huber done - Stanford University

huber done - Stanford University

Community College Faculty Attitudes and Trends, 1997 MARY TAYLOR HUBER National Center for Postsecondary Improvement Stanford University, School of ...

486KB Sizes 0 Downloads 6 Views

Community College Faculty Attitudes and Trends, 1997 MARY TAYLOR

HUBER

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement Stanford University, School of Education 520 Galvez Mall, 508 CERAS, Stanford, CA 94305-3084 (650) 723-7724 http://ncpi.stanford.edu

The work reported herein was supported in part by the Educational Research and Development Center program, agreement number R309A60001, CFDA 84.309A, as administered by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education. The findings and opinions expressed in the report do not reflect the position or policies of OERI or the U.S. Department of Education. Technical Report Number NCPI-4-03.

NCPI

Page 1

Copyright © 1998 The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 555 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, California 94025 Visit the Carnegie Foundation on the World Wide Web: http://www.carnegiefoundation.org. All rights reserved. No part of this report may be reproduced in any form except for brief quotations not to exceed one thousand words in a review or professional work without permission in writing from the publisher. This report is published as part of the effort by The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching to explore significant issues in education. The views expressed should not necessarily be ascribed to individual members of the Board of Trustees of The Carnegie Foundation.

Page 2

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ACKNOWLEDGMENTS CHAPTER 1: Introduction CHAPTER 2: Community College Faculty: A Profile CHAPTER 3: Teaching and Learning: Concern and Commitment CHAPTER 4: The Goals of Community College Education CHAPTER 5: Faculty Roles in a Teaching Institution CHAPTER 6: Evaluation CHAPTER 7: Working Conditions CHAPTER 8: Governance and Community on Campus CHAPTER 9: Higher Education and Society CHAPTER 10: Reflections APPENDIX A: Technical Notes APPENDIX B: The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education TABLES

NCPI

4 10 12 16 19 22 24 27 30 32 34 36 39 41 43

Page 3

LIST OF TABLES Chapter 2: Community College Faculty: A Profile TABLE 1 TABLE 2 TABLE 3 TABLE 4 TABLE 5 TABLE 6 TABLE 7 TABLE 8 TABLE 9 TABLE 10 TABLE 11 TABLE 12 TABLE 13 TABLE 14 TABLE 15 TABLE 16 TABLE 17

What is your race or ethnic group? What is your sex? What is your age? How many years have you been employed in higher education? What is your highest earned degree? Are you currently working for another degree? In which discipline was your highest degree awarded? What is your current academic rank at this institution? Is your current employment at this institution full-time or part-time? Part-time and adjunct faculty fill jobs here that would otherwise be filled by regular faculty members. What is your institutional salary on a full-time basis before tax and deductions for the current academic year? In 1996, roughly how much did you earn over and above your institutional salary? There should be a mandatory age of retirement for faculty. At my institution, the major purpose of early retirement programs is to force out less productive faculty. I would exercise an early retirement option if it were offered to me. My institution provides the conditions and support faculty need to retire with dignity. I intend to engage in research and professional writing during my retirement.

Chapter 3: Teaching and Learning: Concern and Commitment TABLE 18 TABLE 19 TABLE 20 TABLE 21 TABLE 22 TABLE 23 TABLE 24 TABLE 25 TABLE 26 TABLE 27

Page 4

Access to higher education should be available to all who meet minimum entrance requirements. My undergraduate students are adequately prepared in written and oral communication. My undergraduate students are adequately prepared in mathematics and quantitative reasoning skills. This institution spends too much time and money teaching students what they should have learned in high school, 1984-1997. My undergraduate students do just enough to get by academically. Undergraduates have become more careerist in their concerns. Undergraduates have become more grade conscious. Today’s undergraduates are more willing to cheat in order to get good grades. Overall, I’m pleased with my undergraduates. Faculty here are concerned with the academic progress of their undergraduate

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 28 TABLE 29 TABLE 30 TABLE 31 TABLE 32 TABLE 33 TABLE 34 TABLE 35 TABLE 36

students. To what extent are you satisfied with your relationships with students? How important is undergraduate teaching to you personally? How would you assess the quality of the training you received in graduate school for your role as teacher? My institution provides adequate mentoring and other support for beginning instructors. In your department, how much experimentation has there been with the use of technology in instruction? Interdisciplinary teaching is encouraged at my institution. Team teaching is encouraged at my institution. Do you ever supervise students in service learning activities off campus? Faculty should spend more time with students outside the classroom.

Chapter 4: The Goals of Community College Education TABLE 37 TABLE 38 TABLE 39 TABLE 40 TABLE 41 TABLE 42 TABLE 43 TABLE 44 TABLE 45 TABLE 46 TABLE 47 TABLE 48 TABLE 49 TABLE 50 TABLE 51

NCPI

How important do you consider the following possible outcomes for the undergraduate? Rate your institution’s performance in serving non-traditional age students effectively. Rate your institution’s performance in preparing undergraduates for a vocation or career. The undergraduate curriculum here is in serious need of reform. Rate your institution’s performance in providing undergraduates with a general education. I prefer teaching courses which focus on limited specialties to those which cover wide varieties of material. Rate your institution’s performance in providing undergraduates the opportunity to explore personal interests through electives. Rate your institution’s performance in providing opportunities for an undergraduate to explore a subject in depth, through the major. Rate your institution’s performance in strengthening the values of undergraduates. Rate your institution’s performance in offering undergraduates an opportunity to experience and understand leadership. Rate your institution’s performance in creating opportunities for students to engage in public or community service. Rate your institution’s performance in developing a sense of campus community. Undergraduate education in America would be improved if students had a stronger mix of theory and practice in their academic experience. Undergraduate education in America would be improved if there were more relevance to contemporary life and problems. Undergraduate education in America would be improved if there were more

Page 5

TABLE 52

emphasis on a common core of courses for all students. Undergraduate education in America would be improved if there were less emphasis on specialized training and more on broad liberal education.

Chapter 5: Faculty Roles in a Teaching Institution TABLE 53 TABLE 54 TABLE 55 TABLE 56 TABLE 57 TABLE 58 TABLE 59 TABLE 60 TABLE 61 TABLE 62 TABLE 63 TABLE 64 TABLE 65 TABLE 66 TABLE 67 TABLE 68 TABLE 69 TABLE 70 TABLE 71 TABLE 72

My interests lie primarily in or lean toward teaching, 1969-1997. Do your interests lie primarily in teaching or in research? (International data) Do your interests lie primarily in teaching or in research? Regarding teaching and research, have your interests shifted over the course of your professional life? During the past fall term, approximately how many hours per week did you spend on each of the following activities? In my academic position at this institution, regular research activity is expected. Are you currently engaged in any scholarly work that you expect to lead to a publication, exhibit, or a performance? Have you, as an individual or as part of an academic group, received any grants or special funding support for research in the last three years? If you received such research funding, please estimate the total amount received from all sources during the last three years. Which of the following sources have provided these research funds? Serving as a consultant is considered part of scholarly work at my institution. During the past year, with which types of organizations have you worked, either on a paid or unpaid basis? Consider the time you spent engaged in such activities last year. For what percentage of this time were you paid? From an economic standpoint, it is necessary for me to engage in paid consulting work. The pressure to publish reduces the quality of teaching at this institution. Generally speaking, to be a good teacher one must be engaged in research. For me, service activity beyond this institution is a distraction and competes with essential academic work. Teaching effectiveness should be the primary criterion for promotion of faculty. At this institution, faculty evaluation gives appropriate weight to teaching, research, and service. This department should give more recognition to the role of professional service and the applied aspects of knowledge among its faculty.

Chapter 6: Evaluation TABLE 73

Page 6

Which of your activities are appraised or evaluated regularly?

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 74 TABLE 75 TABLE 76 TABLE 77 TABLE 78 TABLE 79 TABLE 80 TABLE 81 TABLE 82 TABLE 83

TABLE 84

TABLE 85

TABLE 86 TABLE 87 TABLE 88 TABLE 89 TABLE 90

By whom is your teaching regularly evaluated? By whom is your research regularly evaluated? At this institution, we need better ways, besides publications, to evaluate the scholarly performance of the faculty. At this institution, we need better ways to evaluate teaching performance. Student opinions should be used in evaluating the teaching effectiveness of faculty. Peer review should be used in evaluating the teaching effectiveness of faculty. In the past several years, have new methods of evaluating faculty in your department been developed in the following areas? In my field, most people agree on the standards of good scholarship. On the whole, my performance has been evaluated fairly at this institution. Thinking about your own situation, do research and/or other creative work count more or less for purposes of faculty advancement today than they did five years ago? Thinking about your own situation, does applied scholarship (outreach) count more or less for purposes of faculty advancement today than it did five years ago? Thinking about your own situation, does service to the college or university (citizenship) count more or less for purposes of faculty advancement today than it did five years ago? Thinking about your own situation, does teaching count more or less for purposes of faculty advancement today than it did five years ago? I wish my institution would set clearer priorities for the kind of work faculty should do. The stated missions of this institution are clear to the faculty. At my institution the goals for undergraduates are clear to the faculty. My institution is consistent in what it expects faculty to do, and how it rewards them.

Chapter 7: Working Conditions TABLE 91 TABLE 92 TABLE 93 TABLE 94 TABLE 95 TABLE 96 TABLE 97 TABLE 98 TABLE 99

NCPI

In general, how do you feel about this institution? How would you rate your own academic salary? My job is a source of considerable personal strain. I am more enthusiastic about my work now than I was when I began my academic career. To what extent has your teaching load been a source of stress in your professional work during the last two years? I hardly ever get the time to give a piece of work the attention it deserves. I feel I have less control of my time than I had five years ago. To what extent have the following factors been sources of stress in your professional work during the last two years? At this institution, how would you evaluate the facilities, resources, or

Page 7

TABLE 100 TABLE 101 TABLE 102 TABLE 103 TABLE 104 TABLE 105 TABLE 106 TABLE 107 TABLE 108

personnel you need to support your work? How would you rate the “technology infrastructure” at your institution? To what extent are you satisfied with your job situation as a whole? To what extent are you satisfied with the courses you teach? To what extent are you satisfied with your relationships with colleagues? To what extent are you satisfied with the way your department and your institution are managed? This is an especially creative and productive time in my field. My interests have become more interdisciplinary in recent years. This is a poor time for any person to begin an academic career in my field. If I had it to do over again, I would not become a college teacher.

Chapter 8: Governance and Community on Campus TABLE 109 TABLE 110 TABLE 111 TABLE 112 TABLE 113 TABLE 114 TABLE 115 TABLE 116 TABLE 117 TABLE 118 TABLE 119 TABLE 120 TABLE 121 TABLE 122 TABLE 123 TABLE 124 TABLE 125 TABLE 126 TABLE 127 TABLE 128 TABLE 129 TABLE 130

Page 8

How would you rate the sense of campus community at your institution, 1989-1997. Please indicate the degree to which your academic discipline, your department and your college or university is important to you personally. Faculty in my department have little contact with faculty in other departments. The faculty in my department generally tend to isolate themselves from the world outside the campus. How would you rate the academic reputation of your department outside your institution? How would you rate the sense that you feel valued and appreciated? How much opportunity do you feel you have to influence the policies of your department and institution? To what extent do you participate in meetings of the following types of organization at your institution? Junior faculty members have too little say in the running of my department. Faculty meetings in my department generally are a waste of time. Faculty governance works effectively at my institution. Top-level administrators are providing competent leadership. Communication between the faculty and the administration is poor. How would you rate relations between the following groups at your institution? There is a strong sense of institutional pride here. How would you rate student morale at your institution? How would you rate the intellectual environment at your institution? Female and minority faculty are treated fairly at this institution. Racial and ethnic conflicts are a problem among students at my institution. Gender issues are a problem among students at my institution. How would you rate the overall quality of campus life at your institution? The quality of life at my institution is of greater concern today than it was a

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

few years ago.

Chapter 9: Higher Education and Society TABLE 131 TABLE 132 TABLE 133 TABLE 134 TABLE 135 TABLE 136 TABLE 137 TABLE 138 TABLE 139 TABLE 140 TABLE 141 TABLE 142 TABLE 143 TABLE 144 TABLE 145

NCPI

Have you ever worked abroad to do research, take a sabbatical, or as part of an exchange program? Connections with scholars in other countries are very important to my professional work. My institution should recruit more international students and faculty. Universities and colleges should do more to promote student and faculty mobility from one country to another. In order to keep up with developments in my discipline, a scholar must read books and journals published abroad. The curriculum at this institution should be more international in focus. The goal of an academic scholar is to advance knowledge without regard for the possible implications for society. Faculty in my discipline have a professional obligation to apply their knowledge to problems in society. Faculty in my discipline have a professional obligation to collaborate with teachers in elementary and secondary schools. Universities have a responsibility to contribute to the economic development of their communities. This institution should be actively engaged in solving social problems. Academics are among the most influential opinion leaders. Respect for academics is declining. The effectiveness of higher education is being threatened by growing bureaucracies. In this country, there are no political or ideological restrictions on what a scholar may publish.

Page 9

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Community College Faculty: Attitudes and Trends, 1997 presents findings from The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching’s National Survey of Faculty, 1997, the sixth in a series of faculty surveys begun in 1969. Any project of this complexity owes a great debt to its predecessors and to the many dedicated people who guided the current work to successful completion. This report has been nurtured in the stimulating intellectual community formed by the collaboration of The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, under the leadership of its new president, Lee Shulman, with The National Center for Postsecondary Improvement (NCPI), directed by Patricia Gumport. One of a family of projects on community college teaching sponsored by NCPI and The Carnegie Foundation, this study also contributes to The Foundation’s program on scholarship in teaching throughout higher education. The National Survey of Faculty, 1997 was envisioned by The Carnegie Foundation’s past president, Ernest L. Boyer, as a way to mark a quarter century of Foundation survey work on college and university faculty. Interim president, Charles Glassick, gave strong support to the project after Boyer’s death, seeing it as a capstone, as well, to The Foundation’s recent studies on faculty roles and rewards. In addition to authorizing the survey, Dr. Glassick worked with the survey team on the general organization of the study and in selecting issues to address. The Foundation’s new president, Lee Shulman, encouraged us to bring the project through to completion. His close reading and insightful comments have contributed much to this report. Special thanks are due Mary Jean Whitelaw, former Director of Data Management at The Carnegie Foundation, who designed and orchestrated the project from beginning to end. In addition to overseeing the technical aspects of the survey design, Ms. Whitelaw led the survey team in developing the questionnaire, and sought and summarized advice from other Carnegie colleagues, and from scholars and survey experts outside The Foundation. She coordinated arrangements with Wirthlin Worldwide, who administered the survey, produced the cross-tabulated tables that serve as the basis for the data presented in this report, checked the numbers, and wrote the technical notes included as Appendix A. I am especially grateful for her advice on the analysis and interpretation of the results. The survey team—Mary Jean Whitelaw, Lois Harwood, Dale Coye, and myself—spent weeks reviewing, selecting, and formulating questions, seeking the right balance between new and old. Lois Harwood assisted in many other stages of the study, helping with survey design, sampling methodology, and project administration. Dale Coye provided valuable insight on issues particularly relevant to the Associated New American Colleges, which conducted a parallel survey of their faculty at the same time. Beth Norby deciphered, sorted, and organized our respondents’ written remarks on the questionnaires, so that the most relevant comments could be readily identified. Thanks too, to Dawn Berberian for creating the look

Page 10

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

and layout of the questionnaire, and to Jackie Calvert, for her extraordinary patience and skill in preparing the tables for this report. The 1997 National Survey of Faculty benefitted throughout from the advice of many colleagues. Robert Blackburn, Elaine El-Khawas, Martin Finkelstein, and Jack Schuster provided thoughtful opinions about whether to proceed with the survey, and about what issues deserved special attention. Kenneth C. Green critiqued the questionnaire and was particularly instrumental in helping us design technology-related questions. Jerry Berberet, executive director of the Associated New American Colleges, deserves special thanks. He worked tirelessly and diligently with us on the survey instrument, encouraging us to think creatively about issues important to faculty at different types of institutions. We are grateful also to Carnegie Foundation colleagues Stanley Ikenberry, Gene Maeroff, Lee Mitgang, and Michael Timpane for their helpful suggestions and review of the questionnaire. Mary Jean Whitelaw and Julie Kerekes made timely and insightful comments on the final text of this report. Thanks to Wirthlin Worldwide, who administered the survey with their customary good will and expertise. And finally, our deep gratitude to the 5,151 faculty who took the time and effort to answer our many questions about their professional life, and especially to those who went even further, to provide enriching and insightful commentary about the state of the academic profession today.

NCPI

Page 11

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching has surveyed college and university faculty in the United States six times over the last twenty-eight years. In 1969, 1975, 1984, 1989, 1992, and, again, in the spring of 1997, we asked professors to tell us about themselves, their institutions, and their opinions on a variety of issues important to students and parents, scholars, administrators, and public policymakers. Over the years, The Foundation has drawn upon these data to illuminate many aspects of the academic profession, from undergraduate teaching to the definition of scholarship, and from international comparisons of the professoriate to the evaluation of faculty work.1 Now, as part of a family of studies on teaching in community colleges undertaken in collaboration with the National Center on Postsecondary Improvement, we focus the spotlight for the first time on community college faculty. Our goal is to clarify the status and working conditions of professors in the most teaching-intensive sector of American higher education. Today, approximately one-third (31 percent) of the American professoriate teach at the nation’s 1,449 community colleges. These faculty are educating 39 percent of all students enrolled in higher education-including 46 percent of all first-time freshmen.2 To grasp the full range of community college teaching, however, one must realize that most of these institutions now offer a comprehensive set of programs. Nationwide, students intending to transfer to four-year institutions after receiving a two-year associate level degree are only a small proportion of today’s community college students. About four-fifths of community college students enroll in technical certificate programs, register for remedial or developmental education courses, or attend for continuing education purposes.3 Community college faculty stand out from many of their professorial colleagues not only because of the size and diversity of their sector of higher education, but also because teaching—far more than research or service—is the heart of their profession. The Carnegie Foundation’s 1997 faculty survey focused with special care on the nature of academic work, reflecting recent debates about the priorities of the professoriate and how faculty divide their time and effort among teaching, research, and service (in the sense of applied scholarship or outreach). Until recently, community college faculty—so clearly focussed on teaching—have enjoyed a special exemption from these debates. As Terry O’Banion, executive director of the League for Innovation in the Community College notes, “The unchallenged assumption was that the community college was the ‘teaching college,’ and the lack of research and publications on the part of its faculty was ironically cited as proof.”4 Today, there is a new emphasis on teaching and learning across higher education, and all institutions, including community colleges, are engaged in conversations about enhancing learning and bringing teaching up to date. While literature on the academic profession often treats faculty at two- and four-year institutions separately, this report highlights the situation of community college faculty by comparing their responses to our questions with those of faculty at other types of colleges and universities. Therefore, in addition to presenting data from community colleges (Associate of

