The literature on the Ph.D. and on the preparation of college teachers reveals a century-long criticism of the Ph.D. as preparation for college teaching. Elements both within and without the profession of’ English have called for more attention to be paid to preparation for college teaching. The profession itself is undecided as to what preparation for the college teaching of English should involve. Thus, the problem dealt with in this study is the following: What do college teachers of English need to know and be able to do as teachers? The goal of this study is to answer the question and to use the resulting information as the basis for a course on Teaching College English.When developing a course or a program of professional training, there are, basically, two sources of information to draw from: (1) what people do when performing the task or job you wish to prepare others to do, and (2) what experts in the area call for. Since no single information source is adequate by itself, both are drawn from. Thus, a job analysis was done to determine what college teachers of English teaching predominantly lower division English, actually do as teachers. Likewise, a content analysis of the books and articles on teaching college English was done to course on Teaching College English.The purpose of the job analysis was two-fold: (1) to construct a comprehensive list of the tasks performed by college teachers of English in their capacities as instructors, and (2) to determine which of these tasks the prospective college teacher of English can best learn to do with the assistance of preservice training.Fifteen faculty members and fifteen doctoral students at two Indiana Institutions were queried regarding the frequency, difficulty, importance, and desirability for training of twenty-nine tasks. Scores assigned to answers permitted ranking the tasks from highest to lowest.The purpose of the content analysis was (1) to identify what those who write about the preparation of college teachers of English believe they need to know and be able to do as teachers, (2) to classify beliefs, and (3) to rank them in order of the frequency of their appearance.Assertions dealing with what is done for, during, and because of instructional contact were recorded, grouped under twenty-one headings. The groups were then ranked according to the number of assertions in them. The data from both the job analysis and the content determine what is most often recommended for inclusion in a analysis was used as the basis for a course on Teaching College English which was developed using an instructional systems approach.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:BSU/oai:cardinalscholar.bsu.edu:handle/176163 |
| Date | January 1977 |
| Creators | Findlen, George Louis |
| Contributors | Cox, Keith D. |
| Source Sets | Ball State University |
| Detected Language | English |
| Format | v, 185 leaves ; 28 cm. |
| Source | Virtual Press |
Page generated in 0.0131 seconds