly but included various aspects of the components mentioned by the author in the literature (as listed above), and also may include material concerning laws relating to California public junior colleges, financing and budgeting problems and procedures of junior colleges, pur poses and accomplishments of junior college faculty organi zations, procedures for locating and applying for junior college positions. The formal programs take the form of either "internship programs," usually a summer-fall sequence of seminars then full-time teaching, or "regular programs," a combination of student teaching and professional prepara tion usually concurrent with the subject field preparation for the masters degree. These programs which are closely related to the secondary programs are tailored to individual circumstances. QUESTION 3: Value of Institutional Recommendations: What value is placed upon institutional recommenda- tions given to instructors by deans of instruc tion, as opposed to coordinators of junior college instructor training programs? (f) Although most coordinators and all deans indi cate value in the institutional recommendation given to instructors, to a high level of significance, coordinators see the recommendation as being of greater value than do the deans. QUESTION 4: Opinion Concerning Instructional Character istics : Which of the instructional character- istics frequently associated with the public 163 junior college are considered desirable by junior college instructors/ deans of instruc tion, and coordinators of instructor training programs? (g) Responding on a five-point scale of "essential," "important," "desirable," "unnecessary," and "undesirable," the groups of instructors, deans, and coordinators all met the mean response criterion of 2.49. Over 50 per cent responded either "essential" or "important” concerning the desirability of the association with the junior college of transfer education, terminal-occupational education, devel opmental or remedial education, co-curricular activities and experiences, academic and vocational counseling and guid ance, and unrestricted admission--1 1 the open door." QUESTION 5: Categories of Instructor Opinion; What rela tive attitudes are registered toward certain potential components of programs for profes sional preparation by instructors of differing masters degrees, doctors degrees, credential types, experience prior to junior college teaching, and teaching subject areas? (h) In over three-quarters of the cases, instructors with masters degrees- and doctors degrees in professional education showed more favor toward inclusion of each com ponent in a professional education program than did their subject field counterparts. (i) In over three-quarters of the cases, instruc tors with junior college type credentials showed less favor toward inclusion of components than either those with sec ondary or vocational types of credentials. 164 (j) In no case, did those from college or university experience rank above third in terms of favor toward inclu sion of components when ranked with instructors whose expe rience immediately prior to junior college teaching was in secondary school, student status, or other than in an edu cational institution. (k) In two-thirds of the cases, when seven teaching area groups were ranked as to favor toward inclusion of com ponents, physical education instructors ranked first. In no case did communications/humanities instructors and science/ mathematics instructors rank above fourth in such compari sons . QUESTION 6: Relationships in Instructor Opinion: What, if any is the relationship between junior college faculty size, quantity of professional educa tion course work completed, years of junior college teaching experience, types of teaching assignments, opinions regarding the desirabil ity of certain junior college instructional characteristics, and instructors' opinions regarding the desirability of including certain potential components in program for the profes sional preparation of instructors for public junior college? (1) One hundred sixty-two null hypotheses were pro posed relative to relationships between nine instructor variables and instructor opinion concerning inclusion of eighteen potential components. Fifty-six of these were rejected; one hundred six were upheld. Of the eighteen cases, a significant relationship was found; one time rela tive to faculty size; sixteen times relative to number of 165 units completed; six times relative to portion of time spent teaching transfer course work; four times relative to por tion of time spent teaching remedial/developmental course work; seven times relative to opinion of associating remedi al/developmental education with the junior college; seven teen times relative to opinion of associating academic counseling and guidance with the junior college; and five times relative to opinion of associating unrestricted admis sion with the junior college. With regard to the cases where rejections of the null hypotheses were found, opinion toward the inclusion of components tended to become more favorable when: faculty size decreased, education units increased; transfer portion of instructor's course work load decreased; remedial/developmental portion of instructor's course work load increased; and instructors' opinions became more favorable toward any of the listed instructional characteristics. QUESTION 7: Differences in Attitudes: What, if any, are the differences in attitudes toward inclusion of components between instructors, deans, and coordinators and also between those instructors who have had and those instructors who have not had preparation in each potential component? (m) Eighteen null hypotheses were proposed between deans and instructors, instructors and coordinators, and coordinators and deans, relative to their opinions as to the inclusion of each component. There were found to be significant differences between the opinions of: deans and 166 instructors, twelve times; instructors and coordinators, fourteen times; and deans and coordinators, three times. In every instance where there was a significant difference between the opinions of instructors and deans or instructors and coordinators, the instructors were less favorable toward inclusion of the component. Where there was a significant difference between the opinions of the deans and coordina tors, the deans were less favorable toward the inclusion of the component. (n) Eighteen null hypotheses were proposed between those instructors who have had and those instructors who have not had preparation in each component. In every case the null hypothesis was rejected, and in every case there was more favor shown toward inclusion of the component by those who had preparation in the component. QUESTION 8: Components to be Included: What should be included as components of programs for the professional preparation of junior college instructors according to the opinions of deans of instruction, coordinators of junior college instructor training programs, and those instructors who have received preparation, in each potential component? (o) Potential components which met the "mean response criterion" for inclusion (a mean of 2.49 or lower by deans, coordinators, and those instructors with prepara tion in the component) were supervised teaching; teaching internship, etc.; planning and organizing a course of study; innovative techniques in classroom presentations and activ- 167 ities; use and application of teaching devices and equip ment; test construction and analysis; purposes and methods of grading and evaluation; psychology of learning; motiva tions and attitudes of junior college students; aptitudes and abilities of junior college students; purposes and functions of the junior college; scope and content of the junior college curriculum; field trips to junior colleges to observe teaching, activities, etc. Conclusions The following conclusions have been derived from an analysis of the foregoing summary of the findings: 1. Although there is agreement between authors who write about the junior college that it is a unique institu tion with certain unique characteristics, there is no sub stantial consensus as to exactly what those characteristics are. Consequently, there being little agreement regarding the nature of the characteristics, there is slight basis for agreement as to the type of instructor preparation necessary to promulgate those characteristics. This situation has led to substantial variation in opinion regarding the optimum nature of these programs. 2. Present California credentialing and accrediting requirements provide scant legal basis for professional preparation programs. Institutions of higher education are the major controllers of the professional preparation pro grams which they regulate through the requirements they 168 stipulate for their institutional recommendation. Thus, the more highly respected is an institution's recommendation, the more sought after is its recommendee, and the more stu dents it attracts. This situation may have led to a concen tration of the instructor professional preparation programs in large public colleges and universities and in large private non-sectarian universities. 3. Instructor preparation programs tend to be either "formal" or "informal." The formal type includes course work specifically designed for the preparation of junior college instructors and is organized into either "regular," or "internship" programs. The informal type is operated in conjunction with the secondary instructor pro gram of the college or university and is given a junior college orientation only in individual situations. 4. The institutional recommendation given to instructors by training colleges and universities is of value in assisting deans in selecting instructors for em ployment, but it is of less value than it is thought to be by coordinators of instructor training programs. It is, therefore, a less appropriate means of anchoring the required content of programs than coordinators appear to assume. 5. There is reasonable agreement among deans, instructors, and coordinators that transfer, terminal- occupational, and developmental/remedial education as well 169 as co-curricular activities and experiences, academic and vocational counseling and guidance, and unrestricted admis sion are characteristics which are desirable to have associated with the junior college. 6. Instructors with professional education mas ters' degrees and doctors' degrees, as opposed to those who have their degrees in a teaching subject field and instruc tors who have secondary- or vocational-type credentials, as opposed to those who have junior college-type credentials, tend to be more favorable toward professional preparation for instructors. 7. Instructors in non-academic teaching subject areas tend to be more favorable to professional preparation for instructors than do those in academic areas. 8. There is a positive correlation between the degree of favor instructors show toward the inclusion of certain components in professional preparation programs and: the number of professional education units they have com pleted; whether they have had preparation in the component; and the favor they show toward academic and vocational counseling and guidance as a characteristic to be associated with the junior college. 9. A particular relationship appears to exist between instructors who tend to favor certain "student oriented" components of preparation and their favor toward developmental/remedial education and unrestricted admission 170 as characteristics desirable to have associated with the junior college. 10. In general, coordinators of junior college instructor training programs and deans of instruction tend to be more favorable toward professional preparation for instructors than do the instructors themselves. 11. An optimuirL program for the professional prepa ration of junior college instructors should include super vised teaching, teaching internship, etc.; planning and organizing a course of study; innovative techniques in classroom presentations and activities; use and application of teaching devices and equipment; test construction and analysis; purposes and methods of grading and evaluation; psychology of learning; motivations and attitudes of junior college students; aptitudes and abilities of junior college students; purposes and functions of the junior college; scope and content of the junior college curriculum; field trips to junior colleges to observe teaching activities, etc. Recommendations The following recommendations are proposed on the basis of the foregoing conclusions: 1. A statewide committee, composed of junior col lege instructors, deans of instruction, coordinators of junior college instructor training programs, and other 171 interested persons should be periodically appointed by the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, and charged with the responsibilities of re-evaluating unique characteristics most desirably associated with the junior college and instructor training given to promulgate those characteristics. 2. Junior college instructor professional prepara tion programs should include a study of and should be tailored to meet the needs of instructors resulting from the demands of the unique characteristics of the junior college. 3. Junior college instructor professional prepa ration programs should include required formal course work in student teaching, junior college instructional tech niques, and the nature of the junior college and should offer one optional additional course on the junior college student, the psychology of his learning, his unique motiva tions, attributes, abilities, interests, etc. 4. Where possible, institutions should offer both regular programs, to be enrolled in concurrently with sub ject field preparation course work, and internship programs, to be enrolled in when in a post-master's status. 5. Junior college instructor professional prepa ration programs should be separate from secondary and ele mentary teacher preparation programs both in administration and course work. This is necessary to successfully imple ment the promulgation of the unique characteristics of the 172 junior college. 6. Some basic professional preparation should be required before the Standard Teaching Credential with a Specialization in Junior College Teaching is awarded. This would provide a means of protecting students against inade quate programs by adding meaning and value to the college or university recommendation. Institutions would have more cause to seek accreditation before offering professional preparation course work, if their course work were required for a credential recommendation. 7. A study should be undertaken which has a pur pose of discerning those instructors who have more or less of a "student orientation" as opposed to a "subject matter" orientation. Information obtained could be valuable to both deans and coordinators. 8. Closer cooperation should be worked out between those who teach in junior college instructor preparation institutions and the faculty and administration of junior colleges. The latter should be invited to participate in planning the organization and content of these programs. 9. As much as practicable, instructor professional preparation should be oriented toward the subjects which instructors are preparing to teach so as to fit the individ ual needs of the instructor and subject fields. 10. A survey using the questionnaire instrument of this study should be conducted to determine the variations 173 in attitude, relative to specific aspects of junior college instructor professional preparation, between academic sub ject field faculty and professional faculty of teacher training institutions. 11. A study of "in-service programs of junior college instructor education" should be undertaken as a companion study to this one so an ongoing program of pro fessional education can be ascertained and carried out. 12. In five years (1973) a restudy of programs for professional preparation of instructors for California pub lic junior colleges should be instituted so as to determine what changes in needs have occurred since the establishment of the new Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges. A P P E N D I X E S 174 APPENDIX A PRELIMINARY SURVEY LETTER 175 176 3008 Strand Manhattan Beach, California 90266 July 31, 1967 Dear Sir: I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern Cali fornia. In connection with my dissertation, I am attempting to compile an accurate and complete list of institutions which offer programs for professional preparation of instructors for California public junior colleges, and your assistance by completion of the below information blank would be very much appreciated. Thank you for your help in this matter. Sincerely, H. John Cashin (Sgd.) H. John Cashin PLEASE COMPLETE THE BELOW INFORMATION BLANK AND RETURN IT IN THE ENCLOSED ENVELOPE 1. Name of institution_________________ _ 2. Is the above institution accredited to recommend for the Standard Teaching Credential with a Speciali zation in Junior College Teaching? yes ( ) no ( ) 177 3. Does the above institution offer course work specifically designed for the professional preparation of junior college instructors? yes ( 4. Is there a faculty member specif ically charged with the administra tion of the junior college program? yes ( If so, please give his name and position: Name____________________________ Position________________________ 5. This information was supplied by: Name____________________________ Position ) no ( ) ) no { ) APPENDIX B LETTER TO PROGRAM COORDINATORS 178 EL CAMi T T OLLEGE M A I L A D D R E S S : EL C A M I N O C O L L E G E , C AL I FO R NI A VI A T O R R A N C E , C A L IF OR N IA 9 0 5 0 6 LOCATION: C R E N S H A W BOU LEVARD B E T W E E N REDONDO BEACH AND MANHATTAN BEACH BLVDS. T E L E P H O N E S : (2 1 3) 3 2 4 -6 6 3 1 or 321-1121 August 10, I9 6 7 Dr. John Doe Teacher Education Division California University Los Angeles, California Dear Dr. Doe: I am undertaking a study of professional education programs established by California colleges and universities as requisite preparation for their recom mendations for the Standard Teaching Credential with a Specialization in Junior College Teaching. With no professional preparation specified for the junior college specializations a wide variation seems to have developed between these programs. This study will include a detailed analysis of these programs in an effort to discover what components they have in common. It will also include a survey of junior college faculty and administration as a means of learning their attitudes and gaining their suggestions regarding those components. The results of the study will be made available to colleges and universities for use in evaluating their programs. They also will be used at the University of Southern California in connection with my doctoral dissertation, "Programs For Professional Preparation of Instructors For California Public Junior Colleges." To make possible a complete and accurate study, your assistance is requested in allowing the inclusion of the University of California in this study and in the forwarding to me of the following information: 1) A list of specific requirements for your institutional recom mendation for the junior college credential specialization. 