Page 12

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

Arts Colleges), we also include findings from Research Universities, Doctoral Universities, Master’s Colleges and Universities, and Baccalaureate Colleges, as defined by The Carnegie Foundation’s A Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (see Appendix B). Our data do not allow us to compare faculty at different types of community colleges-primarily because there is as yet no widely accepted classification of these institutions.5 Nor is there time, here, to analyze differences and similarities of outlook and situation between faculty of different gender, age, rank, part- or full-time status, or disciplinary affiliation. We do, however, include historical data from earlier Carnegie surveys, as well as comments that faculty wrote in response to our final question: “Is there anything else you would like to tell The Foundation?” We have organized this report around defining themes of academic life. Chapter 2 provides a profile of our respondents, their demographic characteristics, education, current employment situation, and past careers. This raises an important caveat concerning part-time faculty. Nationwide, the proportion of part-time faculty has doubled in the past twenty-five years, growing from 22 percent in 1970 to 41 percent in 1995. Our survey aimed to include this fast-growing group of academics, but they remain nonetheless seriously underrepresented, accounting for only 13 percent of our respondents overall. Whereas the National Center for Education Statistics reports that 31 percent of faculty at four-year institutions and 64 percent at two-year institutions are employed part-time, part-timers account for only 9 percent of our respondents from four-year colleges and universities, and 21 percent from community colleges.6 Our findings, then, are weighted towards the perspective of fulltime faculty across the institutional spectrum. The next two chapters (3 and 4) focus on teaching and learning, examining faculty views of students, the joys and sorrows of teaching, and the goals of community college education. We find that despite widespread concern about the academic, motivational, even moral, preparation of students for collegiate education, community college faculty are quite satisfied with their students and committed to the educational mission of their institution. Our survey shows, too, that aside from a special regard for career preparation, community college faculty embrace most of the same goals for the education of undergraduates that their colleagues hold for collegiate education at institutions of other kinds. Faculty roles and rewards provide the themes for Chapters 5 and 6. The results of our 1997 national survey suggest that while community college faculty are indeed more heavily oriented to teaching than their colleagues at four-year colleges and universities, they are also more involved in research and service activities than stereotypes would have one believe. The survey also suggests that community college faculty are like professors elsewhere in recognizing a need for teaching to be better evaluated and rewarded, and to make teaching a more reflective and scholarly act. Indeed, at many campuses, a climate of innovation in teaching is already well underway. As one community college professor wrote: “This is a very exciting time at my college. Collaborative learning and teaching is the focus, and it is changing my views about the education process.” Faculty across the board have mixed views about the conditions of work, governance, and

NCPI

Page 13

the nature of community on campus, according to findings we report in Chapters 7 and 8. Community college instructors, in general, find their work less stressful than their colleagues, most notably because they are under little pressure to do research and produce publications. While these faculty tend to be satisfied with the core role of their profession— teaching—they are less sanguine about the more distant issues of how their colleges are run. In fact, few faculty at any type of institution believe they can have an impact on larger institutional affairs. Our survey shows, unfortunately, that the gap faculty perceive between themselves and campus administrators remains relatively large. What do community college faculty think about higher education’s relation to the larger society? In Chapter 9, we show that while community college faculty are less likely than other professors to take an international perspective in their academic work, they share with their colleagues a strong commitment to professional and social responsibility beyond the campus. Community college faculty may be more confident that academics are influential opinion leaders in our society, but share their colleagues’ concern that respect for academics is declining in society at large. These, of course, are just highlights from the far more complex and varied picture of faculty provided by Carnegie’s 1997 National Survey of Faculty. While not losing sight of the special missions of the community college, we conclude, there is much to be gained by looking at community college faculty as an integral part of the professoriate at large. The recent emergence of teaching and learning as a key issue in higher education foregrounds shared concerns about how well elementary and high schools are preparing young people for college, and about what colleges and universities can do to reengage students in learning. Increasing diversity of students and programs across higher education has renewed interest in the quality of campus community and given new life to the old question of whether faculty and administrators can work collegially toward common goals. The growing use of part-time faculty raises urgent questions about the health of the academic profession and the wellbeing of academic programs on campuses of all kinds. And finally, there is the continuing challenge of encouraging a broader range of faculty work. In two-year colleges, especially, there is a need to recognize and reward faculty who use research and professional service to link students to resources in the local community, while throughout higher education, there is a need to encourage innovation in the classroom and to strengthen scholarship in teaching.

NOTES 1. For example, we reported on data from our 1984 surveys of faculty and students in College: The Undergraduate Experience in America, by Ernest L. Boyer (New York: Harper and Row 1987) and in several issues of Change magazine in 1986 and 1987. Results from our 1989 survey appeared in The Condition of the Professoriate: Attitudes and Trends, 1989 (Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1989), and Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate by Ernest L. Boyer (Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1990). The Academic Profession: An International Perspective, by Ernest L. Boyer, Philip G. Altbach, and Mary Jean Whitelaw (Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching,

Page 14

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

1994) reported on data from our 1992 survey, which was conducted as part of a study of faculty in fourteen countries. We also drew on the 1992 findings for Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate, by Charles Glassick, Mary Taylor Huber, and Gene Maeroff (San Francisco: JosseyBass, Inc. and The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1997). 2. Statistics on the number of faculty and institutions are from the National Center for Education Statistics publication, Fall Staff in Postsecondary Institutions, 1995 (Table 2-1, p. 2-2; Table C-2, p.C-6). Enrollment statistics are preliminary figures for 1994, from the Digest of Education Statistics, Table 175, “Total fall enrollment in institutions of higher education by type and control of institution, attendance status, and sex of student: 1970 to 1994"(p. 182). The American Association of Community Colleges provides the figure for enrollment of first-time freshmen in “Facts about Community Colleges” on their website at http: //www.aacc.nche.edu. 3. For this figure, see Education Week, February 25, 1998, p.12. 4. Terry O’Banion, “Teaching and Learning: A Mandate for the Nineties,” in Teaching and Learning in the Community College, by Terry O’Banion and Associates (Washington, D.C.: Community College Press, 1994, p. 4). 5. Several previous attempts at classifying community colleges have not succeeded in establishing exclusive categories. A promising new attempt by Robert Zemsky and associates, under the auspices of the National Center for Postsecondary Improvement, divides the field into three groups. “Degree-focus” community colleges are those in which full-time enrollments account for at least 50 percent of total enrollment, and more than 15 percent of students are awarded two-year degrees and certificates each year. “Mixed focus” community colleges have full-time enrollments of at least 25 percent of total enrollment, and more than 10 percent of students are awarded two-year degrees and certificates each year. All remaining institutions are “course focus” community colleges in Zemsky’s classificatory scheme. Of 1,094 institutions with sufficient data publicly available, Zemsky and his associates found that 20 percent could be classified as “degree focus,” 40 percent as “mixed focus,” and 40 percent as “course focus” institutions. See The National Center for Postsecondary Improvement, “The User-Friendly Terrain: Defining the Market Taxonomy for Two-Year Institutions, “ Change, Jan/Feb 1998: 57-63. 6. Statistics on part-time faculty are from the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fall Staff in Postsecondary Institutions, 1995 (1998, Figure 2-3, p. 2-4). It is important to note that although nearly two-thirds of community college faculty work part-time, they do not teach two-thirds of the classes. Indeed, a recent study of part-time faculty in two-year colleges estimates that “part-timers currently teach about 30 to 40 percent of the full-time equivalent contract hours in American community colleges.” See John E. Roueche, Suanne D. Roueche, and Mark D. Milliron, Strangers in Their Own Land: Part-Time Faculty in American Community Colleges (Washington, D.C.: Community College Press, 1995, p.3).

NCPI

Page 15

CHAPTER 2: COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACULTY: A PROFILE Our inquiry focused first on a profile of community college faculty and their place within the professoriate as a whole. Throughout higher education, faculty respondents are 88 percent White, and 61 percent male. Although the racial balance does not vary greatly by institutional type, differences in gender are striking. The highest proportion of male faculty— around 70 percent—is found at research and doctoral universities (73 and 69 percent, respectively), while at master’s and baccalaureate institutions, it is 59 and 57 percent. Community colleges have the lowest proportion of men on their faculty, at 53 percent.1 Interestingly, these figures represent progress toward gender equity since 1992, although community colleges were more open to women academics then, as well. Most faculty are middle-aged, with an average age at all types of institutions between 49 and 51. Mobility is relatively low among community college faculty. Academics at community colleges have served an average of 18 years beyond the teaching assistant level in higher education, and have been at their current institution for an average of 14.5 years. Only faculty at research universities have been at their institutions for a longer time. As one would expect, the master’s degree is the highest degree earned by the majority of community college faculty responding to our survey (64 percent), while the Ph.D. is the highest degree earned for the majority of faculty at all other types of institutions, ranging from 57 percent at baccalaureate colleges to 81 percent at research universities. About 14 percent of community college faculty are currently working towards another degree. Community college professors’ fields of study reflect the missions of their institutions. In particular, we may note that a lower proportion of them have degrees in the liberal arts fields (humanities, social sciences, physical sciences, biological sciences, and psychology) than faculty at other types of institutions, and a higher proportion have degrees in applied fields like education, business, nursing, and technical/vocational subjects. Still, the top five disciplines in which community college faculty hold their degrees are quite similar to those in the other types of higher education institutions: education ( in all but research universities); humanities (across the board); business (in community colleges, baccalaureate colleges, and doctoral universities); fine arts (in community colleges, baccalaureate colleges, and master’s colleges and universities); and social sciences (in all). The physical sciences are the only fields among the top five in other institutions that are not as highly represented among community college faculty.2 Academic rank in community colleges differs markedly from other institutions. A smaller proportion of community college faculty hold the rank of professor, associate professor, or assistant professor. While these ranks account for over 80 percent of the faculty at research, doctoral, master’s, and baccalaureate institutions, they account for only 46 percent of the faculty at community colleges. Over one-third (38 percent) of community college faculty are instructors or lecturers, while this is the case for only about ten percent of faculty elsewhere.

Page 16

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

Community college faculty are more likely than others to hold their positions part-time. As explained earlier, part-timers are seriously underrepresented in our survey, but still account for one-fifth of our respondents at community colleges: the National Center for Education Statistics puts the actual figure at 64 percent.3 Although there are often many good reasons for part-time appointments, a large majority of our respondents from two-year colleges feel that part-timers are replacing full-timers. Indeed, they are more likely than their colleagues at other types of institutions to say that part-time and adjunct faculty fill jobs at their institutions that would otherwise be filled by regular faculty members—71 percent, as compared to around 65 percent at master’s and doctoral institutions; 56 percent at baccalaureate colleges; and 49 percent at research universities. Clearly, some part-timers at community colleges are fully employed professionals who bring to their teaching important ties to the community and state of the art knowledge. Still, many who wrote comments found the general trend towards part-time employment problematic. “At my institution,” one community college faculty member said, “full-time faculty are being replaced by part-time faculty as the established instructors retire or relocate, and they receive fewer benefits, are given inferior office space and technological equipment, and are given little hope of moving into full-time positions.” Another added that her department had a large pool of part-time faculty “who have no access to departmental meetings, decisionmaking processes, or current technologies.”4 How do salaries of our respondents compare? Overall, the annual (full-time basis) salary received by the largest proportion of baccalaureate college faculty is $30,000-$39,000 (nearly 30 percent), while the annual salary level received by the largest proportion of faculty in all other groups, including community colleges, is $40,000-$49,000 (from 20 to 24 percent). Even so, community college faculty are more likely than others to earn less than $30,000 on a fulltime basis (17 percent). At the upper end, however, just under a quarter of community college faculty are earning over $60,000—somewhat higher than at baccalaureate colleges (16 percent) and about the same as at master’s colleges and universities. Professors at research and doctoral institutions are far ahead, with about one half and one third respectively earning over $60,000 a year. When faculty are asked about outside earnings, nearly 30 percent of baccalaureate and community college faculty report earning nothing above and beyond their institutional salaries, compared to slightly fewer at master’s, doctoral, and research institutions. Interestingly, the proportion of faculty earning 50 percent or more of the value of their institutional salary from outside sources is similar (6 to 8 percent) at all types of institutions. We also asked faculty for their opinions on retirement. Across institutions, about one quarter favor a mandatory age of retirement for faculty. Although few feel that the major purpose of early retirement programs at their institution is to force out less productive faculty (from 10 percent at community colleges to 28 percent at research universities), only 34 to 40 percent would exercise an early retirement option if it were offered to them. Around half of all faculty agree that their institution provides the conditions and support for faculty to retire with dignity (ranging from 46 percent at master’s and doctoral institutions to 56 percent at

NCPI

Page 17

community colleges), and most intend to engage in research and professional writing during their retirement (from a low of 42 percent at community colleges to a high of 73 percent at research universities).

NOTES 1. Figures on faculty demographics from The National Center for Education Statistics for fall 1995 are similar to our findings for spring 1997. According to the NCES report, Fall Staff in Postsecondary Institutions, 1995, 86 percent of full-time faculty were white (p. 2-8); 60 percent of all faculty were male (p. 2-4); and men composed a smaller percentage of faculty in 2-year institutions (52 percent) than in 4-year institutions (64 percent) (p.2-6). 2. The table for this question lists only those fields in which 3 percent or more of community college faculty received their degrees. 3. See National Center for Education Statistics, Fall Staff in Postsecondary Institutions, 1995 (Figure 2-3, p. 2-4). 4. In a recent survey focussing on community college faculty’s connections to local labor markets Dominic Brewer and Maryann Gray concluded that “Part-time faculty, many of whom have strong community connections, are often unable to use these connections on behalf of the institution, largely as a result of their tenuous connection to the college.” See Connecting College and Community in the New Economy? An Analysis of Community College Faculty-Labor Market Linkages (Santa Monica, CA:Rand, 1997, p. vi). For wider discussion of the issues our respondents raised in their comments, see John E. Roueche, Susanne D. Roueche, and Mark D. Milliron, Strangers in their own Land: Part-Time Faculty in American Community Colleges (Washington, DC: Community College Press, 1995), and Judith M. Gappa and David W. Leslie, The Invisible Faculty: Improving the Status of Part-Timers in Higher Education (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1993).

Page 18

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

CHAPTER 3: TEACHING AND LEARNING: CONCERN AND COMMITMENT Community colleges serve a special group of students. A recent profile of public two-year institutions reports that, nationwide, their students are older than those attending four-year institutions, with 35 percent under age 21 (compared to 42 percent at other types of colleges and universities) and 36 percent older than age 30 (compared to 23 percent elsewhere). Nearly half (47 percent) of community college students work 35 or more hours a week (compared to 27 percent at four-year institutions), and about 40 percent come from families with incomes of less than $30,000 (compared to 28 percent of first-year students elsewhere). Further, community colleges serve half of the students in higher education who come from minority or ethnic backgrounds.1 Faculty at community colleges are very much aware of their institutions’ role in providing opportunities for students who might otherwise be unable to continue their formal education. In our survey, two-thirds of the faculty at community colleges strongly agree that access to higher education should be available to all who meet minimum entrance requirements—a higher proportion than faculty at master’s (55 percent), baccalaureate (54 percent), doctoral (50 percent), and research (49 percent) institutions. Of course, open access entails certain costs. While faculty at all types of colleges and universities say that their students could be better prepared for college work, underpreparation is most marked at community colleges, most of which are open to any who wish to enroll. Fewer faculty at two-year than at four-year institutions find their students adequately prepared in written and oral skills or in mathematics and quantitative reasoning skills. Only 14 percent of community college faculty give good marks to their students’ literacy skills, and even fewer praise their students’ training in math. Recently, much attention has been paid to the rise in number of remedial or “developmental” classes in higher education institutions of all kinds. Today, over 70 percent of community college faculty agree that their institution spends too much time and money teaching students what they should have learned in high school. But they are not alone. Their sentiment is shared by nearly as many of their colleagues at master’s colleges and universities (68 percent) and doctoral universities (66 percent), while faculty at research universities (62 percent) and baccalaureate colleges (56 percent) are not far behind. Although many professors told us in written comments that the problem is getting worse, Carnegie survey data indicate that the overall proportion of faculty holding this view has been almost constant since 1984, when the question was first asked. Faculty have other concerns about their students. Over two-thirds of community college faculty agree that students do just enough to get by academically, perhaps reflecting the fact that community college students are likely to be part-timers, coping with family and work responsibilities, or “experimenters,” trying college out and seeking some subject to turn them on.2 Around two-thirds of the faculty at community colleges also find students today more careerist and grade conscious than before, a finding in line with a general tendency toward a focus on preparation for the workplace among college students nationwide.3 The darker side

NCPI

Page 19

of these trends is revealed in the high proportion of faculty who believe that today’s students are also more likely to cheat to get good grades—42 percent at community colleges compared to 33 to 40 percent at other types of institutions. Professors from across the institutional spectrum commented that undergraduates, in general, seem to be losing their interest in learning. “Sure,” wrote one research university professor, “there is a small percentage of exceptional undergraduates who still have the quest for knowledge, who make teaching such a pleasure. But these days, the majority seem to be only interested in getting good letter grades with the least effort.” A faculty member from a baccalaureate college observed that “compared to their peers of the 1980s, the new students of the late 1990s seem to have a much diminished capacity and appetite for sustained academic effort over the course of the school year.” A community college professor confided: “I have observed that one of the most vexing problems we teachers face is that most of our students are unmotivated. They have learned that the educational system is a resource to be manipulated...not for purposes of learning and enlightenment, but for the purpose of financial advancement. The most cunning students have so mastered test-taking that they can pass a class without learning a thing.”4 Despite such concerns, our survey shows that, on the whole, community college faculty are satisfied with their students and committed to the special educational mission of their institutions. For example, over half of community college faculty say they are pleased with their students (57 percent), and most agree that faculty at their institutions are concerned with students’ academic progress (87 percent). Community college faculty rank near the top on both these measures, exceeded only by faculty at baccalaureate institutions. Indeed, when it comes to relationships with students, community college faculty are at the top, with 70 percent claiming to be very satisfied, as compared to 68 percent at baccalaureate colleges, and 55 to 60 percent at research, doctoral, and master’s institutions. Undergraduate teaching is ranked highly by community college faculty, with 82 percent saying it is very important to them personally. More than half feel that the quality of training they received in graduate school for their role as a teacher was excellent or good (53 percent), although fewer (43 percent) agree that new teachers at their institution are provided with adequate mentoring and support. Community college faculty do report innovation in teaching at their institutions. Over fourfifths say their department has experimented with the use of technology in instruction; around half say that interdisciplinary teaching is encouraged at their institution, and about a third say the same for team teaching. In addition, some 40 percent of community college faculty say that they regularly or occasionally supervise their students in service learning activities off campus about the same proportion as their colleagues at research and doctoral institutions, but less than faculty at master’s and baccalaureate colleges. Community college professors agree with their colleagues on one area for improvement: over half the faculty at all types of institutions say that faculty should spend more time with students outside the classroom.

Page 20

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

Community college teaching clearly has special problems, but also special rewards. As one community college professor told us: “I wouldn’t trade for teaching at a four-year university. I love the challenge and rewards of teaching the variety of ages and skill levels. These students are often unsure of what they want to do and often uncommitted to college. When we spark the excitement of learning and thirst for knowledge in them, we know we’ve really taught.”

