Deans of Instruction and Faculty Development in Four Small Rural Junior Colleges in Texas.

Autor/in	Golemon, R. B.
Titel	Deans of Instruction and Faculty Development in Four Small Rural Junior Colleges in Texas.
Quelle	, (31 Seiten) PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei Verfügbarkeit
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Monographie
Schlagwörter	Academic Deans; Administrator Attitudes; Administrator Role; College Faculty; Community Colleges; Evaluation Methods; Faculty Evaluation; Higher Education; Inservice Education; Rural Schools; School Surveys; Staff Development; Teacher Attitudes; Two Year Colleges; Urban Schools; Texas + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Fakultät; Community college; Community College; Hochschulbildung; Hochschulsystem; Hochschulwesen; Berufsbegleitende Ausbildung; Rural area; Rural areas; School; Schools; Ländlicher Raum; Schule; Schulen; Personnel development; Personalentwicklung; Lehrerverhalten; Urban area; Urban areas; Stadtregion; Stadt
Abstract	Four deans of instruction in small, rural junior colleges and four deans of instruction in large, urban junior colleges were interviewed, and faculty members from the small junior colleges were surveyed, in order to ascertain their opinions regarding faculty development procedures. It was found that: (1) deans felt in-service workshops to be essential while faculty were generally unconvinced as to the usefulness of such workshops; (2) consultants were felt to be useful by both deans and faculty; (3) varying methods of faculty evaluation were used, and in the small colleges the deans played a personal role in the evaluation process while in the large colleges where evaluation procedures were more systematic the deans' role was less important; (4) deans in small colleges tended to favor faculty exchange programs while deans in large colleges had reservations as to the utility of such a practice; (5) tangible recognition for teaching excellence or outstanding service was almost unanimously approved by both faculty and deans; (6) faculty and deans approved of community involvement/service as a means of faculty development; and (7) overall, while there was no great difference in the opinions of faculty members and deans' perceptions as to the deans' role in the faculty development process, there seemed to be a nominal breakdown in communications resulting in some unnecessary misunderstandings. An extensive bibliography and the survey instruments are appended. (JDS)
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC