No description available.

No description available.

Thesis (Ed. D.)--Illinois State University, 1978. / Title from title page screen, viewed Jan. 11, 2005. Dissertation Committee: J.H. McGrath (chair), Ronald Halinski, Creta Sabine, John McCarthy, Clinton Bunke. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 89-92) and abstract. Also available in print.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 1998. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 398-410). Available also in a digital version from Dissertation Abstracts.

No description available.

Thesis (J.C.D.)--Catholic University of America, 1927. / Vita. "Bibliographia": p. v-ix.

No description available.

Thesis advisor: Ana M. Martinez-Aleman / This study explored the perceptions and influences of the respondents to the <italic>U.S. News &amp World Report</italic>'s (<italic>USNWR</italic>) reputational survey for graduate schools of education (GSOEs). These respondents represent two unique stakeholder groups for graduate programs of education: GSOE deans and school superintendents. The existing literature regarding the <italic>USNWR</italic> rankings has been predominantly quantitative, with an emphasis on methodological problems with the rankings. This study employed mixed methods: quantitative analysis to determine the weight of the reputational surveys in the rankings, and qualitative to explore the perceptions of the raters of reputation for GSOEs. This study highlights several unique challenges in the ranking of GSOEs, including the multiple missions and widely varying programs across schools of education. In particular the rankings fail to distinguish between the GSOE predominant dual purposes of preparing researchers and preparing practitioners. The rankings may be contributing to the divide between research and practice in the academy. This study confirms with the GSOE deans that the rankings do <italic>matter</italic>, on and off campus, influencing the public perception of their programs. At a weighting of 40%, as stated by <italic>USWNR</italic>, reputation carries the greatest weight of all categories of input variables in the rankings. In terms of the reputational survey respondent groups, this study finds a significant difference between their levels of engagement with the rankings. This study finds a lack of meaningful participation in the rankings by the superintendents, resulting in an input variable that is biased, methodologically flawed, and contributing to erroneous fluctuations in rank. In contrast, this study finds the GSOE deans are reluctant but active participants in the rankings. They are vested competitors in the rankings business. The results indicate that the dean holds a critical role in the reputation management of their programs. These findings suggest that the rankings steer the role of the deanship toward an external focus, with an emphasis on publicizing the scholarship and scholars of the GSOE, to establish and maintain a degree of prominence among peer GSOE deans. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2009. / Submitted to: Boston College. Lynch School of Education. / Discipline: Educational Administration and Higher Education.

No description available.

The purpose of the study was to investigate relationships between selected personal variables of faculty members and academic deans and faculty perception of the leader behavior and effectiveness of the academic dean. A secondary purpose of the study was to investigate relationships between the leader behavior dimensions of Consideration and Initiating Structure and faculty rating of the academic dean.The population for the study consisted of forty-four academic deans and 801 faculty members of forty-four liberal arts colleges listed in the 1970-71 Education Directory: Higher Education as having a four-year liberal arts offering and 400 to 700 students.Academic deans completed the Academic Dean Personal Data Form and provided lists of all full-time teaching faculty members. Faculty members completed the Faculty Personal Data Form, the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire, and the Administrator Evaluation Form. Scores for the dimensions of Consideration and Initiating Structure as determined by faculty responses to the Leader Behavior Description college teaching, years teaching for the present dean, subQuestionnaire and rating scores as determined by faculty responses to the Administrator Evaluation Form were analyzed by multiple regression analysis to determine whether or not relationships significant at the .05 level existed between the scores and selected personal variables of faculty members and academic deans.Personal variables of faculty members considered were: sex, age, years teaching at present college, total years of subject taught, tenure status, professorial rank, and highest degree held. Personal variables of academic deans considered were: sex, age, years as dean at present college, and total years as an academic dean.Two of the personal variables included in the study were found to be significantly related to the scores computed from faculty responses to the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire and the Administrator Evaluation Form. The Consideration scores from the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire were found to be significantly related to the personal variable "years as an academic dean." An increase in years of experience as academic dean resulted in a decrease in Consideration scores. The Initiating Structure scores from the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire were found to be significantly related to the personal variables "years as an academic dean," and "faculty member age." An increase in years of experience as academic dean resulted in an increase in the Initiating Structure score and an increase in the age of the faculty member also resulted in an increase in the Initiating Structure score. The rating scores computed from the Administrator Evaluation Form were found t be significantly related to the personal variables "years as an academic dean," and "faculty member age." An increase in years of experience as academic dean resulted in a lower effectiveness rating by faculty, and an increase in age of the faculty member resulted in a higher effectiveness rating for the academic dean.The rating scores computed from faculty responses to the Administrator Evaluation Form had significant correlations with scores for both the dimensions of Consideration and Initiating Structure computed from the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire. Correlation coefficients were .814 for Consideration scores and rating scores and .541 for Initiating Structure scores and rating scores.