NOTES 1. Patrick M. Callan, “Stewards of Opportunity: America’s Public Community Colleges,” Daedalus 126, no. 4 (1997): 95-112. Although Callan’s statistics are for public two-year colleges only, the National Center for Education Statistics reports that public institutions serve 96 percent of community college students. See Digest of Education Statistics 1996 ( Table 174, p.181). 2. The term “experimenter” is from C. Manski, “Schooling as Experimentation: A Reappraisal of the College Dropout Phenomenon,” Economics of Education Review 8 (1989):305-312, as cited in a manuscript by W. Norton Grubb and Associates, Honored but Invisible: Teaching in Community Colleges (New York: Routledge, 1999). See also W. N. Grubb, Working in the Middle: Strengthening Education and Training for the Mid-Skilled Labor Force (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996), Chapter 2. According to Grubb, community college instructors interviewed by his research team “are quite aware of how many students are experimenters—and what problems they pose for teaching since they are less interested in learning a course’s content than in using course enrollment to find out what they want—so they may not work hard at mastering the course itself” (Personal communication, April 21, 1998). 3. Alexander Astin and his colleagues in the Cooperative Institutional Research Program, have found an increase in materialistic values among college freshmen over the years. For example, “agreement with the statement that ‘the chief benefit of a college education is to increase one’s earning power’ increased from 53.6 percent to 70.9 percent between 1969 and 1989. Similarly, the proportion of students who say they are attending college “to be able to make more money” increased from 49.9 percent to 74.7 percent between 1971 and 1991.” See Alexander W. Astin, Sarah A. Parrott, William S. Korn, and Linda J. Sax, The American Freshman: Thirty Year Trends (Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA, 1997), p.13. 4. It is interesting to note that the Cooperative Institutional Research Program finds that American college freshmen in Fall, 1997 “exhibit higher levels of [academic] disengagement...than any previous entering class of students.” They are more likely to report being frequently “bored in class” during their last year of high school, to have “overslept and missed class or appointment,” and to spend less time “studying or doing homework.” See Linda J. Sax, Alexander W. Astin, William S. Korn, and Kathryn M. Mahoney, The American Freshman: National Norms for Fall 1997 (Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA, 1997), p.2.

NCPI

Page 21

CHAPTER 4: THE GOALS OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE EDUCATION Most community colleges are now comprehensive institutions, providing a variety of educational services, from general liberal arts education for students hoping to transfer to a fouryear institution, to specialized occupational training programs, remedial or developmental education, and enrichment courses of all kinds. Our survey shows, however, that community college faculty embrace most of the same goals for the education of undergraduates that their colleagues hold for collegiate education at institutions of other kinds. Community college faculty hold career preparation in especially high regard, but literacy, problemsolving, and a variety of social and civic skills are valued by faculty across the board. When asked which outcomes of higher education are very important for undergraduates, the overwhelming favorites of community college faculty are the development of oral and written communication (89 percent), and of analysis and problem solving abilities (86 percent). These are followed by such reflective accomplishments as self-knowledge (66 percent) and tolerance of diversity (62 percent). Around half of community college faculty place high priority on students’ development of firm moral values and enhanced creative capacities, while 40 to 45 percent mention academic content: appreciation for literature and the arts, and science and technological literacy. Knowledge of one subject in depth and international understanding are chosen by fewer respondents as very important outcomes of undergraduate education. The only outcome highly favored by community college faculty that is notably different from those chosen by faculty at other institutions is—not surprisingly—preparation for a career. This outcome is considered very important by 59 percent of community college faculty, but by only 34 to 41 percent of faculty elsewhere. We also asked faculty about their institution’s performance. A markedly higher proportion of faculty at community colleges than at other types of institutions rate their institution’s performance as excellent or good at serving nontraditional age students effectively (85 percent, compared to the next highest, master’s institutions, at 62 percent) and at preparing undergraduates for a vocation or career (83 percent, as compared to the next highest, baccalaureate colleges, at 72 percent). Community college faculty are satisfied with the course of study at their institutions: only a quarter agree that the undergraduate curriculum at their college is in serious need of reform. They also believe their institutions are doing a satisfactory job of general education, with four out of five rating their performance as excellent or good—about the same proportion as baccalaureate college faculty. Interestingly, however, a sizeable minority (43 percent) say they prefer teaching courses on limited specialties to those which cover wide varieties of material-about the same proportion as faculty elsewhere. A middling range of community college instructors give good to excellent grades to their institution’s capacity to provide opportunities for students to explore personal interests through electives or to explore a subject in depth through the major (64 and 63 percent, respectively). Around 40 percent or fewer rate highly their institution’s performance in

Page 22

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

strengthening the values of undergraduates, offering students opportunities to experience and understand leadership, or to engage in public and/or community service. The greatest challenge is in developing a sense of campus community. Perhaps reflecting the heavily commuter and part-time student bodies at these institutions, only a quarter of community college faculty feel that their institution performs well in this regard. Community colleges’ special circumstances are also reflected in faculty’s views of what might improve undergraduate education. More faculty at community colleges than elsewhere agree on the desirability of giving students a stronger mix of theory and practice in their academic experience (80 percent) and making education more relevant to contemporary lives and problems (67 percent). Given the fragmented nature of the academic and vocational programs at many community colleges, it is also understandable that faculty at these institutions feel it is important to place more emphasis on a common core of courses for all students (61 percent). Conversely, fewer faculty at community colleges than elsewhere agree that undergraduate education would be better if less emphasis were placed on specialized training and more on broad liberal education (40 percent).

NCPI

Page 23

CHAPTER 5: FACULTY ROLES IN A TEACHING INSTITUTION In a “teaching institution” like the community college, it is not surprising to find that a large majority of the faculty are oriented more toward teaching than toward research. Yet community college faculty are not alone. National debates may have cast doubt on the commitment of college and university faculty to educating students, but our survey shows that most faculty say their interests lie primarily in or lean toward teaching. In fact, this has long been the case. Beginning from a high of 76 percent of the professoriate in 1969 and declining to a low of 70 percent in 1984, the proportion has risen steadily since to today’s figure of 73 percent. International findings for faculty in four-year institutions underscore the distinctiveness of this profile. The Carnegie Foundation’s 1992 International Survey of the Academic Profession in four-year or senior institutions, showed a high level of interest in teaching among faculty in only five of fourteen countries: Russia (68 percent), Chile (67 percent), Mexico (65 percent), the United States (63 percent), and Brazil (62 percent). In the nine other countries, more than half the faculty responded that their interests were more in research, with Japan and the Netherlands, at over 70 percent, leading the way. This is not to say that the sectors of American higher education are all the same. Indeed, when we look more closely at these data, differences appear among faculty in different types of institutions. Not surprisingly, the number of faculty who say their interests are primarily in or leaning toward teaching is highest in community colleges (nearly 95 percent) and lowest in research universities (43 percent), with baccalaureate colleges and master’s colleges and universities in between. No doubt many faculty at community colleges were attracted to those institutions through their interest in teaching, and, indeed, two-thirds say this orientation has not changed over time. Like their colleagues in other types of institutions, however, a notable number of community college faculty have learned to take a greater interest in teaching. Across the board, 28 percent of respondents say their interests have shifted more toward teaching over the course of their professional life. Certainly, community college faculty report spending more time teaching than faculty at other types of institutions. The numbers are most striking for formal classroom instruction, where community college faculty report that they spent around 15 hours a week teaching undergraduates during the fall of 1996, as compared to 10 hours a week for faculty at baccalaureate and master’s institutions, 7.5 hours a week for faculty at doctoral institutions, and 6 hours a week for faculty at research universities. Community college faculty also spent more time providing student tutorial aid (5 hours a week) and academic advising (4 hours a week) than faculty at other types of institutions. Preparation for teaching took up 11.5 hours per week- more than faculty at research universities (10 hours), about the same as faculty in doctoral institutions, but less than faculty at baccalaureate and master’s institutions, who reported spending around 13 hours a week preparing to teach.1 For many community college faculty, scholarship does not mean engaging in original re-

Page 24

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

search so much as keeping up to date in their field. As one professor told us: “My reading is important to my teaching. I run to keep abreast of developments and include them in the courses I teach.” Given their heavy teaching responsibilities, it is not surprising that community college faculty spend less time in original research and/or comparable scholarly activities than their colleagues elsewhere (around 6 hours, as compared to 18 for research university faculty). But this does not mean that these professors only teach. Although it is true that very few community college faculty (5 percent) report that regular research activity is expected in their position, about 40 percent say that they are currently engaged in scholarly work that they expect to lead to a publication, exhibit or performance, and about 20 percent report that they have received a grant or special funding support for research in the last three years. Most of the grants received by community college faculty are small—about half for amounts under $5,000. However, about a quarter of the grants are for $5,000-$24,999, another quarter for grants over $25,000, with 4 percent of our community college respondents reporting research grants of $500,000 or more. Most of this funding comes from government sources (47 percent), followed in frequency by the institutions themselves (39 percent), private foundations (26 percent), and business firms (9 percent). The pattern differs from that of other faculty primarily in regard to the availability of institutional resources for research. Four-year colleges and universities support a much larger proportion of faculty research. The number is only 39 percent in two-year institutions, but ranges from 48 to 63 percent elsewhere. Community college faculty are also actively engaged in applied scholarship (consulting or professional service). Again, relatively few (17 percent) report that consulting is seen as a component of scholarship at their college. Still, during the past year, 78 percent of faculty in community colleges worked as a paid or unpaid consultant with a variety of organizationsover half with educational institutions, one third with business or industry, and around one fifth each with local government and private social service agencies. This pattern of consulting is similar across the board in higher education—both in regard to the proportion of faculty consultants and the kinds of clients they serve. The only exception concerns national government agencies, for which 30 percent of research university faculty report working, but only around 15 percent of doctoral and master’s institution faculty, and 6 to 7 percent of baccalaureate and community college faculty. Overall, about 29 percent of the time faculty spent in these various activities during the last year was paid, while around a fourth of all faculty said that from an economic standpoint, it was necessary for them to engage in paid consulting work. Community college faculty do not report much of a conflict among their professional activities, perhaps because their commitment to teaching is so clear. Unlike many of their colleagues at other types of institutions, community college professors see neither negative or positive interaction between their research and teaching activities. For example, few say that the quality of teaching at their institution is reduced by the pressure to publish, and only 27 percent agree that one must be engaged in research to be a good teacher (as compared to 55 to 72 percent elsewhere). It is also worth noting that few faculty anywhere, including com-

NCPI

Page 25

munity colleges, consider service activity beyond their institution a distraction that competes with other academic responsibilities.2 Indeed, among community college faculty, there is a very clear sense of what activities should count. Over four-fifths believe that teaching effectiveness should be the primary criterion for promotion of faculty—far higher than faculty at other types of institutions. Interestingly, however, only 38 percent believe that faculty evaluation at their institution currently gives appropriate weight to teaching, research, and service. Fully half the faculty at community colleges would like their departments to give more recognition to the role of professional service and the applied aspects of knowledge—a proportion quite similar to their colleagues elsewhere.

NOTES 1. These figures do not add up to total work time: in addition to the endeavors mentioned here, we asked respondents to estimate the hours per week they spent during the past fall term on other activities as well: formal classroom instruction in graduate or professional courses, institutional service, clinical practice, consulting with or without pay, and other employment. 2. For a discussion of the ways in which community college faculty are linked to their local labor markets and wider communities and of how these links are used or not used to benefit the college, see Dominic Brewer’s and Maryann Gray’s report on their recent survey of community college faculty, Connecting College and Community in the New Economy? An Analysis of Community College Faculty-Labor Market Linkages (Santa Monica, CA:Rand, 1997).

Page 26

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

CHAPTER 6: EVALUATION Faculty evaluation is where rhetoric about faculty roles meets the reality of rewards for professional work. Efforts to encourage faculty to broaden their range of scholarly activity— to develop new research topics, engage in professional service, undertake interdisciplinary projects, or improve teaching—cannot succeed if the quality of this work is seldom measured, inadequately weighed in decisions about career advancement and salaries, or if it is judged by standards that are inappropriate or unclear.1 Understandably, faculty at community colleges suffer less from mixed messages than their colleagues at institutions with complex missions of teaching, research, and service. However, because teaching is the major activity on which faculty at two-year institutions are evaluated, how well it is evaluated takes on special importance in this setting. At community colleges, 97 percent of faculty report that their teaching activities are regularly evaluated; 47 percent report the same of their service to the institution; 16 percent cite their research and/or other creative work; and only 14 percent note regular evaluation of their applied scholarship or outreach. This pattern is quite distinctive. Virtually all faculty at all types of institutions report the regular evaluation of teaching. But a far smaller proportion of faculty at two-year than at four-year institutions report the regular evaluation of other faculty roles. For research and/or other creative work, the numbers at four-year institutions range from 57 to 86 percent; for service to the college or university, from 67 to 75 percent; and for applied scholarship or outreach, from 25 to 40 percent. Who evaluates can be as important as what gets evaluated and how often evaluation is done. At community colleges, faculty say that teaching is regularly appraised by students (84 percent), head of their department (77 percent), departmental peers (51 percent), senior administrative staff (34 percent), and members of other departments at their institution (16 percent). Those few reporting regular evaluation of research note especially department head (67 percent) and departmental peers (43 percent). Just under a quarter of community college faculty say their research is subject to external review, but even at research universities, the proportion is only 44 percent. Given the relatively minor role of academic research in faculty evaluation at community colleges, it is understandable that fewer professors at these institutions report a need for better ways, besides publications, to evaluate the scholarly performance of faculty (42 percent compared to over 60 percent elsewhere). When it comes to teaching, however, they join their colleagues in claiming that better ways are needed to evaluate performance (67 percent as compared to 70 percent or more elsewhere). Most college and university faculty, including those at community colleges, agree that student opinions should be used in evaluating teaching effectiveness—around 70 percent at all types of institutions. But an even higher proportion agree that peer review should be used in evaluations of teaching—74 percent at community colleges (somewhat lower than elsewhere), and 77 percent overall. Our survey results reflect some of the past decade’s experiments in faculty evaluation,

NCPI

Page 27

particularly the rapid pace of innovation in reporting, documenting, and evaluating teaching. Over one-third of faculty overall (including community college faculty) report that new methods of evaluating teaching have been developed in their departments. Still, comments suggest that the pace of change is uneven, and methods of documentation and evaluation have not yet caught up to innovation in teaching itself. As one doctoral university respondent said: “I feel that there has been increased emphasis placed on teaching at our institution in the past few years. This emphasis has encompassed innovative approaches to increase critical thinking skills in the classroom and technology related to distance learning. This shift of emphasis has been beneficial to student learning. Unfortunately, the means to evaluate effective teaching has not kept pace.” Respondents to our survey suggest that evaluation has not changed much for other types of faculty work. Many educators have suggested placing less reliance on numbers of publications and size of grants in appraising research, and advocates of integrative and applied scholarship have come forward with proposals to enhance the visibility and legitimacy of these activities in academe. So far, however, they have had little impact on campus. Few faculty report new developments in the evaluation of research, applied scholarship/outreach, or service to the college or university. On the whole, respondents give lukewarm endorsement to the quality of faculty evaluation on their campuses. Although 57 percent of all faculty say that most people in their field agree on the standards of good scholarship, only 15 percent say so “strongly.” And while nearly three-quarters agree that their own performance has been evaluated fairly at their institution, only about a third strongly agree that these reviews have been fair. Community college faculty stand out well in this regard, with 40 percent agreeing strongly that they have been fairly evaluated, compared to 25 to 34 percent elsewhere. The reform movement in higher education has called not only for improvement in the ways in which faculty are evaluated, but for change in the weighting of different kinds of faculty work. Thus we also asked our respondents whether, in their experience, various activities count more or less today for purposes of faculty advancement than they did five years ago. The figures from community colleges are in marked contrast with other types of institutions. At community colleges, only small proportions report any change in the low value attributed to research and applied scholarship. However, about 15 percent say that service to the college counts more today, and 18 percent say that teaching—always important—has an even higher weight. At four-year institutions, by contrast, faculty say that research continues to rise in importance. About one third of the faculty report that research counts more today than it did five years ago at research universities (where research has long been important) and at baccalaureate colleges (where it has mattered less). And at master’s and doctoral institutions, the proportion reporting that research counts more now is over 40 percent. Across the board, very few say research and/or creative work counts less. The story in regard to teaching is more mixed. At baccalaureate, master’s, and doctoral

Page 28

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

colleges and universities only slightly more faculty (19 to 25 percent) say teaching counts more today than those (13 to 20 percent) who say it counts less. But at the research universities, reformers may be able to point to some success. Faculty at these institutions point to the biggest change in regard to teaching: 45 percent report that teaching counts more for purposes of advancement than it did five years ago, while only 13 percent report that it counts less. Two other figures relate to the alignment of faculty evaluation with institutional missions and goals. The largest change in the importance of applied scholarship is reported by faculty at master’s colleges and universities (with 21 percent saying that outreach counts more today), while the largest change in the importance of service to the college or university is reported by faculty at baccalaureate colleges (with 19 percent saying that citizenship counts more now than it did before). On the whole, relatively few faculty wish that their institution would set clearer priorities for the kind of work faculty should do. Indeed, at community colleges (and baccalaureate colleges), over three-fourths of the faculty agree that the stated missions of their institution are clear to the faculty, and around 70 percent say that the institution’s goals for undergraduates are clear a statement with which fewer than half the faculty at research and doctoral institutions would agree. Nonetheless, community college faculty do not generally find the reward system entirely in tune with institutional missions. Fewer than half—44 percent—of community college faculty agree that their institution is consistent in what it expects faculty to do and how it rewards them—and the number is considerably less at master’s and research institutions (31 percent) and at doctoral universities (27 percent). This may reflect the need, across higher education, for teaching to be better evaluated and to count more in the system of faculty rewards.

NOTES 1. See Charles Glassick, Mary Taylor Huber, and Gene Maeroff, Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. and The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1997).

NCPI

Page 29

CHAPTER 7: WORKING CONDITIONS The two-year sector of American higher education expanded enormously in the 1960s and 1970s, and while many community colleges today are situated on relatively new and attractive campuses, they have also experienced the stress and strain of rapid growth. These colleges’ physical facilities, along with the administrative, educational, and intellectual environments they support, help shape faculty productivity and morale. We included in our survey many questions designed to explore these conditions as sources of satisfaction and frustration in college faculty’s professional lives. We found that professors working at community colleges are the most satisfied faculty in higher education. Nearly 60 percent say that “this institution is a very good place for me”—a figure considerably higher than faculty at other types of colleges and universities. Although community college faculty are by no means the best paid, they are more likely than their colleagues to say that their academic salaries are excellent or good. Indeed, community colleges are the only setting in which over half the faculty—57 percent—give their salaries such a high rating. In research universities, where faculty earn the most, 49 percent report satisfaction, but the figure is closer to only 35 percent for faculty at doctoral, master’s, and baccalaureate institutions. Community college faculty stand out from their colleagues in several other ways, too. Fewer professors at community colleges report that their job is a source of considerable personal strain (33 percent), and more faculty agree that they are more enthusiastic about their work now than when they began their academic careers (51 percent). This is not to deny that community college faculty are subject to pressures that affect faculty everywhere. For example, professors at two-year colleges are almost as likely as their colleagues at doctoral, master’s, and baccalaureate institutions to say that their teaching load is stressful. They are only somewhat less likely than faculty at four-year institutions to agree that they hardly ever get the time to give a piece of work the attention it deserves, although fewer community college faculty feel they have less control of their time now than they had five years ago. Still, it is the case that community college faculty are less likely to report stress on a wide variety of measures. The highest sources of stress over the past two years for community college faculty have been the campus bureaucracy-institutional procedures and ‘red tape’— and time allocation between work and family (58 and 55 percent). These are followed by teaching load (47 percent), committee work (46 percent), and student demands (41 percent), but less than one third say that their own review or promotion process was particularly stressful, and even fewer are troubled by relationships with colleagues or evaluating colleagues for promotion. Perhaps the greatest difference between two-year and four-year college faculty concerns faculty roles and rewards. Whereas 58 percent of research university faculty find demands for research and publishing a source of stress, these trouble only 8 percent of faculty at community colleges. The story is more mixed in regard to the social and physical infrastructure that supports

Page 30

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

faculty work. Overall, more than half of community college respondents rate their institution’s facilities, resources, and personnel as excellent or good. This puts them in the middle rank. Those more satisfied are at baccalaureate and research institutions (59 and 57 percent, respectively), while those less satisfied are at master’s and doctoral colleges and universities (49 and 47 percent, respectively). Community college faculty rate access to their colleagues very highly (three-quarters marking excellent or good); over three-fifths rate their classroom space as excellent or good; and at least half say the same of technology for teaching, laboratories, and computer facilities at their institutions. Still, community college faculty tend to rate the technology infrastructure at their institutions less highly than faculty at other institutions. Although 58 percent think their e-mail capability excellent or good, this does not compare well with 72 to 88 percent elsewhere. Likewise, fewer community college faculty think highly of their access to the internet and to library/ on-line resources. User support is a problem not just at community colleges, but throughout higher education. Only at research universities do over half the faculty give user support good grades. Frustrations aside, community college faculty are satisfied with their jobs. Over 80 percent claim to be either very or somewhat satisfied with their job situation as a whole. Indeed, community college faculty have the highest proportion who are very satisfied (41 percent). Over 90 percent are very or somewhat satisfied with the courses they teach, and 85 percent say the same about relationships with colleagues. Fewer express satisfaction with the way their departments are managed (66 percent) or with the way their institutions are managed (38 percent). Overall, these data suggest that faculty are generally satisfied with many critical parts of their job, but not with the more distant institutional issues of how their colleges and universities are run. The quality of intellectual life available to college and university faculty is widely perceived as one of academia’s greatest rewards. Professors across the board agree that this is an especially creative and productive time in their field—from 72 percent at research universities and baccalaureate colleges to 75 percent at master’s colleges and universities and at community colleges. Some of this vitality is reflected in the finding that 70 percent of all faculty say that their interests have become more interdisciplinary in recent years. Only a third or so would agree that this is a poor time for a person to begin a career in their field, and only 1 in 10 would agree that they would not become a college teacher, if they had it do over again.