2) A catalog type description of each of the professional education courses you require for this recommendation. If you have a catalog or bulletin which supplies this information with sufficient depth and accuracy, I would appreciate it if you would either have it sent to me or send me its title, so I can request it. Later, when I have organized the components of the various programs into a common format, I would appreciate your assistance in verifying their accuracy. I will request a minimum of your time and will keep the identity of programs anonymous. I hope this study will produce information which will be of value to all con cerned. If you see fit to participate, I will be most appreciative. Sincerely, H. John Cashin Department of Political Science APPENDIX C INSTRUCTOR QUESTIONNAIRE 180 A SURVEY OF OPINION CONCERNING PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES Tin's questionnaire has been prepared and distributed as a part of a studv of the professional preparation of junior college instructors. Similar forms of this questionnaire are being circulated to various segments of the California higher education community. It is important to the accuracy of the studv that everv questionnaire be com pleted. All responses will be treated confidentially; questionnaires have been coded for record purposes only. Your assist ance in completing and expediting the return of this questionnaire will be deeply appreciated. The studv is being conducted with the approval of the: CALIFORNIA JUNIOR COLLEGE ASSOCIATION . CALIFORNIA JUNIOR COLLEGE FACULTY ASSOCIATION CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION JUNIOR COLLEGE COUNCIL Undertaken in connection with a doctoral study at the University of Southern California, this research should pro vide colleges and universities with useful information for the evaluation and improvement of their programs. The staff of the coo rdina ting cou n c i l f o r h ig h e r e d u c a t i o n has been consulted in the developm ent of the question naire, and it will use certain portions of the information gathered. The research is being carried out by: John Cashin, Department of Political Science, El Camino College under the direction of: Dr. Leslie Wilbur, Associate Professor of Higher Education, University of Southern California. PART I— GENERAL INFORM ATION Circle the response at the left which corresponds to the answer you have'chosen for each question. RESPONSE______________ QUESTION__________| _________________ _ _ 5. 1 2 G. 1 2 7. 1 2 8. 1 2 9. 1 2 10. 1 2 11. 1 2 12. 1 2 13. 1 2 14. 1 2 15. 1 2 5 6 A. Your sex 7 1] male, 2| female B. How many units in professional education coursework have you completed? 1] none, 2| 1-12, 3| 13 - 30, 4| over 30. C. Various degrees are listed below. To the left of each, circle the “1" If you are working toward the degree. Circle the ‘ ' 2 " if you have completed the work for the degree. ..... Bachelor’ s degree. Master’ s degree | In a professional education fieldj. Master’ s degree | in a field other than professional education]. - -.... Law degree fLl.B or J.D. | . ------- Doctor of Education |Ed.D.|. Doctor of Philosophy | in education]. -----( .. Doctor of Philosophy |tn field other than education]. 3 4 D. Which of the following credentials qualified you for your present position? 7 11 General Secondary Teaching Credential, 2) Standard Teaching Credential with Specialization In Secondary School Teaching. 3| Junior College Teaching Creden tial. 41 Standard Teaching Credential with Specialization in Junior College Teach ing. 51 Special Secondary Vocational Class “A” or Class “B" Credential. 6] Stand ard Designated Subjects Teaching Credential. 7] other. I 2 3 4 E. Where was your position immediately prior to accepting your FIRST position in a 5 junior college? 11 elementary school, 21 secondary school, 31 college or university, 4 j other than in an educational institution, 5] student. 1 2 3 4 F. How long have you taught in junior college? 11 less than one year, 21 more than one, but less than three years, 3] more than three, but less than ten years, 4| more than ten years. 1 2 3 4 G. In which ONE of the following subject areas do you do MOST of your teaching? 5 6 7 8 1) business, 2| communications or humanities, 3) fine arts, 4| industry and technology, 5| science and mathematics, 6| physical education, 7| social sciences, 81 special occupational area | nursing, cosmotblogy, police science, ete.J. H. Please indicate what part of your formal assignment is in each of the activities listed below. 11 none, 21 1/3 or l e s s , S | more than 1/3 but less than 2 /3, 41 2/3 or more, 1 2 I t 4 . . teaching transfer coursework. 1 2 3 4 . . teaching terminal-occupational coursework. 1 2 3 4 ... . teaching developmental or remedial coursework. 1 2 3 4 . . - administration. 1 2 3 4 __ counseling | as a part of the regular counseling staff, only|. PART II—OPINIONNAIRE Listed below are a number of items which are frequently associated with the junior college. For each of these items, place an "X" in ONE of the columns at the right to indicate whether you believe it i s an essential, important, desirable, unnecessary, or un desirable feature of the junior college. < z 111 V) tn Ul i W I M P O R T A N T co D E S I R A B L E £ » U N N E C E S S A R Y Ul a < BC in w O z 3 5 A. Transfer education 24 B. Terminal-occupational education 25 D. Co-curricular activities and experiences 26 E. Academic and vocational counseling and guidance 27 F. Unrestricted admission— “the open door" 28 C. Developmental or remedial education 29 In addition to competence in his subject field, the junior college instructor frequently has received formal professional pre paration through education coursework completed prior to his employment. Listed below are various potential components of programs for professional preparation for instructors. For each suggested component, please indicate: 111 whether you consider It to be an essential, important, desirable, unnecessary or undesirable component of a formal program of professional preparation for junior college instructors; and [ 21 whether or not your own formal program of instructor preparation included that particular component. < z Ul 4 / ) Ul 1 t o IM PO R TA N T |c o DESIRABLE > • 0 £ < IA 1A Ul UJ Z Z 3 4 Ul a S t w a z 3 5 Ul > • t . 1 o z 2 G. Supervised teaching, teaching internship, etc. 30 31 H. Planning and organizing a course of study. 32 33 I. Inn<Wfive~techniques in classroom presentations and activities. 34 35 J. Use and application of teaching devices and equipment. 36 37 K. Test construction and analysis. 38 39 L. Purposes and methods of grading and evaluation. 40 41 M. Psychology of learning. 42 43 N. Motivations and attitudes of junior college students. 44 45 0. Aptitudes and abilities of junior college students. 46 47 P. History and development of the junior college. 48 49 Q. Purposes and functions of the junior college. 50 51 R. Scope and content of the junior college curriculum. 52 53 S. Laws relating to California public junior colleges. 54 53 T. Financing and budgeting problems and procedures of junior colleges. 56 57 U. Administrative organization of junior colleges. 58 59 V. Purposes and accomplishments of junior college faculty organizations. 60 61 W. Procedures for locating and applying for junior college positions. 62 63 X. Field trips to junior colleges to observe teaching, activities, etc. 64 63 1 8 1 PART III—A POSSIBLE DOCTOR OF ARTS DEGREE During its 1967 session the California State Senate passed a resolution requesting the Coordinating Council For Higher Education to investigate the potential interest and content of a doctor’s degree which would have a teaching orientation. The following model and the questions below are included in that connection. A M ODEL OF A POSSIBLE DOCTOR OF ARTS DEGREE CREDITS: A minimum of 90 [semester] credits beyond the bachelor’ s degree, apportioned between course work and research. COURSEWORK: Approximately two years of course work in a subject field acceptable for a Ph.D, Courses comparable to those taken by candidates for the Ph.D. but allowing breadth rather than specialization. Comprehensive examina tions the same or equivalent to those taken by candidates for the Ph.D. RESEARCH: Flexibility in'meeting research requirements with a thesis to be completed in one semester of full-time work. The thesis may consist of an expository and analytical study of some significant phase of the field or a project in applied research, such us the development of curriculum materials, teaching strategies, and their testing in a class situation. LANGUAGE: Requirement to be determined by the student’ s major department in accordance with potential usefulness in the subject field, or possibly it could be met through a thorough reading, speaking and writing knowledge in one foreign language. SUPPLEMENTARY OPTIONS: Selected to broaden background and serve college teaching. Examples: [a] Practicum: Internship, classroom presentation; traditional and new teaching techniques. [b] Education Research Techniques: Research design; statistics; data analysis. [cl Background Courses: Learning theory; educational sociology; nature of higher education. [d] Leadership Problems in Higher Education: Administration; legislation, finances; law, etc, [ej Special problems in curriculum in the subject field. COL. | RESPONSE______________ QUESTION 66. 1 2 S 4 A. With reference to the subjects you are now teaching, which level of education achievement do you consider adequate? 1] Associate, 2) Bachelor, 3] Master, 4] Doctor, 67. 12 B. If a doctorate were offered which were specifically designed to meet the needs of undergraduate college teaching, would you be inclined to work toward it rather than toward existing dortoral degrees? 1] yes, 21 n o . C. If such a doctorate were offered, i t is suggested that the below features would be Im portant and could be Included without reducing the rigor in subject field which is a part of the P l i . l ) . Indicate whether you believe the inclusion of each of these features would be: 11 very important, 21 fairly important, 31 not Important. 6k. 1 2 3 ....... emphasis on tenching competence rather than on research competence. 69. 1 2 3 ..... . modifications in the language requirement. 7 1 ) . 1 2 3 ... research requirements more applicable to the classroom. 71. 1 2 3 ...... emphasis on breadth, rattier than specialization, in coursework. D. If such a doctorate were offered, how important do you believe each of the following would be to you as a motivation to seek it? 1| very important, 2| fairly important, 3| not important. I 2 3 - ---- desire to improve your knowledge and understanding in your discipline. 73. 1 2 3 ...... improvement in your teaching skill. 74. I 2 3 . ___ desire to gain a different college teaching position. 70. 1 2 3 .... increase in monetary remuneration. 76. 1 2 3 desire to change to an administrative position. 77. 1 2 3 increase in status or prestige. 