The purpose of this study was to identify a set of determinants of quality for public two-year colleges. To identify specific measures of quality for public two-year colleges, 61 variables of quality were selected from recent research on quality in higher education and consolidated on the Inventory of Determinants of Quality (IDQ). This instrument was mailed to a random sample of two-year college presidents, two-year college faculty members, four-year college deans, and community business leaders. Of the 476 surveys mailed, 315 were returned. The ANOVA procedure identified 24 IDQ items which the four study groups agreed were important to determining quality at public two-year colleges and 6 IDQ items which were less important. The study groups differed significantly in rating the remaining 31 IDQ items as determinants of quality for public two-year colleges. The majority of items found to be important to determining quality at public two-year colleges were related to student outcomes and academic standards. Items related to faculty characteristics, such as research productivity, were found to be less important. Four-year college deans differed significantly from the other three study groups on 13 IDQ items. The major differences were on items related specifically to two-year colleges such as diverse instructional delivery systems and the relationship between the two-year college and its local community. The results of the study led to two major conclusions regarding the determination of quality of public two—year colleges. First, a different set of criteria must be used for measuring quality at two-year colleges. Second, outcome measures must be an integral part of any two-year college evaluation system. Further research is recommended to determine the degree to which the items identified as determinants of quality for two-year colleges should be measured.

This study sought to determine the importance community college instructional stakeholders--teachers, administrators, and support staff--ascribe to 23 student outcome goals and to examine the relationships between biographical variables and stakeholders' perceptions. The study addressed the following research questions: (a) Which of the 23 student outcomes do instructional stakeholders as a whole perceive to be most important?; (b) Can these outcomes be factored into a set underlying constructs?; (c) Does the perceived importance of student outcomes vary in relationship to the type of student the stakeholder serves?; (d) Which outcomes do stakeholders serving different types of students value most highly?; (e) Does the perceived importance of student outcomes vary in relationship to: professional role, number of years worked in a community college, number of years worked at the community college surveyed, campus assignment, and gender? Data were collected from 241 subjects employed by a large, urban community college. Subjects rated the importance of 23 student outcomes on a Likert-like scale. The Student Outcome Goals Inventory, a survey instrument developed by the researcher, was used to collect data. Data were analyzed using one or more of the following statistical tests where appropriate: ANOVA, t Test, Factor Analysis, and Discriminant Function Analysis. The major conclusions drawn from this study were: (a) Instructional stakeholders as a group perceived outcomes related to affective constructs, basic skills development, and goal setting to be most important; (b) six constructs represent the outcomes (Personal/Social, Transfer, Credentialing, Employment, Traditional College, and Developmental); (c) Type of student served has a significant relationship to the perceived importance of 12 of the 23 outcomes with most differences occurring between stakeholders serving lower division transfer students and those serving professional/technical students; (d) Few significant relationships exist between the remaining biographical variables and the 23 outcome variables; (e) The type of students stakeholders served can be predicted with 69% accuracy. The outcomes rated most highly by stakeholders are those that represent a foundation of skills that students are typically expected to gain in their secondary education.

This thesis aims to show ways in which research assignments vary, despite the oft-held assumption that these assignments are fundamentally the same, regardless of discipline. for this purpose, research assignments were collected from insructors at one community college. These assignments were analyzed in terms of the following six dimensions: assignment title; topic selection; purpose; approach; format; and source requirements. The assignments were then examined for patterns in their variations across the disciplines, and across instructors within the same discipline. The findings reveal variation along each of the six dimensions. Assignment titles were perhaps the most variable; in fact, in many cases the terms identifying the assigments as research-oriented were not used. Topic selection was often left to the student, with very little guidance from the instructor. Formatting and documentation instructions were consistent, often placing more emphasis on correctly formatting sources and less on the overall style of the paper.

The problem with which this investigation is concerned is the design of a model for student follow-up procedures. This model is based on an analysis of the opinions of community junior college experts on the language and characteristics of a student follow-up system. This study has a twofold purpose. The first is to determine a consensus from the responses of experts on public community junior colleges regarding the important definitions, terminology, and characteristics of a student follow-up system. The second is to develop a model that can be implemented for student follow-up investigations.