NCPI

Page 31

CHAPTER 8: GOVERNANCE AND COMMUNITY ON CAMPUS Strengthening community on campus remains a critical issue for colleges and universities across the country. As students and faculty become more diverse and as academic programs proliferate, it is harder to perceive shared interests and common goals. Because community colleges have experienced especially rapid change in the past 30 years, it is not surprising that tensions are particularly evident concerning institutional governance and administration. Our surveys document these changes in faculty perception over time. Overall, the proportion of academics who say that the sense of community on campus is excellent or good has declined from 37 percent in 1989 and 1992 to 27 percent today. At community college campuses, the change has been particularly marked: 45 percent of the faculty gave high marks to the sense of community on campus in 1989, while only 27 percent did so in 1997. One community college professor told us that on her campus, “individuals spend an ever-decreasing amount of time on teaching, keeping up with the field, and in committee work, because they are spending more time on personal goals or income producing activities unrelated to the goals of the department or institution.” Of course, the numbers vary by type of institution. In 1997, about half the faculty at baccalaureate colleges rated the sense of community on campus highly. At research universities, as at community colleges, the number was only 27 percent, while at master’s and doctoral institutions, it was even less. Like faculty across higher education, most community college professors (80 percent) say that their disciplines are very important to them personally; over half (57 percent) feel as strongly about their department; and under half (45 percent) claim such a close connection to the institution itself. Departments, of course, are faculty members’ disciplinary homes on campus, and while nearly half of community college faculty (47 percent) say that faculty in their department have little contact with faculty in other departments, few feel that their departmental colleagues tend to isolate themselves from the world outside. Indeed, threequarters of community college faculty rate the academic reputation of their department outside their institution as excellent or good, and over half feel highly valued and appreciated. The division between faculty’s evaluation of department and institution closely reflects their sense of personal empowerment. Over half of all faculty believe they have a great deal or quite a bit of opportunity to influence the policies of their department, while far fewer believe they have much opportunity to influence the policies of their institutions. At community colleges, the figures are 58 percent and 15 percent, respectively. Participation is also greatest at the departmental level. At community colleges, 89 percent of faculty report that they take part in departmental faculty meetings; about two-thirds attend meetings of campus-wide committees; and about one-third go to faculty senate meetings. Participation at the campus-wide level through committees and faculty senate is highest at baccalaureate institutions (78 and 60 percent respectively) and lowest at research universities

Page 32

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

(50 and 19 percent). A similar gap is evident in faculty’s assessment of governance at their institutions. Community college professors are most sanguine about departmental affairs. Few think that junior faculty have too little say in the running of their department, or that faculty meetings in their department are a waste of time. At the institutional level, however, only 38 percent of community college respondents say faculty governance works effectively at their institution, and opinions about the administration are mixed. Just under half the faculty agree that top-level administrators are providing competent leadership, while just over half claim that communication between the faculty and the administration is poor. Fewer (44 percent) say that their institution is managed effectively, while only about one third think that relationships between administration and undergraduates and between administration and faculty are excellent or good. Faculty rate other features of campus community more highly. For example, 83 percent of community college faculty say that relationships between faculty and students are excellent or good. Just over 60 percent agree that there is a strong sense of institutional pride on their campus, and about the same proportion are confident about student morale. Half the faculty at two-year colleges say that the intellectual environment on campus is excellent or good— fewer than at research universities (67 percent) and baccalaureate institutions (58 percent), but about the same as faculty at master’s and doctoral institutions. Most community college respondents agree that female faculty (85 percent) and minority faculty (82 percent) are treated fairly at their institutions—as compared to about three quarters of faculty at other types of institutions. Nor do many community college faculty think that racial and ethnic conflicts (21 percent) or gender issues (17 percent) are a problem among students at their institutions—a lower figure than at other types of colleges and universities. Still, only 41 percent of community college faculty rate the overall quality of campus life as excellent or good, and 44 percent of community college faculty agree that the quality of life at their institution is of greater concern today than it was a few years ago.

NCPI

Page 33

CHAPTER 9: HIGHER EDUCATION AND SOCIETY What are faculty’s attitudes about higher education’s role in society beyond the campus? Our survey results suggest that community college faculty have a strong commitment to professional and institutional responsibility beyond the campus. However, their involvement is less likely than that of other faculty to extend beyond our nation’s shores. Community colleges are, by mission, local institutions, and it is understandable that community college faculty tend to have fewer connections with academics abroad than their colleagues at four-year colleges and universities. For example, very few have ever worked abroad to do research, take a sabbatical, or as part of an exchange program (23 percent). For faculty at other types of institutions, the proportion is considerably higher: master’s (36 percent); baccalaureate (39 percent); doctoral (42 percent); and research (58 percent). Likewise, few agree that connections with scholars in other countries are very important to their professional work (29 percent, as compared with 46 to 69 percent elsewhere), or that their institution should recruit more international students and faculty (28 percent, as compared to 38 to 48 percent elsewhere). Community college faculty are also less likely than their colleagues to agree that universities and colleges should do more to promote student and faculty mobility from one country to another (54 percent as compared to 61 to 68 percent elsewhere). Even in regard to academic content, community college faculty are less likely to turn to international material. While half agree that one must read books and journals published abroad in order to keep up with developments in their discipline (54 percent), this compares with two-thirds to three-fourths of their colleagues elsewhere who agree. The pattern is the same in regard to curriculum. Around half the faculty at four-year institutions say that the curriculum at their institution should be more international in focus. At community colleges, the proportion is just over one third. With increasing globalization, however, community colleges may find international studies more relevant to their local communities and thus an area for future growth. Community college faculty join their colleagues at other types of institutions in regarding social responsibility and civic engagement as obligations of academic life. Few faculty at any type of institution believe that academic scholars should aim to advance knowledge without regard for the possible implications to society (from 23 to 31 percent). Further, most agree that scholars in their discipline have a professional obligation to apply their knowledge to problems in society (from 63 percent at community colleges to 73 percent at master’s institutions). Community college faculty are somewhat more likely than their colleagues to claim a professional obligation to collaborate with teachers in elementary and secondary schools (60 percent, as compared to a low of 42 percent at research universities), and 70 percent of community college faculty agree that universities have a responsibility to contribute to the economic development of their communities. However, as compared to about two-thirds of their

Page 34

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

colleagues elsewhere, only 55 percent of professors at community colleges agree that their own institution should be actively engaged in solving social problems. Might this relate to a conviction that the community college’s educational mission in itself serves an important social and economic role? As one of our respondents said, “The two-year community college is one of this nation’s greatest resources. We provide the opportunity for any person to obtain a higher education.” Academics may be confident about the social value of their work, but they are less sure that their contribution is widely appreciated. Community college faculty are more convinced than their colleagues that academics are among the most influential opinion leaders in our society (49 percent as compared to 32 to 40 percent at other types of institutions). But community college faculty join other academics in their belief that respect for academics is declining in society at large (71 to 74 percent at all types of institutions). Indeed, like other academics, community college faculty hold a somewhat negative view of the political climate for scholarly work. Seven out of 10 agree that the effectiveness of higher education is being threatened by growing bureaucracies, and only 4 in 10 agree that there are no political or ideological restrictions in this country on what a scholar may publish.

NCPI

Page 35

CHAPTER 10: REFLECTIONS Community colleges occupy a critical niche in higher education—or, more precisely, several critical niches. Men and women, many of whom might otherwise not continue their education, come to these institutions in order to begin college in a relatively low-cost, close-tohome setting. Others come for a certificate in a technical or vocational field or participate in a training program offered by a community college at their company, on site. Some come to community colleges for a high school equivalency diploma, for remedial or developmental instruction in language arts or mathematics, or to learn English as a second language. Many just take courses-short courses, long courses, in-between courses-looking for a subject to interest them, seeking enrichment, perfecting skills. Although these varied students and programs give teaching in community colleges unique features, faculty at two-year institutions share many concerns with their colleagues in fouryear colleges and universities. Looking at results from The Carnegie Foundation’s National Survey of Faculty, 1997, four issues stand out that will be critical to the future of the academic profession at higher education institutions of all kinds: access and standards, community on campus, the status of part-time faculty, and the scope of scholarly work. Each of these issues has a special inflection in the two-year college context. Access and Standards. For the past century, the two-year college has made higher education accessible to an increasingly wide range of students. Community college faculty are well aware of the privileges of serving on the front line of educational democratization. They express strong commitment to access to higher education for all who meet minimum entrance requirements, embrace a comprehensive set of goals for their students, find considerable satisfaction with the courses they teach, and—for the most part—take a good deal of pleasure in their students. This is good news for the men and women who attend two-year colleges, and speaks well for the remarkable progress this country has made in extending opportunities for higher—and further—education. At the same time, however, community college faculty experience democratization’s inevitable dilemmas. First, there is the continuing tension between access and standards. Community college faculty express deep concern about the adequacy of students’ preparation for college-level work, and many worry about the time and resources their institution devotes to teaching what should have been learned in high school. There is also tension between educators’ and students’ understanding of academic success. Community college faculty say that many students do just enough to get by in their courses and that many are willing to cheat to get good grades. Clearly, access to college—whether for purposes of education, job training, developing skills, or enrichment—can have real educational meaning only when students are both prepared and engaged. Community on Campus. Two-year colleges are called “community colleges” because they are active in their local region, and not because of the cohesive quality of campus life. Indeed, as students and academic programs at these institutions become ever more diverse, it is increas-

Page 36

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

ingly hard for students, faculty, and administrators to feel a sense of community—a sense of sharing interests, participation, and fellowship in a common enterprise. The good news is that community college faculty find their institution’s mission clear; the sense of institutional pride, strong; and student morale, good. The bad news is that these good things do not add up to a sense of community in the opinion of most of our respondents. The proportion giving high marks to the sense of community on their campus has dropped precipitously since 1989, and today, only 4 out of 10 rate the overall quality of campus life as excellent or good. Governance is a particularly thorny area. Faculty are satisfied with the way their departments are managed, participate regularly in departmental meetings, and do not find these meetings a waste of time. When it comes to faculty governance beyond the department, administrative leadership, and institutional management, however, faculty confidence weakens. Of course, tension between faculty and administrators is a long-standing issue in higher education institutions of all kinds. But respondents’ comments suggest that today’s tensions are being interpreted in a new light. Faculty at community colleges join their colleagues at four-year institutions in voicing concern that “business models” are replacing a “community of scholars model” of governance in higher education. Clearly, the challenge is for administrators and academics to work together to respond collegially to changing times. The Status of Part-Time Faculty. The status of part-time faculty is on many academic minds— especially in community colleges where nearly two-thirds of all faculty appointments are part-time. The employment of part-timers is an old practice in community colleges, it being apparent early on that instructors drawn from local schools, businesses, and other social and cultural institutions could lower costs and keep the college curriculum connected to local resources and needs. Over time, other rationales have been used to justify the employment of increasing numbers of faculty part-time. For example, it is said that a college can respond more flexibly to changing patterns of demand if faculty can be hired and let go as required. No one would deny that certain programs are strengthened by community-based practitioners willing and able to devote time to students. But this is not the typical part-timer from the perspective of our respondents, who overwhelmingly believe that part-time and adjunct faculty are filling jobs at their institution that would otherwise be filled by regular faculty members. The concern, as voiced in comments, is both for the health of the academic profession and for the well-being of the academic program. As one community college respondent wrote: “I believe that part-time, non tenure track instructors have too little voice in academic culture, and little access to the monetary and professional rewards of academic life.” If community colleges are to continue to attract and benefit from talented and dedicated scholars and professionals, it will be necessary to better empower and reward those who work part-time. The Scope of Faculty Scholarship. Community college faculty are teachers, first and foremost. But our survey shows that they are pursuing other scholarly activities as well. Around 40 percent are involved in research that they expect to lead to a publication, exhibit or performance and twice that number engage in consulting, or professional service. These activities

NCPI

Page 37

have great potential to enhance teaching and learning. The best teachers involve students in their research, while consulting strengthens faculty members’ ties to local businesses and organizations, giving them information that can be used to students’ advantage. Indeed, community colleges would be wise to explore policies that recognize and reward faculty who use research and professional service to enrich their students’ experience. The time is right for enhancing the scholarship of teaching in community colleges. Certainly, faculty report that many exciting things are happening in the classroom these days: for example, the use of technology in teaching, team teaching, interdisciplinary teaching, and service learning are making inroads across the academy. But the scholarship of teaching involves more than innovation in the classroom—it also entails efforts to make teaching public, to write and speak about teaching so that others can critique and build upon what one has learned. Some changes in the evaluation of teaching—especially the increasing popularity of portfolios and peer review—seem to be working in that direction. However, there’s still a long way to go. As one community college respondent remarked, “I recently returned from an exciting, intellectually invigorating conference. Unfortunately ideas and theories I learned there will not become an actual part of my teaching as I have no time for real planning or reflection. Too many demands are made on my time and energy and all of us lose.” Building a culture that supports innovation, reflection, and conversation about teaching and learning should be a priority across higher education, but especially for community colleges the nation’s premier “teaching institutions.” Community college teaching is a unique calling—one that many faculty, despite obvious frustrations, find especially satisfying. These scholars and professionals are not the best paid in higher education, nor are they the ones with secure positions, time to pursue research, or the perquisites and prestige available to those at other kinds of higher education institutions. Many of their students face high hurdles, but this is regarded by many community college faculty as an opportunity to be grasped. The remark of one of our respondents is worth repeating: “When we spark the excitement of learning and thirst for knowledge in them, we know we’ve really taught.” That kind of commitment is an asset that community colleges, as well as the localities and the nation they serve, should recognize, care for, and support.

Page 38

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

APPENDIX A: TECHNICAL NOTES The 1997 National Survey of Faculty is part of an ongoing effort at The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching to study trends in the attitudes of faculty at all types of colleges and universities across the United States. This survey builds upon five earlier surveys, which were administered in 1969, 1975, 1984, 1989 and 1992. In addition to updating core issues, this study introduces new questions dealing with current concerns in higher education. This most recent survey was conducted for The Carnegie Foundation by Wirthlin Worldwide of McLean, Virginia. The survey instrument is similar in length and complexity to the previous waves of the questionnaire. It is 12 pages long and includes 68 items, many of which have several parts, resulting in a total of more than 250 questions. The questionnaire takes 30 to 45 minutes to complete. Sections of the instrument address: personal inventory and demographic information, the working conditions of faculty, scholarly activities, institutional governance, goals of higher education, campus community, higher education and society, and the international dimensions of higher education. In determining the sampling design, careful consideration was given to methods used in previous studies. The sampling methodology most closely reflects that used in the 1989 National Survey of Faculty. A two-stage, stratified random sample design was used. In the first stage, universities and colleges (both four-year and two-year) were selected; in the second stage, faculty recipients were designated. In the first stage of the sampling, 306 colleges and universities were randomly selected for inclusion in the study. Approximately 34 institutions were randomly selected from each of the nine Carnegie classification categories. Within each of these categories, a school was selected with a likelihood proportionate to the size of its faculty compared to the other schools within that category. Once the 306 institutions were selected, nearly 10,000 faculty members were chosen for inclusion in the study, using lists maintained by CMG Information Services of Wilmington, Massachusetts. The sample was divided equally among the nine Carnegie classification categories creating sample sizes of 1,111 per group. Within each classification type, an n’th name selection was made. The schedule included a pre-test administered to 100 randomly selected faculty members in the fall of 1996. Following the pre-test, the questionnaire was revised for use in the full-scale study. In February and March of 1997, four first-class mailings were sent to the college and university faculty selected for inclusion in the survey: a pre-notification letter, the final questionnaire booklet, a reminder postcard, and a second copy of the questionnaire booklet. Completed questionnaires were accepted through May 1, 1997. Of the 9,991 questionnaires distributed to college and university faculty, 5,151 respondents

NCPI

Page 39

returned their questionnaires, representing a completion rate of 52 percent. The completion rate for specific Carnegie classification categories ranges from 43 percent for Associate of Arts Colleges to 58 percent for Baccalaureate Colleges I. For conducting analyses, faculty responses were weighted by Carnegie classification type, allowing the results to be projectable to the universe of colleges and universities. The targets for weighting are based upon actual total number of faculty for the 1995-96 school year. These figures are available from the National Center for Education Statistics and were obtained by The Foundation from John Minter Associates in Boulder, Colorado. The data presented in this report describe faculty at five types of institutions: Research, Doctoral, Master’s, Baccalaureate, and Associate of Arts, reflecting groupings of Carnegie classification categories described in Appendix B. The numbers in the tables have been rounded and, therefore, some of the rows and/or columns in the tables may not add to exactly 100 percent. For this reason, also, some numbers in the text do not match exactly the numbers in the tables. If you are interested in receiving a copy of the survey instrument, or if you would like further information on technical aspects of this study, such as sample design, response rates, and sample reliability, please contact The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 555 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, California 94025, or call The Foundation at (650) 849-8000.