181 PART IV—OPTIONAL ITEMS A. W hat was the nam e of the institution in w hich B. W ith reference to Q uestion G, Part you com pleted M OST of the PR O FESSIO NAL I, in w hat D E PA R T M E N T do you education coursework for the teaching ere- do most of vour teaching? dential referred to in Q uestion D, Part I? C. It is possible that the “objective” nature of the questions in Parts I, II & III did not allow a specific and satis factory answer in everv case. If van noted an am biguity or omision in any question, please note it here. , D . Part II of this questionnaire is intended as a com prehensive list of potential com ponents of junior college instructor training program coursework. If there are any com ponents w hich you feel should b e added, please list them here. E. T he results of this study w ill b e m ade available to teacher training institutions throughout California w hich have programs for the professional preparation of junior college instructors. W hat changes or new directions in these programs w ould you suggest their coordinators consider? F. Part III includes a m odel of a possible D octor of Arts degree. Please use the below space to m ake any sug gestions concerning such a doctorate. THANK YOU FOR THE TIME AND ATTENTION YOU HAVE GIVEN TO THIS STUDY! / i APPENDIX D DEAN OF INSTRUCTION QUESTIONNAIRE 182 A SURVEY OF OPINION CONCERNING PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES This questionnaire has been prepared and distributed as a part of a stud';’ of the professional preparation of junior college instructors. Similar forms of this questionnaire are beinti circulated to various segments of the California higher education community. It is important to the accuracy of the studv that evcrv questionnaire be completed. All responses will be treated confidentially; questionnaires have been coded for record purposes onlv. Your assist ance in com pleting and expediting the return of this questionnaire will be deeply appreciated. The study is being conducted with the approval of the: CALIFORNIA JUNIOR COLLEGE ASSOCIATION CALIFORNIA JUNIOR COLLEGE FACULTY ASSOCIATION CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION JUNIOR COLLEGE COUNCIL Undertaken in connection with a doctoral study at the University of Southern California, this research should pro vide colleges and universities with useful information for the evaluation and improvement of their programs. The staff of the co o r d i n a t i n g c o u n c i l f o r h i g h e r ed u c a t i o n has been consulted in the developm ent of the question naire, and it will use certain portions of the information gathered. The research is being carried out by: John Cashin, Departm ent of Political Science, El Camino College under the direction of: Dr. Leslie Wilbur, Associate Professor of Higher Education, University of Southern California. PART I—GENERAL INFORM ATION Circle the response at the left which corresponds to the answer you have chosen for each question, RESPONSE_______________QUESTION_____________________ 1 2 A. Your s e x 1 .' 11 male, 21 female 1 2 3 4 B. How many units in professional education coursework have you completed? 1] none, 21 1-13, 31 13 - 30, 4| over 30. C. Various degrees are listed below. To the left of each, circle the “I” if you are working toward the degree. Circle the "2" i f you have completed the work for the degree. 1 2____________ Associate’ s degree |A.S. or A.A. | 1 2___ _________Bachelor’ s degree. 1 2_____________Master’ s degree I In a professional education fieldj. 1 2____________ Master’ s degree |in a field other than professional education]. 1 2............ Law degree |L1.B or J.D. | . 1 2.............Doctor of Education |Ed.D. ] . 1 2 __........ ..Doctor of Philosophy |in education]. 1 2.............Doctor of Philosophy |in field other than education]. 1 2 3 4 D. In your opinion, how valuable is the college or university recommendation in assist ing deans to choose instructors for positions in a junior college? 1] of great value, 2| of some value, 3] of no value, 4| uncertain. 1 2 3 4 E. Which of the following types of positions do you believe to be the most desirable 5 preceding employment as a junior college instructor? 1 ] elementary school, 21 secondary school, 31 college or university, 41 position other than in education, 5| student, with no experience intervening between col lege and employment as a junior college instructor. PART II—OPINIONNAIRE Listed below are a number of items which are frequently associated with the junior college. For each of th in ONE of the columns at the right to indicate whether you believe i t is an essential, important, desira desirable feature of the junior college. ese } l e , < P z U J tn in I U 1 t o IMPORTANT 2 § n -* s . pl cess U l — 1 tfl < a c in U J Q 3 ^ UNNECESSARY C 3 j ? j an or U l ta < Q C in U J □ Z 3 5 *X" un- A. Transfer education 24 B. Terminal-occupational education 25 D. Co-curricular activities and experiences 26 E. Academic and vocational counseling and guidance 27 F. Unrestricted admission —“the open door" 28 C. Developmental or remedial education 29 In additic-n to competence in his subject field, the junior college instructor frequently has received formal professional pre paration through education coursework completed prior to his employment. Listed below are various potential components of programs for professional preparation for instructors. For each suggested component, please indicate: 111 whether you consider it to he an essential, important, desirable, unnecessary or undesirable component of a formal program of professional preparation for junior college instructors; and 121 whether or not your own formal program of instructor preparation included that particular component. ^ ESSENTIAL t o IM P O R T A N T C o DESIRABLE UNNECESSARY u, UNDESIRABLE i I A U l > * 1 t o N O G. Supervised teaching, teaching internship, etc. 30 31 H. Planning and organizing a course of study. 32 33 I . Innovfltive'techniques in classroom presentations and activities. 34 35 J. Use and application of teaching devices and equipment. 36 37 K. Test construction and analysis. 38 3‘ J L. Purposes and methods of grading and evaluation. 40 41 M. Psychology of learning. 42 45 N. Motivations and attitudes of junior college students. 44 45 0. Aptitudes and abilities of junior college students. 46 47 P. History and development of the junior college. 48 49 Q. Purposes and functions of the junior college. 50 51 R. Scope and content of the junior college curriculum. 52 53 S. Laws relating to California public junior colleges. 54 55 T. Financing and budgeting problems and procedures of junior colleges. 56 57 U. Administrative organization of junior colleges. 58 59 V. Purposes and accomplishments of junior college faculty organizations. 60 61 W. Procedures for locating and applying for junior college positions. 62 63 X. Field trips to junior colleges to observe teaching, activities, etc. 64 65 183 PART III—A POSSIBLE DOCTOR OF ARTS DEGREE During its 1967 session the'C alifom ia State Senate passed a resolution requesting the Coordinating Council For Higher Education to investigate the potential interest and content of a doctor’s degree which would have a teaching orientation. The following model and the questions below arc included in that connection, A M ODEL OF A POSSIBLE DOCTOR OF ARTS DEGREE CREDITS: A minimum of 90 [semester] credits beyond the bachelor’ s degree, apportioned between course work and research. COURSEWORK: Approximately two years of course work in a subject field acceptable for a Ph.D. Courses comparable to those taken by candidates for the Ph.D. but allowing breadth rather than specialization. Comprehensive examina tions the same or equivalent to those taken by candidates for the Ph.D, RESEARCH: Flexibility in meeting research requirements with a thesis to be completed in one semester of full-time work. The thesis may consist of an expository and analytical study of some significant phase of the field or a project in applied research, such as the development of curriculum materials, teaching strategies, and their testing in a class situation. LANGUAGE: Requirement to be determined by the student's major department in accordance with potential usefulness in the subject field, or possibly i t could be met through a thorough reading, speaking and writing knowledge in one foreign language. SUPPLEMENTARY OPTIONS: Selected to broaden background and serve college teaching. Examples: [a] Practicum: Internship, classroom presentation; traditional and new teaching techniques. [b] Education Research Techniques: Research design; statistics; data analysis. [cj Background Courses: Learning theory; educational sociology; nature of higher education. [d] Leadership Problems in Higher Education: Administration; legislation, finances; law, etc. [e] Special problems in curriculum in the subject field. COL. RESPONSE QUESTION 66. 67. 72 73, 74 75. 76, I 68. L 2 69. 1 2 70. 1 2 71. 1 2 3 4 A. In general, which one of the following levels of educational achievement do yon consider adequate for a junior college instructor? 1] Associate, 2| Bachelor, 3| Master, 4] Doctor, B. If a doctorate were offered which were specifically designed to meet the needs of undergraduate college teaching, do you think a substantial number of instructors would pursure It? 1] yes, 2] no. C. If such a doctorate were offered, it is suggested that the below features would be Im portant and could be included without reducing the rigor in subject field which is a part of the I’h.D. Indicate whether you believe the inclusion of each of these features would he: 1] very important, 2| fairly important, 3) not important. 3 — emphasis on teaching competence, rather than on research competence. 3 modifications in the language requirement. 2 3 2 3 research requirements more applicable to the classroom. _ . emphasis on breadth, rather than specialization, in coursework. I). If such a doctorate were offered, how important do you believe each of the following would be as a motivation to seek it? 1] very important, 2| fairly important, 8| not. important. desire to improve one's knowledge and understanding in his discipline. improvement in one's teaching skill. desire to gain a different college teaching position. . . Increase in monetary remuneration. ..desire to change to an administrative position. . .increase in status or prestige. E. If such a doctorate were offered, do you believe it would be generally accepted as equal to the Ph.D. for each of the following? 1] yes, 2 .1 no, 8] uncertain. junior college teaching positions. other undergraduate teaching positions. 