The problem this investigation considered was the effect of student evaluation feedback upon subsequent classroom behavior and attitudes of university faculty. The results of analysis of the data revealed that neither the amount of feedback, nor the time of semester the feedback was given produced any significant change in the teachers' self-evaluation. The discrepancies between students' evaluations and teacher's self-evaluation which were present also had no effect upon the teacher attitudes or classroom behaviors. Other variables that were without effect upon the teacher attitudes were number of years of teaching experience of the teacher, elective versus required course offerings, level of course, and academic department. These results refute much of the findings in current literature concerning the effects of various external consequences upon the attitudes of both teachers and students. However, the associated procedural difficulties require further explanation of the results. A possible explanation for the lack of significant results is detailed in the conclusion section. The reasons include procedural difficulties associated with external considerations which could not be controlled through experimentation; however, these processes have a large effect upon the final results.

The problem with which this study is concerned was to analyze the reactions of faculty members and academic administrators toward the practices related to the improvement of instruction as they pertain to the role of department or division chairpersons. The hypotheses designed to serve the purposes of this study were related to supervision of instruction, methods and materials used for instruction, evaluation of the teaching performance of faculty members, participation of faculty members in administrative decisions, faculty members' professional development, and evaluation of the outcomes of instruction.

The purpose of this study is to describe the perceptions of faculty development programs by two groups of full-time community college faculty members—arts and sciences instructors and vocational-technical instructors. To guide the development of this study, the following research questions were formulated. 1. Do organized faculty development programs have the same impression on the arts and sciences faculty members as on the vocational-technical members? 2. What specific effects do these faculty members believe that faculty development programs have had on instructional strategies, related faculty activities and professional attitudes? 3. To what extent do these faculty members perceive that the faculty development program is related to the reward system? 4. To what degree do faculty members perceive that institutional or departmental innovations have resulted from faculty development programs. What types of innovations have occurred, and what types should occur?

No description available.

No description available.

This qualitative study sought to understand community college faculty’s perceptions of and experiences with culturally responsive teaching. Participants were full- and part-time faculty currently employed at community colleges in the Southeastern United States and purposefully selected to provide information-rich data. Data collected from the semi-structured, in-depth interviews with the participants were coded and thematically analyzed. Emerging themes included faculty’s inclusion of varied categories of cultural diversity when describing students; limited knowledge related to culturally responsive teaching; perception that culturally responsive teaching is centered on connecting and building relationships with students; belief in the value of providing students exposure to different cultures; perception that culturally responsive teaching increases students’ employability; perception of numerous challenges with the implementation of culturally responsive teaching; identification of current strategies they believed reflected culturally responsive teaching practice; recognition of the need for more professional development related to culturally responsive teaching; desire for professional development experiences with practical strategies; and identification of the challenges related to professional development. The findings may inform community colleges’ implementation of culturally responsive teaching and related professional development, as well indicate areas where more research about culturally responsive teaching in community colleges is needed.

No description available.

Research suggests that residential learning communities (RLCs) provide benefits for members of those communities. Although much research has been done on benefits for students in RLCs, there has been little research done on the benefits for faculty and student affairs staff members involved in RLCs. An unexplored dimension in both these areas is a comparison of the intrinsic and extrinsic benefits for faculty and staff members involved in RLCs. The present study was designed to address this gap in the existing literature on RLCs. The purpose of this study was to identify the benefits faculty members and student affairs staff members gain from being involved in RLCs and explore any differences between the two groups. Data were collected by administering the Residential Learning Community Faculty and Staff Benefits Survey to faculty and staff members involved in RLCs at institutions listed in the Association of College and University Housing Officers-International Institutional Database as offering learning communities. Results revealed that faculty and staff members report gaining intrinsic benefits more often that extrinsic benefits from their involvement in residential learning communities. The results also indicated statistically significant difference between faculty members and student affairs staff members on 2 of the 30 benefits examined. Student affairs staff members were more likely to have received opportunities to participate in professional conference presentations than their faculty member counterparts, while faculty members were more likely to have shared research interests with students outside of the classroom than their student affairs staff member counterparts. / Master of Arts

This study is concerned with the problem of analyzing the attitudes of the faculty and administration of North Texas State University. The purposes of this study are to describe the North Texas State University campus environment as perceived by the faculty and administration through responses to the CUES II questionnaire, and to compare selected subgroups of the faculty with regard to their perceptions of the campus environment. The questionnaire used in this study is the College and University Environment Scales: Second Edition. The questionnaire consists of 160 items or statements about facilities and conditions that may or may not be characteristic of a particular campus. There are seven different scores on the scales for the measurement of campus environmental characteristics. These scales are Practicality, Scholarship, Community, Awareness, Propriety, Campus Morale, and Quality of Teaching and Faculty-Student Relations.

The problem of this study was subsidy ("vanity") publishing among college and university faculty. The purpose of the study was to estimate the extent to which postsecondary faculty use subsidy presses for the publication of their scholarly writings and the professional reasons for which academicians choose these presses to publish their works, viz., tenure, promotion, or salary increase. An additional purpose was to compare the subsidy publication experiences of faculty according to the types of institutions which employ them. The study involved 11 national subsidy publishers and 1,124 subsidy-published authors throughout the United States. Subsidy-published authors were identified occupationally as faculty by their appearance in the 1990 edition of The National Faculty Directory. The subjects in this study consisted of (a) faculty members listed in The National Faculty Directory. 1990 who are (b) known to have used subsidy presses for publishing their writings. A major finding of the study was that the proportion of vanity-published authors who are college and university faculty was small. Twenty-seven percent of the faculty whose books had been published by subsidy presses indicated that they had written and published in order to earn salary increases. Another 23% indicated that they had their books published to obtain promotions. Seventeen percent had their books published for the purpose of gaining tenure. Finally, one-third of the faculty surveyed identified miscellaneous other reasons for publishing their books through subsidy presses. More than two-thirds of the faculty who had used vanity presses (69%) claimed that their subsidy-published books had been effective in helping them achieve their purposes for publishing. Thirty percent judged their subsidy-produced books as ineffective. The majority of the subsidy-published faculty in the study were employed either by research universities or community/junior colleges. Only 26% of those surveyed indicated that they would choose a subsidy publisher if they had it to do again.