Page 40

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

APPENDIX B: THE CARNEGIE OF HIGHER EDUCATION

CLASSIFICATION OF INSTITUTIONS

The 1994 Carnegie Classification includes all colleges and universities in the United States that are degree-granting and accredited by an agency recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education. It groups institutions into categories on the basis of the level of degree offered ranging from prebaccalaureate to the doctorate and the comprehensiveness of their educational programs. The categories are as follows: Research Universities I: These institutions offer a full range of baccalaureate programs, are committed to graduate education through the doctorate, and give high priority to research. They award 50 or more doctoral degrees each year. In addition, they receive annually $40 million or more in federal support. Research Universities II: These institutions offer a full range of baccalaureate programs, are committed to graduate education through the doctorate, and give high priority to research. They award 50 or more doctoral degrees each year. In addition, they receive annually between $15.5 million and $40 million in federal support. Doctoral Universities I: These institutions offer a full range of baccalaureate programs and are committed to graduate education through the doctorate. They award at least 40 doctoral degrees annually in five or more disciplines. Doctoral Universities II: These institutions offer a full range of baccalaureate programs and are committed to graduate education through the doctorate. They award at annually at least 10 doctoral degrees—in three or more disciplines—or 20 or more doctoral degrees in one or more disciplines. Master’s (Comprehensive) Colleges and Universities I: These institutions offer a full range of baccalaureate programs and are committed to graduate education through the master’s degree. They award 40 or more master’s degrees annually in three or more disciplines. Master’s (Comprehensive) Colleges and Universities II: These institutions offer a full range of baccalaureate programs and are committed to graduate education through the master’s degree. They award 20 or more master’s degrees annually in one or more disciplines. Baccalaureate (Liberal Arts) Colleges I: These institutions are primarily undergraduate colleges with major emphasis on baccalaureate degree programs. They award 40 percent or more of their baccalaureate degrees in liberal arts fields and are restrictive in admissions. Baccalaureate Colleges II: These institutions are primarily undergraduate colleges with major emphasis on baccalaureate degree programs. They award less than 40 percent of their baccalaureate degrees in liberal arts fields or are less restrictive in admissions.

NCPI

Page 41

Associate of Arts Colleges: These institutions offer associate of arts certificate or degree programs and, with few exceptions, offer no baccalaureate degrees. Specialized Institutions: These institutions offer degrees ranging from the bachelor’s to the doctorate. At least 50 percent of the degrees awarded by these institutions are in a single discipline. The Classification is described in further detail in A Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, 1994 Edition (Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1994). The book can be purchased from Jossey-Bass Publishers, 350 Sansome Street, San Francisco, California. The text is also available on The Foundation’s web site: The Carnegie Foundation’s National Survey of Faculty, 1997 did not include specialized institutions in the sample. For purposes of this report, we have grouped categories at the same level: Research Universities (I and II); Doctoral Universities (I and II); Master’s Colleges and Universities (I and II); Baccalaureate Colleges (I and II); and Associate of Arts Colleges. When we use the term “community college” in the text, we are referring to institutions designated as Associate of Arts Colleges in the tables, and classified as Associate of Arts Colleges in the 1994 Carnegie Classification.

Page 42

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

NCPI

Page 43

NCPI

APPENDIX B: THE CARNEGIE CLASSIFICATION OF INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION

The 1994 Carnegie Classification includes all colleges and universities in the United States that are degree-granting and accredited by an agency recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education. It groups institutions into categories on the basis of the level of degree offered ranging from prebaccalaureate to the doctorate and the comprehensiveness of their educational programs. The categories are as follows: Research Universities I: These institutions offer a full range of baccalaureate programs, are committed to graduate education through the doctorate, and give high priority to research. They award 50 or more doctoral degrees each year. In addition, they receive annually $40 million or more in federal support. Research Universities II: These institutions offer a full range of baccalaureate programs, are committed to graduate education through the doctorate, and give high priority to research. They award 50 or more doctoral degrees each year. In addition, they receive annually between $15.5 million and $40 million in federal support. Doctoral Universities I: These institutions offer a full range of baccalaureate programs and are committed to graduate education through the doctorate. They award at least 40 doctoral degrees annually in five or more disciplines. Doctoral Universities II: These institutions offer a full range of baccalaureate programs and are committed to graduate education through the doctorate. They award at annually at least 10 doctoral degrees-in three or more disciplines-or 20 or more doctoral degrees in one or more disciplines. Page 44

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

Master’s (Comprehensive) Colleges and Universities I: These institutions offer a full range of baccalaureate programs and are committed to graduate education through the master’s degree. They award 40 or more master’s degrees annually in three or more disciplines. Master’s (Comprehensive) Colleges and Universities II: These institutions offer a full range of baccalaureate programs and are committed to graduate education through the master’s degree. They award 20 or more master’s degrees annually in one or more disciplines. Baccalaureate (Liberal Arts) Colleges I: These institutions are primarily undergraduate colleges with major emphasis on baccalaureate degree programs. They award 40 percent or more of their baccalaureate degrees in liberal arts fields and are restrictive in admissions. Baccalaureate Colleges II: These institutions are primarily undergraduate colleges with major emphasis on baccalaureate degree programs. They award less than 40 percent of their baccalaureate degrees in liberal arts fields or are less restrictive in admissions. Associate of Arts Colleges: These institutions offer associate of arts certificate or degree programs and, with few exceptions, offer no baccalaureate degrees. Specialized Institutions: These institutions offer degrees ranging from the bachelor’s to the doctorate. At least 50 percent of the degrees awarded by these institutions are in a single discipline. The Classification is described in further detail in A Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, 1994 Edition (Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1994). The book can be purchased from Jossey-Bass Publishers, 350 Sansome Street, San Francisco, California. The text is also available on The Foundation’s web site: The Carnegie Foundation’s National Survey of Faculty, 1997 did not include specialized institutions in the sample. For purposes of this report, we have grouped categories at the same level: Research Universities (I and II); Doctoral Universities (I and II); Master’s Colleges and Universities (I and II); Baccalaureate Colleges (I and II); and Associate of Arts Colleges. When we use the term “community college” in the text, we are referring to institutions designated as Associate of Arts Colleges in the tables, and classified as Associate of Arts Colleges in the 1994 Carnegie Classification.

NCPI

Page 45

Page 46

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLES CHAPTER 2: COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACULTY: A PROFILE

TABLE 1: TABLE 2: TABLE 3: TABLE 4: TABLE 5: TABLE 6: TABLE 7: TABLE 8: TABLE 9: TABLE 10: TABLE 11: TABLE 12: TABLE 13: TABLE 14: TABLE 15: TABLE 16: TABLE 17:

NCPI

What is your race or ethnic group? What is your sex? What is your age? How many years have you been employed in higher education? What is your highest earned degree? Are you currently working for another degree? In which discipline was your highest degree awarded? What is your current academic rank at this institution? Is your current employment at this institution full-time or part-time? Part-time and adjunct faculty fill jobs here that would otherwise be filled by regular faculty members. What is your institutional salary on a full-time basis before tax and deductions for the current academic year? In 1996, roughly how much did you earn over and above your institutional salary? There should be a mandatory age of retirement for faculty. At my institution, the major purpose of early retirement programs is to force out less productive faculty. I would exercise an early retirement option if it were offered to me. My institution provides the conditions and support faculty need to retire with dignity. I intend to engage in research and professional writing during my retirement.

Page 47

TABLE 1: WHAT IS YOUR RACE OR ETHNIC GROUP?

White/ Caucasian

African American American/ Indian Black

Asian

Hispanic

Other

All Faculty

88%

4%

1%

4%

2%

2%

Research

89

3

0

5

1

1

Doctoral

88

3

0

6

3

1

Master’s

86

6

1

4

2

2

Baccalaureate

87

8

0

3

2

1

Associate of Arts 88

4

1

3

2

3

TABLE 2: WHAT IS YOUR SEX?

Page 48

Male

Female

All Faculty

61%

39%

Research

73

27

Doctoral

69

31

Master’s

59

41

Baccalaureate

57

43

Associate of Arts

53

47

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 3: WHAT IS YOUR AGE?

Mean Years

All Faculty

50.5

Research

50.7

Doctoral

49.9

Master’s

50.3

Baccalaureate

49.8

Associate of Arts

50.7

TABLE 4: HOW MANY YEARS HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED IN HIGHER EDUCATION? (MEAN YEARS)

At This Institution

In Higher Education

All Faculty

14.3

18.4

Research

15.6

20.1

Doctoral

14.2

18.5

Master’s

13.0

17.7

Baccalaureate

13.7

17.5

Associate of Arts

14.5

17.8

NCPI

Page 49

TABLE 5: WHAT IS YOUR HIGHEST EARNED DEGREE?

Less than a Bachelors

Bachelors

Masters

Ph.D

Ed.D

Other

All Faculty

1%

3%

33%

52%

4%

7%

Research

0

1

11

81

3

5

Doctoral

0

1

14

76

4

5

Master’s

0

1

20

64

7

8

Baccalaureate

0

2

27

57

6

7

Associate of Arts

3

8

64

15

3

9

TABLE 6: ARE YOU CURRENTLY WORKING FOR ANOTHER DEGREE?

Yes, at this Institution

Page 50

Yes, at another Institution

No

All Faculty

2%

6%

92%

Research

3

2

96

Doctoral

2

2

96

Master’s

2

4

95

Baccalaureate

1

7

92

Associate of Arts

2

12

86

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 7: IN WHICH DISCIPLINE WAS YOUR HIGHEST DEGREE AWARDED?

All Faculty

Research

Doctoral

Master’s

Bac.

Associate of Arts

Education

14%

7%

12%

16%

12%

18%

Humanities

13

14

12

14

19

11

Business

6

4

7

6

5

8

Fine Arts

6

5

6

6

10

7

Social Sciences

9

13

11

9

9

6

Nursing

3

1

1

2

3

6

Mathematics

5

5

5

5

5

6

Physical Sciences

6

8

7

5

5

4

Biological Sciences

6

9

5

4

7

4

Technical/ Vocational

1

0

0

0

0

4

Psychology

5

6

6

5

4

3

Engineering

5

9

7

5

0

3

Communications 3

3

3

5

2

3

NCPI

Page 51

TABLE 8: WHAT IS YOUR CURRENT ACADEMIC RANK AT THIS INSTITUTION?

Professor Associate Assistant

Instructor/ Lecturer

No rank Other designated

All Faculty

34%

22%

16%

19%

4%

5%

Research

47

26

16

7

0

5

Doctoral

37

28

22

9

0

4

Master’s

35

27

22

11

1

5

Baccalaureate

31

26

24

12

3

5

Associate of Arts

25

13

9

38

9

7

TABLE 9: IS YOUR CURRENT EMPLOYMENT AT THIS INSTITUTION FULL TIME OR PART-TIME?

Full-time

Page 52

Part-time

All Faculty

87%

13%

Research

93

7

Doctoral

92

8

Master’s

91

9

Baccalaureate

86

14

Associate of Arts

79

21

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 10: PART-TIME AND ADJUNCT FACULTY FILL JOBS HERE THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE FILLED BY REGULAR FACULTY MEMBERS

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

35%

27%

13%

15%

11%

Research

22

27

14

22

15

Doctoral

33

31

13

15

9

Master’s

36

30

13

13

9

Baccalaureate

26

31

12

18

14

Associate of Arts

47

24

12

9

8

TABLE 11: WHAT IS YOUR INSTITUTIONAL SALARY ON A FULL-TIME BASIS BEFORE TAX AND DEDUCTIONS FOR THE CURRENT ACADEMIC YEAR?

Below

$30,000-

$40,000-

$50,000-

$60,000-

$70,000-

$80,000

$30,000

$39,999

$49,999

$59,999

$69,999

$79,999

and over

All Faculty

11%

17%

22%

20%

15%

8%

8%

Research

6

8

20

19

16

12

20

Doctoral

8

17

24

18

15

10

9

Master’s

10

21

24

21

15

7

2

Baccalaureate 16

29

24

16

7

6

3

Associate of Arts

17

21

21

17

5

2

NCPI

17

Page 53

TABLE 12: IN 1996, ROUGHLY HOW MUCH DID YOU EARN OVER AND ABOVE YOUR INSTITUTIONAL SALARY?

0%

Less than

10%-19%

20%-29%

30%-49%

10%

50% or more

All Faculty

25%

35%

19%

8%

7%

7%

Research

22

38

17

9

8

6

Doctoral

23

33

20

10

7

7

Master’s

23

35

22

8

6

6

Baccalaureate

29

39

13

7

3

8

Associate of Arts

27

32

20

7

7

7

TABLE 13: THERE SHOULD BE A MANDATORY AGE OF RETIRMENT FOR FACULTY

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

9%

15%

18%

20%

39%

Research

11

16

17

22

33

Doctoral

11

14

18

18

39

Master’s

9

13

19

21

39

Baccalaureate

10

15

21

21

34

15

16

17

46

Associate of Arts 6

Page 54

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 14: AT MY INSTITUTION, THE MAJOR PURPOSE OF EARLY RETIREMENT PROGRAMS IS TO FORCE OUT LESS PRODUCTIVE FACULTY

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

6%

11%

40%

18%

24%

Research

10

18

43

16

14

Doctoral

10

13

39

20

18

Master’s

6

10

47

18

19

Baccalaureate

5

11

42

18

24

7

34

21

35

Associate of Arts 3

TABLE 15: I WOULD EXERCISE AN EARLY RETIREMENT OPTION IF IT WERE OFFERED TO ME

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

19%

19%

21%

17%

25%

Research

18

17

20

20

26

Doctoral

23

18

20

15

25

Master’s

22

18

19

17

25

Baccalaureate

20

18

22

16

25

Associate of

NCPI

Page 55

TABLE 16: MY INSTITUTION PROVIDES THE CONDITIONS AND SUPPORT FACULTY NEED TO RETIRE WITH DIGNITY Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

20%

32%

32%

10%

5%

Research

19

35

31

9

5

Doctoral

15

31

34

13

8

Master’s

16

31

35

12

7

Baccalaureate

21

33

28

11

8

Associate of Arts 26

30

32

10

3

TABLE 17: I INTEND TO ENGAGE IN RESEARCH AND PROFESSIONAL WRITING DURING MY RETIREMENT

Page 56

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

33%

25%

19%

10%

14%

Research

45

29

11

8

8

Doctoral

36

28

17

9

10

Master’s

38

25

18

9

11

Baccalaureate

32

25

22

9

12

Associate of Arts 21

21

25

12

21

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLES CHAPTER 3: TEACHING AND LEARNING: CONCERN AND COMMITMENT

TABLE 18: TABLE 19: TABLE 20: TABLE 21: TABLE 22: TABLE 23: TABLE 24: TABLE 25: TABLE 26: TABLE 27: TABLE 28: TABLE 29: TABLE 30: TABLE 31: TABLE 32: TABLE 33: TABLE 34: TABLE 35: TABLE 36:

NCPI

Access to higher education should be available to all who meet minimum entrance requirements. My undergraduate students are adequately prepared in written and oral communication. My undergraduate students are adequately prepared in mathematics and quantitative reasoning skills. This institution spends too much time and money teaching students what they should have learned in high school, 1984-1997. My undergraduate students do just enough to get by academically. Undergraduates have become more careerist in their concerns. Undergraduates have become more grade conscious. Today’s undergraduates are more willing to cheat in order to get good grades. Overall, I’m pleased with my undergraduates. Faculty here are concerned with the academic progress of their undergraduate students. To what extent are you satisfied with your relationships with students? How important is undergraduate teaching to you personally? How would you assess the quality of the training you received in graduate school for your role as teacher? My institution provides adequate mentoring and other support for beginning instructors. In your department, how much experimentation has there been with the use of technology in instruction? Interdisciplinary teaching is encouraged at my institution. Team teaching is encouraged at my institution. Do you ever supervise students in service learning activities off campus? Faculty should spend more time with students outside the classroom.

Page 57

TABLE 18: ACCESS TO HIGHER EDUCATION SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO ALL WHO MEET MINIMUM ENTRANCE REQUIREMENTS.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

57%

26%

6%

10%

3%

Research

49

29

6

13

3

Doctoral

50

28

5

12

4

Master’s

55

28

6

8

4

Baccalaureate

54

28

6

10

3

Associate of Arts 66

21

5

7

1

TABLE 19: MY UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS ARE ADEQUATELY PREPARED IN WRITTEN AND ORAL COMMUNICATION

Page 58

Strongly

Somewhat

agree

agree

Neutral

Somewhat

Strongly

disagree

disagree

Not

All Faculty

3%

18%

6%

36%

33%

4%

Research

5

20

7

36

23

9

Doctoral

4

18

7

36

31

5

Master’s

2

18

6

38

33

3

Baccalaureate

6

27

7

34

25

1

Associate of Arts

1

13

5

35

43

2

applicable

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 20: MY UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS ARE ADEQUATELY PREPARED IN MATHEMATICS AND QUANTITATIVE REASONING SKILLS.

Strongly

Somewhat

agree

agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly

Not

disagree

applicable

All Faculty

2%

11%

10%

28%

30%

20%

Research

3

14

10

27

21

25

Doctoral

3

11

10

27

29

20

Master’s

2

10

10

29

32

19

Baccalaureate

2

18

12

26

23

20

Associate of Arts

1

8

8

28

37

18

TABLE 21: THIS INSTITUTION SPENDS TOO MUCH TIME AND MONEY TEACHING STUDENTS WHAT THEY SHOULD HAVE LEARNED IN HIGH SCHOOL. (percent agreeing)

1984

1989

1997

All Faculty

68%

68%

66%

Research

59

60

62

Doctoral

70

64

66

Master’s

70

73

68

Baccalaureate

64

56

56

Associate of Arts

70

73

71

NCPI

Page 59

TABLE 22: MY UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS DO JUST ENOUGH TO GET BY ACADEMICALLY. Strongly

Somewhat

Neutral

agree

agree

All Faculty

16%

42%

11%

19%

8%

4%

Research

11

35

14

21

9

9

Doctoral

16

41

12

19

8

5

Master’s

17

43

12

18

6

3

Baccalaureate

15

36

10

23

16

1

Associate of Arts

19

48

7

Somewhat

Strongly

Not

disagree

disagree

applicable

17

7

2

TABLE 23: UNDERGRADUATES HAVE BECOME MORE CAREERIST IN THEIR CONCERNS. Strongly agree

Page 60

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

32%

43%

17%

7%

2%

Research

34

45

16

5

1

Doctoral

34

40

20

6

1

Master’s

34

43

16

7

1

Baccalaureate

39

41

13

6

1

Associate of Arts

26

42

20

9

3

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 24: UNDERGRADUATES HAVE BECOME MORE GRADE CONSCIOUS

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

31%

37%

24%

8%

2%

Research

31

36

25

8

1

Doctoral

30

35

25

8

2

Master’s

33

36

24

7

1

Baccalaureate

37

37

18

7

1

Associate of Arts 28

38

23

8

2

TABLE 25: TODAY’S UNDERGRADUATES ARE MORE WILLING TO CHEAT IN ORDER TO GET GOOD GRADES. Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

10%

28%

37%

17%

9%

Research

10

23

43

15

9

Doctoral

13

27

39

15

7

Master’s

11

26

40

17

6

Baccalaureate

10

26

34

20

11

33

31

18

9

Associate of Arts 9

NCPI

Page 61

TABLE 26: OVERALL, I’M PLEASED WITH MY UNDERGRADUATES.

Strongly

Somewhat

Neutral

Somewhat

Strongly

disagree

disagree

Not

agree

agree

All Faculty

13%

41%

16%

19%

8%

4%

Research

14

36

17

17

7

9

Doctoral

13

39

18

18

7

5

Master’s

11

38

19

19

9

3

Baccalaureate

20

45

14

15

6

0

45

13

23

7

1

Associate of Arts

12

applicable

TABLE 27: FACULTY HERE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE ACADMIEC PROGRESS OF THEIR UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS.

Strongly agree

Page 62

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

41%

41%

10%

7%

2%

Research

24

47

15

11

3

Doctoral

30

46

12

9

3

Master’s

41

42

9

7

1

Baccalaureate

61

30

5

3

1

Associate of Arts

49

38

8

5

1

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 28: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH YOUR RELATIONSHIPS WITH STUDENTS? Very

Somewhat

satisfied

satisfied

Neutral

Somewhat dissatisfied

Very

Not

dissatisfied applicable

All Faculty

63%

30%

5%

2%

1%

0%

Research

55

34

7

2

1

1

Doctoral

57

33

5

4

1

0

Master’s

60

33

5

2

1

0

Baccalaureate

68

27

3

2

0

0

Associate of Arts

70

25

3

2

0

0

TABLE 29: HOW IMPORTANT IS UNDERGRADUATE TEACHING TO YOU PERSONALLY?