183 PART IV—OPTIONAL ITEMS A. What was the name of the institution in which you completed most of your professional education mursework? . . . . ................................................................................. > . B. It is possible that the “objective’ nature of the questions in Parts I, II & III did not allow a specific and satis factory answer in every case. If you noted an ambiguity or omision in any question, please note it here. C. Part II of this questionnaire is intended as a comprehensive list of potential components of junior college instructor training program coursework. If there are any components which you feel should be added, please list them here. D. The results of this study will be made available to teacher training institutions throughout California which have programs for the professional preparation of junior college instructors. What changes or new directions in these programs would you suggest their coordinators consider? E. Part III includes a model of a possible Doctor o f Arts degree. Please use the below space to make any sug gestions concerning such a doctorate. THANK YOU FOR THE TIME AND ATTENTION YOU HAVE GIVEN TO THIS STUDY! 183 APPENDIX E COORDINATOR OF JUNIOR COLLEGE INSTRUCTOR TRAINING PROGRAM QUESTIONNAIRE 1 8 4 A SURVEY OF OPINION CONCERNING PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION i OF INSTRUCTORS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES This questionnaire has been prepared and distributed as a part of a study of the professional preparation of junior college instructors. Similar forms of this questionnaire are being circulated to various segments of the California higher education community. It is important to the accuracy of the studv that every questionnaire be completed. All responses will be treated confidentially; questionnaires have been coded for record purposes onlv. Your assist ance in com pleting and expediting the return of this questionnaire will be deeply appreciated. The study is being conducted with the approval of the: CALIFORNIA JUNIOR COLLEGE ASSOCIATION CALIFORNIA JUNIOR COLLEGE FACULTY ASSOCIATION CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION JUNIOR COLLEGE COUNCIL Undertaken in connection witli a doctoral study at the University of Southern California, this research should pro vide colleges and universities with useful information for the evaluation and improvement of their programs. The staff of the coordinating council for higher education has been consulted in the development of the question naire, and it will use certain portions of the information gathered. The research is being carried out by: John Cashin, Department of Political Science, E l Gamino College under the direction of: Dr. Leslie Wilbur, Associate Professor of Higher Education, University of Southern California. PART I-G E N E R A L INFORM ATION Circle the response at the left which corresponds to the answer you have chosen for each question. COL. RESPONSE______________ QUESTION 7. 8 . 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 1 6 . A, Your sex? 1} male, 2] female 1 2 3 4 B, How many units in professional education coursework have you completed? 1] none, 2 | 1 - 12, 8] 13 - 80, 4j over 30. C. Various degrees are listed below. To the left of each, circle the "1” if you are working toward the degree. Circle the “2" if you have completed the work for the degree. 1 2 ....................... ......... Associate’s degree [A,S. or A.A.J 1 2 ................................ Bachelor’s degree. > 1 2 ................................. Master's degree fin a professional education fieldj. 1 2 . . . . ......................... Master's degree [in a field other than professional education]. 1 2 .......... ............... - - Law degree [Ll.B or J.D.]. 1 2 ................................ Doctor of Education [Ed.D.]. 1 2 .............. ................ Doctor of Philosophy | in education]. 1 ...................... Doctor of Philosophy [in field other than education], 1 2 3 4 D. In your opinion, how valuable is the college or university recommendation in assist ing deans to choose instructors for positions in a junior college? ' 1] of great value, 2] of some value, 3 | of no value, 4| uncertain. 1 2 3 4 E. Which of the following types of positions do you believe to be the most desirable 5 preceding employment as a junior college instructor? 1 1 elementary school, 2 | secondary school, 3] college or university, 4| position other than in education, 5] student, with no experience intervening between col lege and employment as a junior college Instructor. 185 PART II—OPINIONNAIRE Listed below are a number of items which are frequently associated with the junior college. For each of these items, place an "X" in ONE of the columns at the right to indicate whether you believe i t is an essential, important, desirable, unnecessary, or un desirable feature of the junior college. > - * ESSENTIAL t o IMPORTANT 0 3 DESIRABLE • A - UNNECESSARY UJ _i a < £ I T i ui a z a 5 A. Transfer education 24 B. Terminal-occupational education 25 D. Co-curricular activities and experiences 26 E. Academic and vocational counseling and guidance 27 F. Unrestricted admission —“the open door” 28 C. Developmental or remedial education 29 In addition to competence in his subject field, the junior college instructor frequently has received formal professional pre paration through education coursework completed prior to his employment. Listed below are various potential components of programs for professional preparation for instructors. For each suggested component, please indicate; 11 1 whether you consider It to be an essential, Important, desirable, unnecessary or undesirable component of a formal program of professional preparation for junior college instructors; and |2| whether or not the junior college instructor preparation program of your college or university normally includes instruction in that component. 1VIXN3SS3 t o IMPORTANT U I m l I B < ( X 1 7 5 u i Q 3 | i * > UNNECESSARY u u m i a 2 i / i U I a Z 3 5 U i > - 1 o z 2 a. Supervised teaching, teaching internship, etc. 30 31 H. Planning and organizing a course of study. 32 33 L Innovaflve'techniques in classroom presentations and activities. 34 35 J. Use and application of teaching devices and equipment.' 36 37 K. Test construction and analysis. 38 39 L. Purposes and methods of grading and evaluation. 40 41 M. Psychology of learning. 42 1 43 N. Motivations and attitudes of junior college students. 44 45 0. Aptitudes and abilities of junior college students. 46 47 P. History and development of the junior college. 48 49 Q . Purposes and functions of the junior college. 50 51 R. Scope and content of the junior college curriculum. 52 53 S. Laws relating to California public junior colleges. 54 55 T. Financing and budgeting problems and procedures of junior colleges. 56 57 U. Administrative organization of junior colleges. 58 •5 9 V. Purposes and ^accomplishments of junior college faculty organizations. 60 61 W. Procedures for locating and applying for junior college positions. 62 63 X. Field trips to junior colleges to observe teaching, activities, etc. 64 65 E ; j i j I S j 185 PART III—A POSSIBLE DOCTOR OF ARTS DEGREE D u rin g its 1967 session th e ’C alifornia State Senate passed a resolution requesting th e C oordinating C ouncil For H igher E d u cation to in vestigate the poten tial interest an d con ten t of a doctor’s degree w h ich w ou ld h ave a teaching orientation. T he follow in g m od el aiid the questions b elo w are in clu d ed in that connection. A M O D E L O F A PO SSIB L E D O C T O R O F ARTS D E G R E E CREDITS: A minimum of 90 [semester] credits beyond the bachelor’ s degree, apportioned between course work and research. COURSEWORK: Approximately two years of course work in a subject field acceptable for a Ph.D. Courses comparable to those taken by candidates for the Ph.D. but allowing breadth rather than specialization. Comprehensive examina tions the same or equivalent to those taken by candidates for the Ph.D. RESEARCH: Flexibility in meeting research requirements with a thesis to be completed in one semester of full-time work. The thesis may consist of an expository and analytical study of some significant phase of the field or a project in applied research, such as the development of curriculum materials, teaching strategies, and their testing in a class situation. LANGUAGE: Requirement to be determined by the student’ s major department in accordance with potential usefulness in the subject field, or possibly it could be met through a thorough reading, speaking and writing knowledge in one foreign language. SUPPLEMENTARY OPTIONS: Selected to broaden background and serve college teaching. Examples: [a] Practicum: Internship, classroom presentation; traditional and new teaching techniques. [b] Education Research Techniques: Research desigh; statistics; data analysis. [c] Background Courses: Learning theory; educational sociology; nature of higher education. [d] Leadership Problems in Higher Education: Administration;"legislation, finances; law, etc. [e] Special problems in curriculum in the subject field. COL. RESPONSE QUESTION 66. 1 2 3 4 A. In general, which one of the following levels of educational achievement do you consider adequate for a junior college Instructor? 1] Associate, 2] Bachelor, 3] Master, 4] Doctor. 61. 1 2 B. If a doctorate were offered which were specifically designed to m eet the needs of undergraduate college teaching, do you think a substantial number of instructors would pursure it? 1] yes, 2] no. C. If such a doctorate were offered, it Is suggested that the below features would be im portant and could be included without reducing the rigor in subject field which is a part of the Ph.D. Indicate whether you believe the inclusion of each of these features would be: 1] very important, 2] fairly important, 3] not important. 68. 1 2 3 ..em phasis on teaching competence rather than on research competence. 69. 1 2 3......................... modifications in the language requirement. 70. I 2 3.--- ---------------research requirements more applicable to the classroom. 71. 1 2 3 .................... emphasis on breadth, rather than specialization, In coursework. D.. If such a doctorate were offered, how important do you believe each of the following would be as a motivation to seek it? 1] very Important, 2] fairly important, 3] not important. 12. 1 2 3 desire to improve one’s knowledge and understanding in his discipline. 13. 1 2 3_____________ improvement in one’s teaching skill. 1L 1 2 3..........................desire to gain a different college teaching position. ' 15- I 2 3_____________ increase in monetary remuneration. 16. 1 2 3 ............. .......desire to change to an administrative position. 11- 1 2 3 increase in status or prestige. ( E. If such a doctorate were offered, do you believe it would' be generally accepted as equal to the Ph.D. for each of the following? 1] yes, 2] no, 3] uncertain. 18. 1 2 3 _ ■ ___ ____ junior college teaching positions. 19. 1 2 3 ____ _____other undergraduate teaching positions.. PART IV—OPTIONAL ITEMS A. It ,is possible that the “objective” nature of the questions in Parts I, II & III did not allow a specific and satis factory answer in every case. If you noted an ambiguity or omision in any question, please note it here. B.. Part II of this questionnaire is intended as a comprehensive list of potential com ponents of junior college instructor training program coursework. If there are any components which you feel should be added, please list them here. C. The results of this study w ill be made available to teacher training institutions throughout California which have programs for the professional preparation of junior college instructors. W hat changes or new directions in these programs would you suggest their coordinators consider? D. Part III includes a m odel of a possible Doctor of Arts degree. Please use the below space to make any sug gestions concerning such a doctorate. 1 THANK YOU FOR THE TIME AND ATTENTION YOU HAVE GIVEN TO THIS STUDY! 185 APPENDIX F QUESTIONNAIRE COVER LETTER TO' PROGRAM COORDINATORS 186 EL CAM INO COLLEGE • j > !; M A I L A D D R E S S : EL C AM IN O COLLEGE, C A L I F O R N I A f "\j ■ ■ i VIA T O R R A N C E , C A L I F O R N I A 90 506 LOCATION: C R E N SH A W BOULEVARD B E T W E E N REDONDO BEACH AND MANHATTAN BEACH BLVDS. T E LF.HH 0 N ES : ( 2 I 5) 3 2 1 -6 6 5 1 or 32 I - 1 I 2 1 December 2 9, I9 6 7 Dr. John Doe Teacher Education Division California University Los Angeles, California Dear Dr. Doe: Thank you very much for sending me the information and materials concerning your junior college instructor-training program. They have been most helpful to me in the organization of this study. Enclosed are two copies of a questionnaire I am circulating to coordinators of programs for professional preparation of instructors for junior colleges. It would be most helpful if you would complete one copy and ask one of your associates in the junior college instructor training program to complete the other. When the study is completed, I will send you a summary of its findings, etc. Again, thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, h. John Cashin Political Science Department APPENDIX G COVER LETTER TO ACCOMPANY REMINDER TO DEANS 188 EL CAMINO >COLLEGE • / \ !1 / ' ■ / .........\ M A I L A D D R E S S : EL C A M I N O C O L LE G E , C A L I F O R N I A ? r < T s ! j V I -4 TO RRA NCE , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 5 0 6 LOCATIO N: C R E N S H A W B O U L E V A R D B E T W E E N REDONDO BEACH AND MANHATTAN BEACH BLVDS. T E L E P H O N E S : (21,1) 3 2 4 - 6 6 3 1 or 321-1121 February 2, 1 9 6 8 Dr. John Doe Dean of Instruction California Junior College Los Angeles, California Dear Dr. Doe: In order to gain a clearer insight into administrative attitudes regarding the worthfulness of instructor professional preparation and a possible teaching doctorate, the attached questionnaire has been circulated to the chief instruction officer of each California public junior college. Two-thirds of these officers have completed and returned the questionnaire, but it is imperative to the accuracy of the study that we have as large a return as possible. Recognizing the many demands made upon your schedule— especially at this time of year — we ask that you complete and return the attached copy. It would be most helpful to us in our study. V.ith all best wishes, 1 remain Sincerely yours, John Cashin Political Science Department end: APPENDIX H COVER LETTER TO ACCOMPANY REMINDER TO COORDINATORS 190 EL CAMINO ! COLLEGE f "\ !! / j j M A I L A D D R E S S : EL C A M I N O C OL L E GE , CAL IFORNIA v / • : . VI A T O R R A N C E - , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 5 0 6 LOCATION: C R E N S H A W B O U L E y A R D B E T W E E N REDONDO BEACH AND MANHATTAN BEACH BLVDS. TELEPHONES: ( 2 I X) 32 4 -6 6 Z I or 3 2 1 ■ I I 2 1 February 9, 1 9 6 8 Dr. John Doe Teacher Education Division California University Los Angeles, California Dear Dr. Doe: It is with considerable reluctance that I risk bothering you again with the enclosed questionnaire, for I am well aware of the varied and pressing demands your position places upon your time. The response to the questionnaire has been generally gratifying. With close to two-thirds of the junior college instructors and deans and junior college instructor training program coordinators who were surveyed having returned their forms, the results should be significant. There seems to be considerable interest in the results of the study, and we are hopeful that it will produce some useful information. The nature of the study does make a 100% response by coordinators very important. Therefore, I would be most appreciative if you would complete one or tne enclosed questionnaires, and if you would ask anotner 0 1 your junior college instructor training program associates to complete the other. With all best wishes, I remain Sincerely, John Cashin Political Science Department B I B L I O G R A P H Y 192 B I B L I O G R A P H Y Books 1. Alexender, Carter, and Burke, Arvid J. How to Locate Educational Information and Data: An Aid to Quick Utilization of the Literature of Educa tion . New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1950. 2. American Association of Junior Colleges. 1967 Junior College Directory. Washington: American Asso ciation of Junior Colleges, 1967. 3. Blocker, Clyde E.; Plummer, Robert H.; and Richardson, Richard C. The Two Year College: A Social Synthesis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc., 19 65. 4. Bogue, Jesse Parker. The Community College. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1950. 5. Borg, Walter R. Educational Research; an Introduction. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1965. 6. Brick, Michael. Forum and Focus for the Junior College Movement. New York: Teachers College, Colum bia University, 1964. 7. Byram, Harold Moore. Some Problems in the Provision of Professional Education for College Teaching. New York: Columbia University Teachers Col lege, 1933. 8. California Association of Secondary School Administra tion . Burlingame, California: California Association of Secondary School Administration, 1967-68. 9. Clark, Burton R. The Open Door College, a Case Study. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1960. 10. Coons, Arthur G., et al. A Master Plan for Higher Edu cation in California. Berkeley and Sacramento: 193 194 Liaison Committee of the State Board of Educa tion and the Regents of the University of Cali fornia, 1960. 11. Cooper, Russell M. The Two Ends of a Log. University of Minnesota, 19 58. 12. Eells, Walter Crosby. College Teachers and College Teaching. Atlanta: Southern Regional Educa tion Board, 1957. 13. Fields, Ralph R. The Community College Movement. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1962. 14. Garrison, Roger H. Junior College Faculty: Issues and Problems. Washington, D. C.: American Associ ation of Junior Colleges, 1967. 15. Gray, William S. The Preparation and In-Service Train ing of College Teachers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938. 16. Henry, Nelson B. The Public Junior College. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956. 17. Higher Education for American Democracy. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1947^ Vol. 4, Chapter II. 18. Hillway, Tyrus. The American Two Year College. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1958. 19. Holy, T. C., and Semans, H. H. A Restudy of the Needs of California Higher Education. Sacramento: California State Department of Printing, 1955. 20. Joint Accreditation Schedule of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges and the State Board of Education. Sacramento: State Board of Educa tion . 21. Justman, Joseph, and Mais, Walter. College Teaching: Its Practice and Its Potential. New York: Harper and Brothers, 19 56. 22. Koos, Leonard Vincent, Ph.D. The Junior College. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 19 24. Vol. I and II. 23. Liaison Committee of the State Board of Education and the Regents of the University of California. A Master-Plan for Higher Education in Califor- 195 nia. Sacramento: California State Department of Education, 19 60. — - 24. Martin, Charles William. The Training of College Teachers. Missouri: University of Missouri, 1930. 25. McConnell, T. R., et al. A Restudy of the Needs of California in Higher Education. Sacramento: California State Department of Education, 1955. 26. Medsker, Leland L. The Junior College: Progress and Prospect. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960. 27. Oppenheim, A. N. Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1966. 28. Prall, Charles. State Programs for the Improvement of Teacher Education. Washington: American Council on Education, 194 6. 29. Proctor, William Martin. The Junior College: Its Organization and Administration. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1927. 30. Pullias, Earl V., and Lockhart, Aileene. Toward Excel lence in College Teaching. Dubuque: William C. Brown, Company, Publisher, 1963. 31. Siemens, Cornelius H.; Ingalls, Rosco; Gordon, Ted; and Crawford, Claude. Junior College Syllabus. Los Angeles: C. C. Crawford, 1949. 32. Starrak, James A., and Hughes, Raymond M. The Commun ity College in the United States. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State College Press, 1954. 33. Strayer, George D.; Douglass, Aubrey A.; and Deutsch, Monro E. A Report of a Survey of the Needs of California Higher Education. Sacramento: Cal ifornia State Printing Office, 1948. 