Very important

Fairly important

Not too important

Not at all important

Not applicable

All Faculty

71%

21%

3%

1%

3%

Research

54

31

7

3

6

Doctoral

67

24

5

1

4

Master’s

72

22

3

1

3

Baccalaureate

83

15

2

0

0

Associate of Arts 82

14

1

1

3

NCPI

Page 63

TABLE 30: HOW WOULD YOU ASSESS THE QUALITY OF THE TRAINING YOU RECEIVED IN GRADUATE SCHOOL FOR YOUR ROLE AS TEACHER?

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Not applicable

All Faculty

24%

30%

21%

17%

8%

Research

22

28

22

23

5

Doctoral

24

31

21

19

5

Master’s

25

31

22

17

5

Baccalaureate

26

30

20

18

6

Associate of Arts 24

29

19

13

15

TABLE 31: MY INSTITUTION PROVIDES ADEQUATE MENTORING AND OTHER SUPPORT FOR BEGINNING INSTRUCTORS.

Page 64

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

10%

30%

14%

28%

17%

Research

9

31

17

28

15

Doctoral

8

25

19

29

19

Master’s

10

29

13

29

19

Baccalaureate

11

32

14

28

15

Associate of Arts 12

31

13

28

16

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 32: IN YOUR DEPARTMENT, HOW MUCH EXPERIMENTATION HAS THERE BEEN WITH THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY IN INSTRUCTION?

A great deal

Some

None at all

Don’t know

All Faculty

17%

68%

9%

6%

Research

19

68

8

5

Doctoral

12

71

11

6

Master’s

14

72

9

5

Baccalaureate

14

69

12

5

Associate of Arts

18

65

8

8

TABLE 33: INTERDISCIPLINARY TEACHING IS ENCOURAGED AT MY INSTITUTION

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

13%

37%

22%

20%

9%

Research

12

37

21

22

8

Doctoral

9

34

25

22

10

Master’s

14

37

22

20

8

Baccalaureate

23

39

17

16

5

Associate of Arts 13

36

24

18

10

NCPI

Page 65

TABLE 34: TEAM TEACHING IS ENCOURAGED AT MY INSTITUTION.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

9%

25%

25%

26%

15%

Research

7

26

26

28

13

Doctoral

6

20

27

28

19

Master’s

7

26

23

29

16

Baccalaureate

12

31

22

23

13

Associate of Arts 10

24

26

25

16

TABLE 35: DO YOU EVER SUPERVISE STUDENTS IN SERVICE LEARNING ACTIVITIES OFF CAMPUS?

Page 66

Yes, regularly

Yes, occasionally

No

All Faculty

17%

27%

57%

Research

14

25

61

Doctoral

16

26

59

Master’s

23

28

50

Baccalaureate

18

34

48

Associate of Arts

14

26

60

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 36: FACULTY SHOULD SPEND MORE TIME WITH STUDENTS OUTSIDE THE CLASSROOM.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

19%

39%

26%

12%

4%

Research

18

40

24

14

4

Doctoral

22

38

24

13

3

Master’s

22

39

26

10

4

Baccalaureate

20

40

24

12

4

Associate of Arts 18

37

29

11

4

NCPI

Page 67

TABLES

CHAPTER 4: THE GOALS OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE EDUCATION

TABLE 37: TABLE 38: TABLE 39: TABLE 40: TABLE 41: TABLE 42: TABLE 43: TABLE 44: TABLE 45: TABLE 46: TABLE 47: TABLE 48: TABLE 49: TABLE 50: TABLE 51: TABLE 52:

Page 68

How important do you consider the following possible outcomes for the undergraduate? Rate your institution’s performance in serving non-traditional age students effectively. Rate your institution’s performance in preparing undergraduates for a vocation or career. The undergraduate curriculum here is in serious need of reform. Rate your institution’s performance in providing undergraduates with a general education. I prefer teaching courses which focus on limited specialties to those which cover wide varieties of material. Rate your institution’s performance in providing undergraduates the opportunity to explore personal interests through electives. Rate your institution’s performance in providing opportunities for an undergraduate to explore a subject in depth, through the major. Rate your institution’s performance in strengthening the values of undergraduates. Rate your institution’s performance in offering undergraduates an opportunity to experience and understand leadership. Rate your institution’s performance in creating opportunities for students to engage in public or community service. Rate your institution’s performance in developing a sense of campus community. Undergraduate education in America would be improved if students had a stronger mix of theory and practice in their academic experience. Undergraduate education in America would be improved if there were more relevance to contemporary life and problems. Undergraduate education in America would be improved if there were more emphasis on a common core of coursees for all students. Undergraduate education in America would be improved if there were less emphasis on specialized training and more on broad liberal education.

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 37: HOW IMPORTANT DO YOU CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING POSSIBLE OURCOMES FOR THE UNDERGRADUATE? (Percent responding “very important”)

All Faculty

Research

Doctoral

Master’s

Baccalaureate Associate of Arts

Oral and written communication

87%

87%

89%

89%

89%

Analysis and 85 problem solving abilitites

85

85

85

85

86

Self-knowledge

61

54

57

60

67

66

Tolerance of diversity

59

53

57

62

65

62

Appreciation of literature and the arts

50

49

50

53

62

45

Enhanced creative capacities

48

47

47

48

51

48

Preparation for a career

45

34

40

41

38

59

Firm moral values

45

36

40

46

54

50

Science and technological literacy

41

40

39

39

40

43

Knowledge of one subject in depth

32

31

34

33

37

30

International understanding

32

31

32

36

37

28

NCPI

88%

Page 69

TABLE 38: RATE YOUR INSTITUTION’S PERFORMANCE IN SERVING NON-TRADITIONAL AGE STUDENTS EFFECTIVELY

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Not applicable

All Faculty

25%

40%

24%

9%

3%

Research

9

38

35

14

5

Doctoral

17

36

32

12

3

Master’s

19

43

25

11

2

Baccalaureate

19

35

23

16

7

Associate of Arts 43

42

13

1

1

TABLE 39: RATE YOUR INSTITUTION’S PERFORMANCE IN PREPARING UNDERGRADUATES FOR A VOCATION OR CAREER.

Page 70

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Not applicable

All Faculty

23%

51%

22%

3%

1%

Research

13

54

28

3

2

Doctoral

14

53

27

4

2

Master’s

15

55

26

2

2

Baccalaureate

18

54

23

4

1

Associate of Arts 40

43

14

2

0

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 40: THE UNDERGRADUATE CURRICULUM HERE IS IN SERIOUS NEED OF REFORM.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

10%

21%

25%

29%

15%

Research

11

24

25

29

11

Doctoral

13

23

26

26

12

Master’s

14

21

27

27

12

Baccalaureate

10

23

20

28

19

19

25

30

20

Associate of Arts 6

TABLE 41: RATE YOUR INSTITUTION’S PERFORMANCE IN PROVIDING UNDERGRADUATES WITH A GENERAL EDUCATION.

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Not applicable

All Faculty

25%

49%

21%

4%

1%

Research

17

52

26

5

1

Doctoral

19

50

26

5

1

Master’s

20

50

25

4

1

Baccalaureate

38

44

15

3

0

Associate of Arts 33

48

15

3

0

NCPI

Page 71

TABLE 42: I PREFER TEACHING COURSES WHICH FOCUS ON LIMITED SPECIALTIES TO THOSE WHICH COVER WIDE VARIETIES OF MATERIAL.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

16%

25%

28%

23%

8%

Research

13

25

30

24

8

Doctoral

17

24

27

26

6

Master’s

17

26

28

23

7

Baccalaureate

14

25

29

24

7

Associate of Arts 19

24

26

21

10

TABLE 43: RATE YOUR INSTITUTION’S PERFORMANCE IN PROVIDING UNDERGRADUATES THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLORE PERSONAL INTERESTS THROUGH ELECTIVES.

Page 72

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Not applicable

All Faculty

18%

42%

28%

10%

1%

Research

19

45

27

8

2

Doctoral

13

45

29

12

2

Master’s

12

40

33

14

1

Baccalaureate

24

42

25

9

0

Associate of Arts

23

41

28

8

1

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 44: RATE YOUR INSTITUTION’S PERFORMANCE IN PROVIDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR AN UNDERGRADUATE TO EXPLORE A SUBJECT IN DEPTH, THROUGH THE MAJOR.

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Not applicable

All Faculty

29%

47%

17%

4%

3%

Research

34

49

13

2

1

Doctoral

29

52

15

3

1

Master’s

29

51

15

4

1

Baccalaureate

43

42

11

4

0

Associate of Arts 20

44

23

7

6

TABLE 45: RATE YOUR INSTITUTION’S PERFORMANCE IN STRENGTHENING THE VALUES OF UNDERGRADUATES.

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Not applicable

All Faculty

9%

24%

38%

19%

10%

Research

6

19

37

24

15

Doctoral

7

20

41

22

10

Master’s

6

23

45

18

8

Baccalaureate

19

39

29

10

4

Associate of Arts

12

24

36

19

9

NCPI

Page 73

TABLE 46: RATE YOUR INSTITUTION’S PERFORMANCE IN OFFERING UNDERGRADUATES AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPERIENCE AND UNDERSTAND LEADERSHIP.

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Not applicable

All Faculty

11%

33%

36%

16%

4%

Research

9

30

39

16

6

Doctoral

8

30

39

19

4

Master’s

9

35

39

14

4

Baccalaureate

22

44

24

10

1

Associate of Arts 11

32

36

17

4

TABLE 47: RATE YOUR INSTITUTION’S PERFORMANCE IN CREATING OPPORTUNITIES FOR STUDENTS TO ENGAGE IN PUBLIC OR COMMUNITY SERVICE.

Page 74

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Not applicable

All Faculty

14%

31%

32%

18%

5%

Research

11

30

34

19

6

Doctoral

11

30

35

19

5

Master’s

16

33

33

15

4

Baccalaureate

30

39

22

9

1

Associate of Arts

11

29

31

22

7

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 48: RATE YOUR INSTITUTION’S PERFORMANCE IN DEVELOPING A SENSE OF CAMPUS COMMUNITY.

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Not applicable

All Faculty

7%

22%

33%

35%

3%

Research

6

25

36

31

4

Doctoral

6

16

34

41

3

Master’s

5

20

35

38

2

Baccalaureate

16

36

28

19

1

19

31

41

3

Associate of Arts 7

TABLE 49: UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION IN AMERICA WOULD BE IMPROVED IF STUDENTS HAD A STRONGER MIX OF THEORY AND PRACTICE IN THEIR ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

28%

47%

20%

4%

1%

Research

23

47

23

6

1

Doctoral

25

47

23

4

1

Master’s

29

46

21

4

0

Baccalaureate

29

47

19

5

1

Associate of Arts

31

49

16

3

1

NCPI

Page 75

TABLE 50: UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION IN AMERICA WOULD BE IMPROVED IF THERE WERE MORE RELEVANCE TO CONTEMPORARY LIFE AND PROBLEMS.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

20%

38%

27%

11%

3%

Research

14

33

30

18

4

Doctoral

17

38

28

14

3

Master’s

19

41

30

9

1

Baccalaureate

20

39

26

13

3

Associate of Arts

26

40

24

8

2

TABLE 51: UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION IN AMERICA WOULD BE IMPROVED IF THERE WERE MORE EMPHASIS ON A COMMON CORE OF COURSES FOR ALL STUDENTS.

Page 76

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

22%

33%

24%

17%

5%

Research

16

31

25

22

6

Doctoral

20

30

23

20

7

Master’s

21

33

26

15

4

Baccalaureate

24

34

20

17

5

Associate of Arts

27

34

22

14

3

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 52: UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION IN AMERICA WOULD BE IMPROVED IF THERE WERE LESS EMPHASIS ON SPECIALIZED TRAINING AND MORE ON BROAD LIBERAL EDUCATION.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

17%

32%

23%

22%

6%

Research

17

33

24

21

4

Doctoral

16

32

24

22

6

Master’s

20

34

22

18

6

Baccalaureate

23

39

20

15

2

Associate of Arts

13

27

25

27

9

NCPI

Page 77

TABLES

CHAPTER 5: FACULTY ROLES IN A TEACHING INSTITUTION

TABLE 53: TABLE 54: TABLE 55: TABLE 56: TABLE 57: TABLE 58: TABLE 59: TABLE 60: TABLE 61: TABLE 62: TABLE 63: TABLE 64: TABLE 65: TABLE 66: TABLE 67: TABLE 68: TABLE 69: TABLE 70: TABLE 71: TABLE 72:

Page 78

My interests lie primarily in or lean toward teaching, 1969-1997. Do your interests lie primarily in teaching or in research? (International Data) Do your interests lie primarily in teaching or in research? Regarding teaching and research, have your interests shifted over the course of your professional life? During the past fall term, approximately how many hours per week did you spend on each of the following activities? In my academic position at this institution, regular research activity is expected. Are you currently engaged in any scholarly work that you expect to lead to a publication, exhibit, or a performance. Have you, as an individual or as part of an academic group, received any grants or special funding support for research in the last three years? If you received such research funding, please estimate the total amount received from all sources during the last three years. Which of the following sources have provided these research funds? Serving as a consultant is considered part of scholarly work at my institution. During the past year, with which types of organizations have you worked, either on a paid or unpaid basis? Consider the time you spent engaged in such activities last year. For what percentage of this time were you paid? From an economic standpoint, it is necessary for me to engage in paid consulting work. The pressure to publish reduces the quality of teaching at this institution. Generally speaking, to be a good teacher one must be engaged in research. For me, service activity beyond this institution is a distraction and competes with essential academic work. Teaching effectiveness should be the primary criterion for promotion of faculty. At this institution, faculty evaluation gives appropriate weight to teaching, research, and service. This department should give more recognition to the role of professional service and the applied aspects of knowledge among its faculty.

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 53: MY INTERESTS LIE PRIMARILY IN OR LEAN TOWARD TEACHING, 1969-1997 (Percent agreeing)

All Faculty

1969

1975

1984

1989

1992

1997

76%

75%

70%

71%

72%

73%

Research

-

50

40

35

39

43

Doctoral

-

66

62

55

66

62

Master’s

-

84

74

77

81

76

Baccalaureate

-

88

84

84

76

83

Associate of Arts

-

94

92

93

94

94

TABLE 54: DO YOUR INTERESTS LIE PRIMARILY IN TEACHING OR RESEARCH? (Four-year institutions)

Australia Brazil Chile Germany Hong Kong Israel Japan Korea Mexico The Netherlands Russia Sweden United Kingdom United States

Primarily in teaching

Leaning to teaching

Leaning to research

Primarily in research

13% 20 18 8 11 11 4 5 22 7 18 12 12 27

35% 42 49 27 35 27 24 40 43 18 50 21 32 36

43% 36 28 47 46 48 55 50 31 46 29 44 40 30

9% 3 5 19 8 14 17 6 4 30 3 23 15 7

Source: The Academic Profession: An International Perspective. (The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1994) p.81. NCPI

Page 79

TABLE 55: DO YOUR INTERESTS LIE PRIMARILY IN TEACHING OR IN RESEARCH?

Primarily in Leaning toward teaching teaching

Leaning toward research

Primarily in research

All Faculty

43%

30%

22%

4%

Research

12

31

47

10

Doctoral

25

37

32

6

Master’s

37

39

21

3

Baccalaureate

46

37

15

1

Associate of Arts

75

20

5

1

TABLE 56: REGARDING TEACHING AND RESEACH, HAVE YOUR INTERESTS SHIFTED OVER THE COURSE OF YOUR PROFESSIONAL LIFE?

Page 80

No

Yes, more toward teaching

Yes, more toward research

All Faculty

56%

28%

16%

Research

52

29

20

Doctoral

51

29

21

Master’s

50

29

21

Baccalaureate

55

27

18

Associate of Arts

66

27

8

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 57: DURING THE PAST FALL TERM, APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY HOURS PER WEEK DID YOU SPEND ON EACH OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES? (Mean hours) All Faculty

Research

Doctoral

Formal classroom instruction in undergraduate courses

10.8

6.3

7.5

Preparation for teaching

11.6

10.4

Research and/or comparable scholarly activities

12.1

Student tutorial aid Academic advising

Master’s

Baccalaureate

Associate of Arts

9.8

9.9

14.8

11.4

12.6

13.1

11.5

18.3

13.9

9.8

8.4

6.1

4.3

3.7

3.7

3.9

4.4

5.2

3.6

2.9

3.7

3.6

3.5

4.2

TABLE 58: IN MY ACADEMIC POSITION AT THIS INSTITUTION REGULAR RESEARCH ACTIVITY IS EXPECTED.

Yes

No

All Faculty

53%

47%

Research

92

8

Doctoral

84

16

Master’s

69

31

Baccalaureate

50

50

Associate of Arts

5

95

NCPI

Page 81

TABLE 59: ARE YOU CURRENTLY ENGAGED IN ANY SCHOLARLY WORK THAT YOU EXPECT TO LEAD TO A PUBLICATION, EXHIBIT, OR A PERFORMANCE?

Yes

No

All Faculty

69%

31%

Research

94

6

Doctoral

86

14

Master’s

81

19

Baccalaureate

70

30

Associate of Arts

38

62

TABLE 60: HAVE YOU, AS AN INDIVIDUAL OR AS PART OF AN ACADEMIC GROUP, RECEIVED ANY GRANTS OR SPECIAL FUNDING SUPPORT FOR RESEARCH IN THE LAST THREE YEARS?

Page 82

Yes

No

All Faculty

44%

56%

Research

70

30

Doctoral

54

46

Master’s

48

53

Baccalaureate

41

59

Associate of Arts

20

80

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 61: IF YOU RECEIVED SUCH RESEARCH FUNDING, PLEASE ESTIMATE THE TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM ALL SOURCES DURING THE LAST THREE YEARS.

Less than $5,000

$5,000$24,999

$25,000$99,999

$100,000$249,999

$250,000$499,999

$500,000 or more

All Faculty

28%

24%

19%

12%

8%

9%

Research

13

18

24

16

12

17

Doctoral

23

28

21

14

7

7

Master’s

35

29

19

9

7

3

Baccalaureate

46

26

16

6

3

3

Associate of Arts

51

27

7

8

4

4

TABLE 62: WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING SOURCES HAVE PROVIDED THESE RESEARCH FUNDS?

This institution

Government entities

Business firms

Private foundations

Other

All Faculty

52%

55%

15%

25%

9%

Research

48

65

20

27

11

Doctoral

56

53

16

26

9

Master’s

63

48

13

19

8

Baccalaureate

60

41

7

32

7

Associate of Arts

39

47

9

26

7

NCPI

Page 83

TABLE 63: SERVING AS A CONSULTANT IS CONSIDERED PART OF SCHOLARLY WORK AT MY INSTITUTION.

Page 84

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

8%

22%

24%

15%

32%

Research

9

24

25

18

25

Doctoral

7

25

27

16

25

Master’s

9

32

21

18

21

Baccalaureate

8

25

23

16

29

Associate of Arts

6

12

24

10

49

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 64: DURING THE PAST YEAR, WITH WHICH TYPES OF ORGANIZATIONS HAVE YOU WORKED, EITHER ON A PAID OR UNPAID BASIS? (Respondents could choose all that apply) All Research Faculty

Doctoral

Master’s

Baccalaureate

Associate of Arts

Business or industry

32%

33%

33%

32%

23%

34%

Educational institutions

55

58

51

56

52

53

Local government agencies

21

21

21

26

14

19

National government agencies

15

30

15

13

7

6

Private social service agencies

20

17

20

25

22

18

International government agencies

4

9

6

4

2

1

Other international associations

7

12

8

6

5

4

Other

14

12

13

16

19

13

None

18

16

18

15

21

22

NCPI

Page 85

TABLE 65: FOR WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE TIME YOU SPENT ENGAGED IN CONSULTING AND SERVICE ACTIVITIES WERE YOU PAID?