34. Thornton, James W., Jr. The Community Junior College. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966. 35. Whitney, Frederick Lamson. The Junior College in America. Greeley, Colorado: Colorado State Teacher College, 1929. 196 Periodicals 36. Blocker, Clyde E. "Are Our Faculties Competent?" Junior College Journal, XXXVI (December, 1965), 12-17. 37. Cohen, Arthur M. "Developing Specialists in Learning," Junior College Journal, XXXVII (September, 1966), 21-23. 38. Cohen, Arthur M. "Teacher Preparation: Rational and Practice," Junior College Journal, XXXVII (May, 1967), 21-25. 39. Dobrovolny, Jerry S. "Preparation of Junior College Teachers of Technical Subjects," Junior College Journal, XXXV (December, 1965), 9-13. 40. Fordyce, Joseph W. "A Significant Role in Teacher Edu cation," Junior College Journal, XXXVI (April, 1968), 13-17. 41. Gleazer, Edmund J., Jr. "AAJC Approach: Preparation of Junior College Instructors," Junior College Journal, XXXV (September, 1964), 3-4. 42. Gleazer, Edmund J., Jr. "Preparation of Junior College Teachers," Educational Record, XXXXVIII (Spring, 1967), 147-152. 43. Gordon, Shirley B., and Whitfield, Raymond P. "A Formula for Teacher Preparation," Junior Col lege Journal, XXXVII (May, 1967), 26-28. 44. Gordon, Ted Edward. ."Realistic Training for Junior Colleges," California Journal of Secondary Edu cation , XXIV (December, 1949), 480-482. 45. Henderson, Leon. "An Internship in Junior College Teaching," Junior College Journal, XVII (March, 1957), 387-390. 46. Jantzen, J. Marc, and Cobb, Emerson. "A Teaching Doc torate Degree for Junior College Instructors," Junior College Journal, XXIX (December, 1958), 213-214. 47. Koile, Earl A., and Tatem, Diane Wolf. "The Student Oriented Teacher," Junior College Journal, XXXVI (February, 1966), 24-26. 197 48. Koos, Leonard. "Preparation for Community College Teaching," Journal of Higher Education, XXI (June, 1950), 309-317. 49. Maul, Ray C. "Can We Get Enough Good Teachers," Junior College Journal, XXXIV (December, 1963), 3-7. 50. McKeachie, W. J. "Research on Teaching at the College and University Level," Handbook of Research on Teaching by N. L. Gage. Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally, 1963. Pp. 1118-1172. 51. Perry, Richard S. "Business Teacher Preparation— Cali fornia Style," Junior College Journal, XXXII (October, 1961), 72-77. 52. Pricert, Sheridan S. "Do Junior College Teachers Need Professional Preparation?" California Journal of Educational Research, XIV (March, 19 63) , 50. 53. Priest, Bill J. "On the Threshold of Greatness," Junior College Journal, XXXVII (September, 1966), 6-8. 54. Pyle, Gordon B. "Strengthening the Junior College Teaching Profession," Junior College Journal, XXXII (May, 1962), 526~533. 55. Stone, James C. "The Preparation of Academic Instruc tors for the Junior College," Junior College Journal, XXVIII (March, 1958), 368-371. 56. Thornton, James W., Jr. "Improving Junior College Instruction," Junior College Journal, XXIX (March, 1959), 363-365. 57. Wilson, Robert H. "Junior College Student Teachers," Junior College Journal, XXXII (November, 1961), 142-146. 58. Wood, William R. "Professional Personnel for Community Colleges," Junior College Journal, XX (May, 1950) , 513-522": 59. Wortham, Mary. "The Case for a Doctor of Arts Degree: a View from Junior College Faculty," American Association of University Professors Bulletin, LIII (December, 1967), 372-377. 198 Pamphlets 60. Axelrod, Joseph. Graduate Study for Future College Teachers. Washington: American Council on Education, 19 59. 61. California State Department of Education. Planning Junior Colleges. Sacramento: California State- Printing Office, 1964. 62. California Western University Secondary Education Pro gram. San Diego: California Western Univer sity, 1967. 63. Diekhoff, John S. Tomorrows Professors: A Report of the College Faculty Internship Program. New York: Fund for the Advancement of Education, 1960. 64. Educator's Washington Dispatch. Portfolio of College Teaching Techniques. New York: A. C. Croft, 1951. 6 5. Graduate Internship Program in Teacher Education. Berkeley: School of Education, University of California, 1965. 66. Simpson, Ray H., and Brown, E. S. College Learning and Teaching. University of Illinois Bulletin, XXXXIX, June, 1952. College Catalogs 67. California State College at Fullerton Catalog, 1967-68. Fullerton, California: California State Col lege at Fullerton, 1967. 68. California State College at Hayward Catalog, 1967-68. Hayward, California: California State College at Hayward, 19 67. 6 9. California State College at Long Beach Bulletin, 19 67- 68. Long Beach, California: California State College, Long Beach, 1967. 70. East Los Angeles College Catalog, 1967-1968. Los Ange les, California: East Los Angeles College, 1967. 199 71. Fresno State College General Catalog, 19 67-68. Fresno, California: Fresno State College, 1967. 72. Glendale College Catalog, 1967-68. Glendale, Califor nia: Glendale College, 1967. 73. Loma Linda University College Catalogue, 1967-68. Riverside, California: Loma Linda University, 1967. 74. Mills College Catalogue, 1967-68. Oakland, California: Mills College, 1967. 75. Palo Verde College Catalog, 1967-68. Blyth, Califor nia: Palo Verde College, 1967. 76. Occidental College Bulletin, Catalog Issue 1967-1968. Los Angeles, California: Occidental College, 1967. ' 77. Rio Hondo Junior College Catalogue, 1967-68. Whittier, California: Rio Hondo Junior College, 1967. 78. Sacramento State College Catalog, 1967-68. Sacramento, California: Sacramento State College, 1967. 79. San Diego State College Bulletin, Graduate Division, 1967-68. San Diego, California: San Diego State College, 1967. 8 0. San Fernando Valley State College Catalogue, 1967-68. Los Angeles, California: San Fernando Valley State College, 1967. 81. San Jose State College Catalogue, 1967-68. San Jose, California: San Jose State College, 1967. 82. Santa Barbara City College Catalog, 1967-68. Santa Barbara, California: Santa Barbara City Col lege , 19 6 7. 83. Santa Monica City College Catalogue, 1966-1968. Santa Monica, California: Santa Monica City College, 1966. 84. Shasta College Catalogue, 1967-68. Redding, Califor nia: Shasta College, 1967. 85. Stanford University Bulletin: Courses and Degrees, 1967-68. Stanford, California: Stanford University, 1967. 200 86. University of California, Davis, General Catalogue, 19 67-68~I Davis, California: University of California, Davis, 1967. 87. University of California, Los Angeles, Graduate School of Education Bulletin, 1967-68. Los Angeles, California: University of California, Los Angeles, 1967. 88. University of California, Riverside, General Catalogue, 1967-68. Riverside, California: University of California, Riverside, 1967. 89. University of California, Santa Barbara, Graduate School of Education, Announcement Issue, 1967- 68. Santa Barbara, California: University of California, Santa Barbara, 19 67. 90. University of Southern California, Bulletin of the School of Education, 1966-68. Los Angeles, California: University of Southern California, 1966. Unpublished Materials 91. Bureau of Junior College Education. "Handbook of Defi nitions." Unpublished, May, 1966. 92. Cahn, Meyer M., and Axen, Richard. "San Francisco State College Junior College Credential Pro gram. " San Francisco State College School of Education, 19 67. (Mimeographed.) 93. California Junior College Association Commission to Study the Junior College Role. "Position Statement on the Role of the Junior College." December, 1964. (Mimeographed.) 94. California State Board of Education, Junior College Advisory Panel. "(Recommended) Standards of Professional Employment for Junior College Teachers, Supervisors, and Chief Executive Officers." Correspondence to State Board of Education, November 20, 19 67. (Mimeographed.) 95. Clark, Mildred L. "An Exploratory Study of Graduate Assistantships and an Assessment of the Value of These Assistantships for Beginning College Teaching." Unpublished dissertation, Columbia University, 1963. 201 96. Cohen, Wallace Firman. "Community Service Programs in California Public Junior Colleges." Unpub lished Doctorate dissertation, Los Angeles, University of Southern California, 1967. 97. Coordinating Council for Higher Education. "Proposal for a Report on the Doctorate with Emphasis on College and University Teaching." December 5, 19 67. (Mimeographed.) 98. Carter, Fletcher F. "Selected Aspects of Pre-Service Preparation and Prior Experience of High and Low Merit Rated Junior College Teachers in Florida." Unpublished dissertation, The Florida University, 1965. 99. Dolan, Francis H. "The Preparation of Junior College Teachers." Unpublished dissertation, Colorado State College, 1950. 100. Ehmann, Gerhard E. "Some Criteria for the Training in General Education at the Junior College Level in California." Unpublished dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1951. 101. Fitzgerald, James Sumner. "Faculty Views of the Cali fornia Public Junior College." Unpublished dissertation, University of Southern Califor nia, Los Angeles, 1964. 102. Forbes, Robert. "California State College at Los Angeles Junior College Credential Program Requirements." Los Angeles, California State College at Los Angeles, Division of Secondary Education, 19 67. (Mimeographed.) 103. Gleazer, Edmund J., Jr. "A Supplementary Statement on the 'Education Professions Development' Pro gram." Washington, American Association of Junior Colleges, 1967. (Mimeographed.) 104. Kidd, Rex C. "The Improvement of the Pre-Service Edu cation of Undergraduate College Teachers." Gainsville, Flordia: University of Florida, 1951. Unpublished dissertation. 105. La Grandeur, Ramon F. "The Preparation of Instructors in Oregon Community Colleges." Unpublished dissertation, University of Oregon, 1966. 202 106. Merson, Thomas. "Certification Standards for Junior College Teachers in California." Unpublished dissertation, University of California, Berke- 147, 1952. 107. Siehr, Hugo E. "Problems of New Faculty Members in Community Colleges." Unpublished disserta tion, Michigan State University, 1962.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The Relationship Of Size To Current Expense Of Education In California Single-College Public Junior College Districts

PDF

A Historical Analysis Of Vocational Education: Land-Grant Colleges To California Junior Colleges, 1862-1940

PDF

The Impact Of Selected Colleges On Students' Values

PDF

Faculty Views Of The California Public Junior College

PDF

The Image Of Higher Education In American Novels, 1920-1966

PDF

Art Education Programs Of The California State Colleges For Elementary Teachers

PDF

Biology In California Public Junior Colleges

PDF

The Potential Of The Junior College In The Developing Nations Of The World

PDF

Criteria For Directing Junior College Instruction

PDF

The Preparation Of Teachers Of French And Spanish In Southern California Secondary Schools

PDF

Dropout - Stayin Personality Differentials And College Environments

PDF

Community Service Programs In California Public Junior Colleges

PDF

Community Service Programs Of California Community Colleges: An Analysis Of Recent Developments

PDF

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

PDF

Grievance Procedures And Disciplinary Actions In Classified Personnel Administration In California Public Schools

PDF

Secondary School Physical Education Programs In Wyoming As Related To Professional Preparation Of Teachers

PDF

Non-Intellective Characteristics Of Selected Students Of Los Angeles Community College District

PDF

The Organization And Administration Of Special Counseling Programs For Adult Women In Colleges And Universities

PDF

The Selection, Training And Evaluation Of School Bus Drivers In California

PDF

The Administrative Implications Of Federal Projects On School Personnel Practices

Asset Metadata

Creator Cashin, Harold John, Jr. (author)

Core Title Programs For Professional Preparation Of Instructors For California Public Junior Colleges

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

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

Tag Education, Teacher Training,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Wilbur, Leslie (committee chair), Muelder, Wallace R. (committee member), Pullias, Earl Vivon (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-642770

Unique identifier UC11360991

Identifier 6904520.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-642770 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6904520.pdf

Dmrecord 642770

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Cashin, Harold John, Jr.

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