Percentage of time paid

All Faculty

29%

Research

30

Doctoral

27

Master’s

27

Baccalaureate

28

Associate of Arts

31

TABLE 66: FROM AN ECONOMIC STANDPOINT, IT IS NECESSARY FOR ME TO ENGAGE IN PAID CONSULTING WORK.

Page 86

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

13%

13%

17%

16%

42%

Research

13

13

14

17

44

Doctoral

14

12

17

17

40

Master’s

14

15

19

16

36

Baccalaureate

14

11

18

15

42

Associate of Arts

12

11

19

14

44

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 67: THE PRESSURE TO PUBLISH REDUCES THE QUALITY OF TEACHING AT THIS INSTITUTION.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutal

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

10%

19%

22%

18%

31%

Research

22

33

14

19

12

Doctoral

18

32

18

19

12

Master’s

9

22

23

25

22

Baccalaureate

5

16

19

26

35

Associate of Arts

2

4

28

10

56

TABLE 68: GENERALLY SPEAKING, TO BE A GOOD TEACHER ONE MUST BE ENGAGED IN RESEARCH. Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Not applicable

All Faculty

21%

32%

12%

13%

18%

5%

Research

31

41

11

11

6

0

Doctoral

29

38

10

13

11

1

Master’s

24

36

14

13

13

1

Baccalaureate

23

32

12

16

15

2

Associate of Arts

7

20

11

15

35

12

NCPI

Page 87

TABLE 69: FOR ME, SERVICE ACTIVITY BEYOND THIS INSTITUTION IS A DISTRACTION AND COMPETES WITH ESSENTIAL ACADEMIC WORK.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

4%

12%

18%

29%

37%

Research

5

17

17

27

34

Doctoral

5

14

19

29

34

Master’s

3

11

16

32

39

Baccalaureate

3

10

17

31

40

Associate of Arts

4

8

21

29

38

TABLE 70: TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS SHOULD BE THE PRIMARY CRITERION FOR PROMOTION OF FACULTY.

Page 88

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

28%

29%

12%

17%

14%

Research

7

14

14

30

35

Doctoral

15

24

16

26

20

Master’s

25

34

12

18

11

Baccalaureate

35

35

9

15

6

Associate of Arts

47

35

11

5

2

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 71: AT THIS INSTITUTION, FACULTY EVALUATION GIVES APPROPRIATE WEIGHT TO TEACHING, RESEARCH, AND SERVICE.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

15%

29%

22%

21%

13%

Research

15

29

14

27

16

Doctoral

13

27

17

25

18

Master’s

17

34

19

21

11

Baccalaureate

21

34

18

16

10

Associate of Arts

13

25

33

17

12

TABLE 72: THIS DEPARTMENT SHOULD GIVE MORE RECOGNITION TO THE ROLE OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AND THE APPLIED ASPECTS OF KNOWLEDGE AMONG ITS FACULTY.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

21%

28%

33%

12%

5%

Research

20

27

30

15

8

Doctoral

21

30

29

15

5

Master’s

25

27

32

11

5

Baccalaureate

22

27

32

13

6

Associate of Arts

19

31

36

10

4

NCPI

Page 89

TABLES

CHAPTER 6: EVALUATION

TABLE 73: TABLE 74: TABLE 75: TABLE 76: TABLE 77: TABLE 78: TABLE 79: TABLE 80: TABLE 81: TABLE 82: TABLE 83:

TABLE 84:

TABLE 85:

TABLE 86: TABLE 87: TABLE 88: TABLE 89: TABLE 90:

Page 90

Which of your activities are appraised or evaluated regularly? By whom is your teaching regularly evaluated? By whom is your research regularly evaluated? At this institution, we need better ways, besides publications, to evaluate the scholarly performance of the faculty. At this institution, we need better ways to evaluate teaching performance. Student opinions should be used in evaluating the teaching effectiveness of faculty. Peer review should be used in evaluating the teaching effectiveness of faculty. In the past several years, have new methods of evaluating faculty in your department been developed in the following areas? In my field, most people agree on the standards of good scholarship. On the whole, my performance has been evaluated fairly at this institution. Thinking about your own situation, do research and/or other creative work count more or less for purposes of faculty advancement today than they did five years ago? Thinking about your own situation, does applied scholarship (outreach) count more or less for purposes of faculty advancement today than it did five years ago? Thinking about your own situation, does service to the college or university (citizenship) count more or less for purposes of faculty advancement today than it did five years ago? Thinking about your own situation, does teaching count more or less for purposes of faculty advancement today than it did five years ago? I wish my institution would set clearer priorities for the kind of work faculty should do. The stated missions of this instution are clear to the faculty. At my institution the goals for undergraduates are clear to the faculty. My institution is consistent in what it expects faculty to do, and how it rewards them.

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 73: WHICH OF YOUR ACTIVITIES ARE APPRAISED OR EVALUATED REGULARLY? (Respondents could choose all that apply) Teaching

Research and/or other creative work

Applied scholarship/ outreach

Service to the college or university

All Faculty

96%

57%

27%

63%

Research

93

86

32

69

Doctoral

96

82

31

70

Master’s

98

74

40

75

Baccalaureate

97

57

25

67

Associate of Arts 97

16

14

47

TABLE 74: BY WHOM IS YOUR TEACHING REGULARLY EVALUATED? (Respondents could choose all that apply)

All Faculty

Research

Doctoral

Master’s

92%

91%

92%

92%

84%

The head of 77 your department

73

79

79

76

77

Your peers 54 in your department

54

49

61

49

51

Senior 35 administrative staff at this institution

25

37

40

50

34

Members of other15 9 departments at this institution

11

18

22

16

Your students

89%

Bacca- Associate laureate of Arts

External reviewers

6

7

5

6

7

4

Others

2

2

2

2

2

1

NCPI

Page 91

TABLE 75: BY WHOM IS YOUR RESEARCH REGULARLY EVALUATED? (Respondents could choose all that apply)

All Faculty

Research

Doctoral

Master’s

Bacca- Associate laureate of Arts

The head of 78% your department

81%

83%

80%

70%

67%

Your peers 58 in your department

64

57

61

40

43

Senior 42 administrative staff at this institution

33

45

49

61

37

External reviewers

35

25

37

40

50

34

Members of other 21 departments at this institution

18

16

23

26

23

Your students

8

8

5

9

8

15

Others

4

4

3

3

4

3

TABLE 76: AT THIS INSTITUTION, WE NEED BETTWER WAYS, BESIDES PUBLICATIONS, TO EVALUATE THE SCHOLARLY PERFORMANCE OF THE FACULTY.

Page 92

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

29%

30%

24%

10%

7%

Research

35

32

14

14

5

Doctoral

38

33

14

11

3

Master’s

33

36

17

10

4

Baccalaureate

30

33

22

12

5

Associate of Arts

20

22

40

6

13

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 77: AT THIS INSTITUTION, WE NEED BETTER WAYS TO EVALUATE TEACHING PERFORMANCE. Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

34%

38%

16%

8%

3%

Research

40

36

13

8

3

Doctoral

43

35

14

6

2

Master’s

39

37

15

8

1

Baccalaureate

32

38

17

9

4

Associate of Arts

26

41

20

9

4

TABLE 78: STUDENT OPINIONS SHOULD BE USED IN EVALUATING THE TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS OF FACULTY.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

26%

45%

11%

13%

5%

Research

27

46

10

14

3

Doctoral

24

45

10

15

6

Master’s

25

44

10

15

6

Baccalaureate

27

46

10

13

4

Associate of Arts

27

45

12

11

6

NCPI

Page 93

TABLE 79: PEER REVIEW SHOULD BE USED IN EVALUATING THE TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS OF FACULTY. Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

30%

48%

12%

7%

4%

Research

28

51

12

7

2

Doctoral

28

49

12

8

4

Master’s

32

46

12

6

4

Baccalaureate

36

48

11

4

2

Associate of Arts

28

46

13

9

4

TABLE 80: IN THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, HAVE NEW METHODS OF EVALUATING FACULTY IN YOUR DEPARTMENT BEEN DEVELOPED IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS? (Percent responding yes)

Page 94

Teaching

Research and/or other creative work

Applied scholarship (outreach)

Service to the institution (citizenship)

All Faculty

36%

12%

10%

14%

Research

36

15

10

11

Doctoral

33

17

10

13

Master’s

38

16

13

15

Baccalaureate

34

13

10

15

Associate of Arts

38

5

7

16

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 81: IN MY FIELD, MOST PEOPLE AGREE ON THE STANDARDS OF GOOD SCHOLARSHIP.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

15%

41%

16%

21%

7%

Research

17

42

11

23

7

Doctoral

16

37

13

25

8

Master’s

13

41

14

23

8

Baccalaureate

16

44

14

19

7

Associate of Arts

14

42

22

17

6

TABLE 82: ON THE WHOLE, MY PERFORMANCE HAS BEEN EVALUATED FAIRLY AT THIS INSTITUTION

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

32%

42%

11%

10%

5%

Research

28

40

13

13

6

Doctoral

25

40

13

15

7

Master’s

26

45

13

12

4

Baccalaureate

34

41

10

11

5

Associate of Arts

40

43

8

6

3

NCPI

Page 95

TABLE 83: THINKING ABOUT YOUR OWN SITUATION, DO RESEARCH AND/OR OTHER CREATIVE WORK COUNT MORE OR LESS FOR PURPOSES OF FACULTY ADVANCEMENT TODAY THAN THEY DID FIVE YEARS AGO? Count more Count less today today

Count about the same as five years ago

Don’t know

All Faculty

27%

9%

41%

23%

Research

32

10

49

10

Doctoral

42

9

36

13

Master’s

41

11

32

17

Baccalaureate

35

8

37

20

Associate of Arts

8

8

43

41

TABLE 84: THINKING ABOUT YOUR OWN SITUATION, DOES APPLIED SCHOLARSHIP (OUTREACH) COUNT MORE OR LESS FOR PURPOSES OF FACULTY ADVANCEMENT TODAY THAN IT DID FIVE YEARS AGO? Counts more Counts less Counts about Don’t know today today the same as five years ago

Page 96

All Faculty

15%

7%

39%

39%

Research

14

8

40

38

Doctoral

13

11

39

37

Master’s

21

8

37

35

Baccalaureate

17

5

40

39

Associate of Arts

11

5

39

44

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 85: THINKING ABOUT YOUR OWN SITUATION, DOES SERVICE TO THE COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY (CITIZENSHIP) COUNT MORE OR LESS FOR PURPOSES OF FACULTY ADVANCEMENT TODAY THAN IT DID FIVE YEARS AGO? Counts more Counts less today today

Counts about the same as five years ago

Don’t know

All Faculty

13%

9%

53%

25%

Research

8

13

60

20

Doctoral

8

17

54

21

Master’s

13

11

55

21

Baccalaureate

19

8

53

21

Associate of Arts

15

4

45

35

TABLE 86: THINKING ABOUT YOUR OWN SITUATION, DOES TEACHING COUNT MORE OR LESS FOR PURPOSES OF FACULTY ADVANCEMENT TODAY THAN IT DID FIVE YEARS AGO? Counts more Counts less today today

Counts about the same as five years ago

Don’t know

All Faculty

27%

13%

45%

15%

Research

45

13

32

10

Doctoral

25

20

41

14

Master’s

23

19

42

16

Baccalaureate

19

13

51

17

Associate of Arts

18

7

56

20

NCPI

Page 97

TABLE 87: I WISH MY INSTITUTION WOULD SET CLEARER PRIORITIES FOR THE KIND OF WORK FACULTY SHOULD DO.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

9%

17%

32%

20%

22%

Research

7

16

27

22

29

Doctoral

11

18

30

22

19

Master’s

12

20

31

19

19

Baccalaureate

11

19

27

21

23

Associate of Arts

8

14

39

20

19

TABLE 88: THE STATED MISSIONS OF THIS INSTITUTION ARE CLEAR TO THE FACULTY

Page 98

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

30%

38%

12%

14%

6%

Research

21

41

17

16

6

Doctoral

20

36

15

20

10

Master’s

28

40

12

14

6

Baccalaureate

43

33

8

13

4

Associate of Arts

39

37

9

11

5

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 89: AT MY INSTITUTION THE GOALS FOR UNDERGRADUATES ARE CLEAR TO THE FACULTY

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

22%

39%

15%

19%

5%

Research

12

33

25

24

7

Doctoral

13

34

20

25

8

Master’s

20

42

14

19

5

Baccalaureate

30

42

9

15

4

Associate of Arts

30

41

10

15

4

TABLE 90: MY INSTITUTION IS CONSISTENT IN WHAT IT EXPECTS FACULTY TO DO, AND HOW IT REWARDS THEM.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

9%

27%

18%

30%

16%

Research

6

25

20

31

18

Doctoral

5

21

19

33

21

Master’s

5

26

17

35

17

Baccalaureate

10

32

14

31

13

Associate of Arts

14

30

18

25

13

NCPI

Page 99

TABLES

CHAPTER 7: WORKING CONDITIONS

TABLE 91: TABLE 92: TABLE 93: TABLE 94: TABLE 95: TABLE 96: TABLE 97: TABLE 98: TABLE 99: TABLE 100: TABLE 101: TABLE 102: TABLE 103: TABLE 104: TABLE 105: TABLE 106: TABLE 107:

Page 100

In general, how do you feel about this institution? How would you rate your own academic salary? My job is a source of considerable personal strain. I am more enthusiastic about my work now than I was when I began my academic career. To what extent has your teaching load been a source of stress in your professional work during the last two years? I hardly ever get the time to give a piece of work the attention it deserves. I feel I have less control of my time than I had five years ago. To what extent have the following factors been sources of stress in your professional work during the last two years? At this institution, how would you evaluate the facilities, resources, or personnel you need to support your work? How would you rate the “technology infrastructure” at your institution? To what extent are you satisfied with your job situation as a whole? To what extent are you satisfied with the courses you teach? To what extent are you satisfied with your relationships with colleagues? To what extent are you satisfied with the way your department and your institution are managed? This is an especially creative and productive time in my field. My interests have become more interdisciplinary in recent years. This is a poor time for any person to begin an academic career in my field.

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 91: IN GENERAL, HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS INSTITUTION? IT IS...

A very good place for me

A fairly good place for me

Not the place for me

All Faculty

47%

45%

8%

Research

41

48

11

Doctoral

36

52

12

Master’s

40

52

8

Baccalaureate

50

41

9

Associate of Arts

59

37

5

TABLE 92: HOW WOULD YOU RATE YOUR OWN ACADEMIC SALARY?

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

All Faculty

9%

37%

32%

22%

1%

Research

10

38

31

20

1

Doctoral

7

29

38

25

1

Master’s

4

30

40

25

1

Baccalaureate

6

30

33

30

1

Associate of Arts 13

43

26

17

0

NCPI

Not applicable

Page 101

TABLE 93: MY JOB IS A SOURCE OF CONSIDERABLE PERSONAL STRAIN. Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

10%

29%

18%

22%

22%

Research

13

32

18

19

17

Doctoral

12

31

19

21

18

Master’s

9

28

18

24

22

Baccalaureate

9

31

16

22

22

Associate of Arts

8

25

18

24

25

TABLE 94: I AM MORE ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT MY WORK NOW THAN I WAS WHEN I BEGAN MY ACADEMIC CAREER.

Page 102

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

19%

25%

27%

20%

10%

Research

16

23

28

20

13

Doctoral

17

25

26

21

11

Master’s

17

23

28

24

9

Baccalaureate

17

28

24

21

9

Associate of Arts

23

27

25

16

8

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 95: TO WHAT EXTENT HAS YOUR TEACHING LOAD BEEN A SOURCE OF STRESS IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL WORK DURING THE LAST TWO YEARS?

A great deal

Somewhat

A little

None

All Faculty

16%

30%

26%

28%

Research

10

27

31

32

Doctoral

18

28

24

30

Master’s

23

31

25

21

Baccalaureate

18

29

24

29

Associate of Arts

16

32

24

29

TABLE 96: I HARDLY EVER GET THE TIME TO GIVE A PIECE OF WORK THE ATTENTION IT DESERVES.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

21%

42%

15%

17%

6%

Research

20

42

13

18

6

Doctoral

24

40

15

16

5

Master’s

29

38

14

14

5

Baccalaureate

23

45

14

13

6

Associate of Arts

16

43

17

18

7

NCPI

Page 103

TABLE 97: I FEEL I HAVE LESS CONTROL OF MY TIME THAN I HAD FIVE YEARS AGO.

Page 104

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

21%

25%

22%

19%

13%

Research

22

30

20

17

10

Doctoral

23

27

22

17

11

Master’s

25

25

22

17

12

Baccalaureate

24

26

19

20

12

Associate of Arts

18

21

23

22

17

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 98: TO WHAT EXTENT HAVE THE FOLLOWING FACTORS BEEN SOURCES OF STRESS IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL WORK DURING THE LAST TWO YEARS? (Percent responding “a great deal” or “somewhat”) All

Research

Doctoral

Master’s

Faculty

Bacca-

Associate

laureate

of Arts

Institutional procedures and “red tape”

63%

68%

66%

68%

55%

58%

Time allocation between work & family

58

60

58

59

60

55

Teaching load

46

37

46

54

47

47

Committee work

45

42

46

46

48

46

Demands of students

41

42

43

41

43

41

Your own review/promotion process

42

47

50

49

42

31

Relationships with colleagues

33

38

37

34

34

26

Evaluating colleagues for promotion

27

30

33

30

29

20

Research or publishing demands

36

58

56

44

33

8

NCPI

Page 105

TABLE 99: AT THIS INSTITUTION, HOW WOULD YOU EVALUATE THE FACILITIES, RESOURCES, OR PERSONNEL YOU NEED TO SUPPORT YOUR WORK? (Percent responding “excellent” or “good”) Overall

Access to colleagues

Classrooms

Technology for teaching

Laboratories

Computer facilities

All Faculty

53%

75%

59%

52%

48%

59%

Research

57

77

54

53

48

71

Doctoral

47

70

53

49

40

58

Master’s

49

74

58

49

40

57

Baccalaureate59

75

67

53

48

60

Associate of Arts

75

62

55

54

52

54

TABLE 100: HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE “TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE” AT YOUR INSTITUTION? (Percent responding “excellent” or “good”)

Page 106

E-mail capability

Internet access

Library/ on-line resources

User support

All Faculty

73%

69%

60%

45%

Research

88

88

72

54

Doctoral

77

72

60

44

Master’s

76

71

59

43

Baccalaureate

72

66

60

47

Associate of Arts

58

52

53

41

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 101: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH YOUR JOB SITUATION AS A WHOLE?

Very satisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Neutral

Somewhat dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

All Faculty

33%

44%

5%

13%

5%

Research

31

44

7

12

5

Doctoral

21

51

8

14

6

Master’s

25

48

7

14

6

Baccalaureate

31

47

5

12

5

Associate of Arts

41

40

3

12

4

TABLE 102: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH THE COURSES YOU TEACH?

Very satisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Neutral

Somewhat dissatisfied

Very Not dissatisfied applicable

All Faculty

52%

39%

3%

4%

1%

1%

Research

51

38

4

4

1

2

Doctoral

52

37

5

5

1

1

Master’s

49

43

4

4

1

0

Baccalaureate

56

36

3

5

0

0

Associate of Arts

55

37

3

4

0

1

NCPI

Page 107

TABLE 103: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH YOUR RELATIONSHIPS WITH COLLEAGUES?

Very Somewhat satisfied satisfied

Neutral

Somewhat dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

All Faculty

40%

41%

9%

7%

3%

Research

33

41

10

11

4

Doctoral

35

41

11

8

5

Master’s

40

41

9

8

3

Baccalaureate

45

39

7

6

3

Associate of Arts

44

41

8

4

3

TABLE 104: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH THE WAY YOUR DEPARTMENT AND YOUR INSTITUTION ARE MANAGED? (Percent responding “very” or “somewhat” satisfied)

Page 108

Department

Institution

All Faculty

61%

36%

Research

54

33

Doctoral

57

28

Master’s

61

36

Baccalaureate

65

45

Associate of Arts

66

38

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 105: THIS IS AN ESPECIALLY CREATIVE AND PRODUCTIVE TIME IN MY FIELD.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

38%

36%

17%

8%

2%

Research

36

36

17

10

1

Doctoral

33

38

17

11

1

Master’s

38

37

16

7

2

Baccalaureate

36

36

17

8

3

Associate of Arts

39

36

18

6

1

TABLE 106: MY INTERESTS HAVE BECOME MORE INTERDISCIPLINARY IN RECENT YEARS.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

34%

36%

17%

9%

5%

Research

37

34

16

9

5

Doctoral

35

36

16

10

4

Master’s

36

36

15

9

5

Baccalaureate

36

38

15

8

4

Associate of Arts

30

38

19

9

5

NCPI

Page 109

TABLE 107: THIS IS A POOR TIME FOR ANY PERSON TO BEGIN AN ACADEMIC CAREER IN MY FIELD.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

13%

24%

19%

24%

20%

Research

14

26

18

25

18

Doctoral

15

23

18

26

18

Master’s

12

25

19

25

20

Baccalaureate

14

27

17

25

18

Associate of Arts

13

22

21

23

23

TABLE 108: IF I HAD IT TO DO OVER AGAIN, I WOULD NOT BECOME A COLLEGE TEACHER.

Page 110

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

4%

6%

8%

19%

63%

Research

5

6

10

21

59

Doctoral

5

8

9

19

58

Master’s

4

7

9

19

61

Baccalaureate

4

6

8

20

63

Associate of Arts

4

5

6

17

69

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLES

CHAPTER 7: WORKING CONDITIONS

TABLE 109: TABLE 110:

TABLE 111: TABLE 112: TABLE 113: TABLE 114: TABLE 115: TABLE 116: TABLE 117: TABLE 118: TABLE 119: TABLE 120: TABLE 121: TABLE 122: TABLE 123: TABLE 124: TABLE 125: TABLE 126: TABLE 127: TABLE 128: TABLE 129: TABLE 130:

NCPI

How would you rate the sense of campus community at your institution, 1989-1997? Please indicate the degree to which your academic discipline, your department and your college or university is important to you personally. Faculty in my department have little contact with faculty in other departments. The faculty in my department generally tend to isolate themselves from the world outside the campus. How would you rate the academic reputation of your department outside your institution? How would you rate the sense that you feel valued and appreciated? How much opportunity do you feel you have to influence the policies of your department and institution? To what extent do you participate in meetings in the following types of organization at your institution? Junior faculty members have too little say in the running of my department. Faculty meetings in my department generally are a waste of time. Faculty governance works effectively at my institution. Top-level administrators are providing competent leadership. Communication between the faculty and the administration is poor. How would you rate relations between the following groups at your institution? There is a strong sense of institutional pride here. How would you rate student morale at your institution? How would you rate the intellectual environment at your institution? Female and minority faculty are treated fairly at this institution. Racial and ethnic conflicts are a problem among students at my institution. Gender issues are a problem among students at my institution. How would you rate the overall quality of campus life at your institution? The quality of life at my institution is of greater concern today than it was a few years ago.

Page 111

TABLE 109: HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE SENSE OF CAMPUS COMMUNITY AT YOUR INSTITUTION, 1989-1997? (Percent responding “excellent” or “good”)

1989

1992

1997

All Faculty

37%

43%

27%

Research

25

35

27

Doctoral

30

41

19

Master’s

32

39

22

Baccalaureate

56

44

47

Associate of Arts

45

54

27

TABLE 110: PLEASE INDICATE THE DEGREE TO WHICH EACH OF THE FOLLOWING IS IMPORTANT TO YOU PERSONALLY. (Percent responding “very important”)

Page 112

My academic discipline

My department

My college or university

All Faculty

76%

50%

38%

Research

70

41

29

Doctoral

70

48

33

Master’s

78

50

34

Baccalaureate

74

55

48

Associate of Arts

80

57

45

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 111: FACULTY IN MY DEPARTMENT HAVE LITTLE CONTACT WITH FACULTY IN OTHER DEPARTMENTS.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

11%

31%

12%

31%

16%

Research

11

29

10

32

18

Doctoral

11

34

13

30

12

Master’s

13

30

10

33

14

Baccalaureate

6

22

8

34

31

Associate of Arts

13

34

14

27

12

TABLE 112: THE FACULTY IN MY DEPARTMENT GENERALLY TEND TO ISOLATE THEMSELVES FROM THE WORLD OUTSIDE THE CAMPUS. Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

6%

21%

15%

35%

23%

Research

6

25

16

34

19

Doctoral

9

20

16

37

18

Master’s

8

23

14

33

22

Baccalaureate

5

15

12

39

29

Associate of Arts

5

17

15

36

26

NCPI

Page 113

TABLE 113: HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE ACADEMIC REPUTATION OF YOUR DEPARTMENT OUTSIDE YOUR INSTITUTION?

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Not applicable

All Faculty

25%

41%

25%

8%

2%

Research

28

41

24

8

0

Doctoral

15

39

32

13

0

Master’s

17

39

33

10

1

Baccalaureate

19

42

27

10

3

Associate of Arts

33

42

18

5

3

TABLE 114: HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE SENSE THAT YOU FEEL VALUED AND APPRECIATED?

Page 114

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Not applicable

All Faculty

14%

38%

28%

21%

1%

Research

12

38

31

19

0

Doctoral

8

34

31

26

1

Master’s

10

36

28

26

1

Baccalaureate

16

41

25

18

0

Associate of Arts

18

39

25

18

1

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 115: HOW MUCH OPPORTUNITY DO YOU FEEL YOU HAVE TO INFLUENCE THE POLICIES OF YOUR DEPARTMENT AND INSTITUTION? (Percent responding “a great deal” or “quite a bit”)

My department

My institution

All Faculty

59%

14%

Research

54

11

Doctoral

58

11

Master’s

64

12

Baccalaureate

68

23

Associate of Arts

58

15

TABLE 116: TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU PARTICIPATE IN MEETINGS OF THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF ORGANIZATION AT YOUR INSTITUTION? (Percent responding “a great deal” or “sometimes”) Departmental faculty meetings

Faculty senate

Campus-wide committees

All Faculty

92%

32%

62%

Research

91

19

50

Doctoral

93

23

63

Master’s

94

32

69

Baccalaureate

94

60

78

Associate of Arts

89

36

63

NCPI

Page 115

TABLE 117: JUNIOR FACULTY MEMBERS HAVE TOO LITTLE SAY IN THE RUNNING OF MY DEPARTMENT.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

8%

14%

22%

32%

25%

Research

8

17

19

36

21

Doctoral

8

15

21

33

23

Master’s

9

13

18

33

27

Baccalaureate

7

13

18

32

31

Associate of Arts

7

12

28

27

26

TABLE 118: FACULTY MEETINGS IN MY DEPARTMENT GENERALLY ARE A WASTE OF TIME.

Page 116

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

9%

21%

16%

32%

22%

Research

10

24

19

30

17

Doctoral

12

23

16

30

20

Master’s

10

21

14

32

22

Baccalaureate

7

14

14

35

30

Associate of Arts

8

21

16

33

23

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 119: FACULTY GOVERNANCE WORKS EFFECTIVELY AT MY INSTITUION.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

7%

25%

28%

26%

14%

Research

5

22

33

26

15

Doctoral

4

19

29

30

18

Master’s

5

24

28

28

15

Baccalaureate

7

29

24

26

13

Associate of Arts

10

27

26

23

13

TABLE 120: TOP-LEVEL ADMINISTRATORS ARE PROVIDING COMPETENT LEADERSHIP.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

12%

34%

15%

22%

17%

Research

10

33

17

22

18

Doctoral

9

31

15

25

20

Master’s

10

35

15

23

18

Baccalaureate

19

36

12

19

15

Associate of Arts

13

34

15

22

17

NCPI

Page 117

TABLE 121: COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE FACULTY AND THE ADMINISTRATION IS POOR.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

21%

33%

16%

23%

8%

Research

21

35

18

21

6

Doctoral

25

34

16

20

5

Master’s

22

33

17

22

7

Baccalaureate

19

29

13

30

10

Associate of Arts

19

32

14

25

10

TABLE 122: HOW WOULD YOU RATE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE FOLLOWING GROUPS AT YOUR INSTITUTION? (Percent responding “excellent” or “good”)

Page 118

Administration and undergraduates

Administration and faculty

Faculty and students

All Faculty

36%

31%

78%

Research

35

27

71

Doctoral

29

23

72

Master’s

36

28

76

Baccalaureate

50

44

90

Associate of Arts

34

35

83

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 123: THERE IS A STRONG SENSE OF INSTITUTIONAL PRIDE HERE.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

18%

40%

18%

18%

5%

Research

21

41

18

14

4

Doctoral

10

29

23

27

12

Master’s

10

40

21

22

6

Baccalaureate

25

45

14

12

4

Associate of Arts

22

42

16

16

5

TABLE 124: HOW WOULD YOU RATE STUDENT MORALE AT YOUR INSTITION?

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Not applicable

All Faculty

7%

54%

34%

4%

1%

Research

6

54

35

3

2

Doctoral

5

44

43

6

1

Master’s

5

53

36

5

1

Baccalaureate

9

60

27

4

1

Associate of Arts

10

54

32

3

1

NCPI

Page 119

TABLE 125: HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE INTELLECTUAL ENVIRONMENT AT YOUR INSTITION?

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

All Faculty

12%

42%

34%

12%

Research

21

45

27

7

Doctoral

7

40

39

14

Master’s

5

42

36

17

Baccalaureate

14

44

31

11

Associate of Arts

10

40

36

13

TABLE 126: FEMALE AND MINORITY FACULTY ARE TREATED FAIRLY AT THIS INSTITION. (Percent agreeing “strongly” or “somewhat”)

Page 120

Female faculty

Minority faculty

All Faculty

78%

77%

Research

73

73

Doctoral

73

76

Master’s

74

74

Baccalaureate

78

78

Associate of Arts

85

82

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 127: RACIAL AND ETHNIC CONFLICTS ARE A PROBLEM AMONG STUDENTS AT MY INSTITUTION.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

5%

25%

19%

31%

19%

Research

7

33

21

25

14

Doctoral

7

26

22

28

18

Master’s

4

24

20

34

19

Baccalaureate

7

28

17

31

18

Associate of Arts

2

19

18

36

25

TABLE 128: GENDER ISSUES ARE A PROBLEM AMONG STUDENTS AT MY INSTITUTION.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

3%

19%

23%

35%

20%

Research

5

22

26

32

16

Doctoral

5

20

25

32

19

Master’s

2

20

23

38

17

Baccalaureate

4

24

19

31

22

Associate of Arts

2

15

20

37

25

NCPI

Page 121

TABLE 129: HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE OVERALL QUALITY OF CAMPUS LIFE AT YOUR INSTITUTION?

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Not applicable

All Faculty

7%

38%

43%

11%

2%

Research

7

46

37

8

1

Doctoral

4

31

48

16

1

Master’s

2

37

46

13

1

Baccalaureate

9

47

33

10

1

Associate of Arts

9

32

46

10

3

TABLE 130: THE QUALITY OF LIFE AT MY INSTITUTION IS OF GREATER CONCERN TODAY THAN IT WAS A FEW YEARS AGO.

Page 122

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

13%

31%

35%

15%

7%

Research

13

32

33

16

6

Doctoral

10

28

39

17

6

Master’s

12

30

37

16

6

Baccalaureate

15

34

31

13

7

Associate of Arts

12

32

34

13

9

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

CHAPTER 9: HIGHER EDUCATION AND SOCIETY

TABLE 131: TABLE 132: TABLE 133: TABLE 134: TABLE 135: TABLE 136: TABLE 137: TABLE 138: TABLE 139: TABLE 140: TABLE 141: TABLE 142: TABLE 143: TABLE 144: TABLE 145:

NCPI

Have you ever worked abroad to do research, take a sabbatical, or as part of an exchange program? Connections with scholars in other countries are very important to my professional work. My institution should recruit more international students and faculty. Universities and colleges should do more to promote student and faculty mobility from one country to another. In order to keep up with developments in my discipline, a scholar must read books and journals published abroad. The curriculum at this institution should be more international in focus. The goal of an academic scholar is to advance knowledge without regard for the possible implications for society. Faculty in my discipline have a professional obligation to apply their knowledge to problems in society. Facutly in my discipline have a professional obligation to collaborate with teachers in elementary and secondary schools. Universities have a responsibility to contribute to the economic development of their communities. This institution should be actively engaged in solving social problems. Academics are among the most influential opinion leaders. Respect for academics is declining. The effectiveness of higher education is being threatened by growing bureaucracies. In this country, there are no political or ideological restrictions on what a scholar may publish.

Page 123

TABLE 131: HAVE YOU EVER WORKED ABROAD TO DO RESEARCH, TAKE A SABBATICAL AS PART OF AN EXCHANGE PROGRAM?

Yes

No

All Faculty

38%

62%

Research

58

42

Doctoral

42

58

Master’s

36

64

Baccalaureate

39

61

Associate of Arts

23

77

TABLE 132: CONNECTIONS WITH SCHOLARS IN OTHER COUNTRIES ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO MY PROFESSIONAL WORK.

Page 124

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

25%

23%

21%

20%

11%

Research

42

27

14

13

5

Doctoral

28

27

19

18

9

Master’s

23

25

21

22

9

Baccalaureate

21

25

23

21

10

Associate of Arts

13

17

27

24

19

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 133: MY INSTITUTION SHOULD RECRUIT MORE INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS AND FACULTY.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

14%

23%

34%

20%

9%

Research

15

23

35

20

7

Doctoral

15

25

34

17

8

Master’s

20

25

34

15

6

Baccalaureate

19

29

33

14

5

Associate of Arts

9

19

34

24

14

TABLE 134: UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES SHOULD DO MORE TO PROMOTE STUDENT AND FACULTY MOBILITY FROM ONE COUNTRY TO ANOTHER.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

24%

38%

26%

9%

3%

Research

29

39

23

7

2

Doctoral

25

36

28

8

3

Master’s

26

38

27

8

1

Baccalaureate

26

39

26

7

2

Associate of Arts

17

37

28

13

5

NCPI

Page 125

TABLE 135: IN ORDER TO KEEP UP WITH DEVELOPMENTS IN MY DISCIPLINE, A SCHOLAR MUST READ BOOKS AND JOURNALS PUBLISHED ABROAD.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

35%

31%

13%

14%

7%

Research

50

27

7

11

4

Doctoral

42

29

9

15

5

Master’s

33

36

12

13

5

Baccalaureate

35

34

13

14

5

Associate of Arts

23

30

19

17

11

TABLE 136: THE CURRICULUM AT THIS INSTITUTION SHOULD BE MORE INTERNATIONAL IN FOCUS.

Page 126

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

15%

31%

32%

18%

5%

Research

18

32

32

15

4

Doctoral

16

31

32

17

4

Master’s

17

33

32

16

3

Baccalaureate

17

34

29

17

3

Associate of Arts

11

27

33

21

8

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 137: THE GOAL OF AN ACADEMIC SCHOLAR IS TO ADVANCE KNOWLEDGE WITHOUT REGARD FOR THE POSSIBLE IMPILICATIONS FOR SOCIETY.

Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

8%

18%

13%

39%

22%

Research

8

23

11

41

18

Doctoral

9

20

12

37

22

Master’s

8

15

14

38

24

Baccalaureate

7

16

11

40

25

Associate of Arts

9

17

14

38

22

TABLE 138: FACULTY IN MY DISCIPLINE HAVE A PROFESSIONAL OBLIGATION TO APPLY THEIR KNOWLEDGE TO PROBLEMS IN SOCIETY.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

33%

36%

18%

8%

6%

Research

36

34

15

9

6

Doctoral

34

36

16

8

6

Master’s

36

37

15

7

6

Baccalaureate

30

39

20

7

4

Associate of Arts

28

35

23

8

6

NCPI

Page 127

TABLE 139: COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY FACULTY HAVE A PROFESSIONAL OBLIGATION TO COLLABORATE WITH TEACHERS IN ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

19%

35%

24%

12%

11%

Research

14

28

28

16

14

Doctoral

17

30

25

16

12

Master’s

25

34

22

11

8

Baccalaureate

20

37

22

11

10

Associate of Arts

20

41

21

8

10

TABLE 140: UNIVERSITIES HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR COMMUNITIES.

Page 128

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

23%

47%

16%

11%

3%

Research

19

51

15

10

4

Doctoral

25

43

18

11

3

Master’s

23

49

15

11

2

Baccalaureate

22

45

19

11

3

Associate of Arts

25

45

16

12

2

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 141: THIS INSTITUTION SHOULD BE ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN SOLVING SOCIAL PROBLEMS.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

20%

41%

20%

14%

6%

Research

21

42

18

12

6

Doctoral

21

41

20

12

6

Master’s

21

42

20

14

4

Baccalaureate

20

44

20

11

4

Associate of Arts

17

39

22

16

7

TABLE 142: ACADEMICS ARE AMONG THE MOST INFLUENTIAL OPINION LEADERS.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

10%

29%

20%

32%

9%

Research

6

26

20

37

11

Doctoral

7

26

18

37

11

Master’s

9

27

19

34

10

Baccalaureate

9

31

18

32

10

Associate of Arts

15

34

20

25

5

NCPI

Page 129

TABLE 143: RESPECT FOR ACADEMICS IS DECLINING.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

23%

49%

16%

11%

2%

Research

24

47

19

10

1

Doctoral

26

48

15

9

2

Master’s

26

46

17

10

2

Baccalaureate

23

48

16

12

2

Associate of Arts

20

52

13

13

3

TABLE 144: THE EFFECTIVENESS OF HIGHER EDUCATION IS BEING THREATENED BY GROWING BUREAUCRACIES.

Page 130

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

29%

43%

17%

9%

2%

Research

27

46

17

9

1

Doctoral

32

40

18

8

2

Master’s

33

42

15

9

1

Baccalaureate

25

45

19

9

2

Associate of Arts

28

43

18

9

2

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

TABLE 145: IN THIS COUNTRY, THERE ARE NO POLITICAL OR IDEOLOGICAL RESTRICTIONS ON WHAT A SCHOLAR MAY PUBLISH.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neutral

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All Faculty

13%

27%

19%

34%

7%

Research

13

26

15

37

9

Doctoral

12

29

17

32

10

Master’s

13

27

19

34

7

Baccalaureate

9

29

23

32

6

Associate of Arts

13

25

20

35

8

NCPI

Page 131