A Profile of the Community College Professoriate: A Report Submitted to the Small Research Grants Program of the Spencer Foundation.

This study focused on the nature and formation of a professional identity for the community college professoriate. In late 2000, a random national sample of more than 1,500 community college faculty were surveyed on their professional practices and attitudes. This survey, which contained over 200 items, revealed that the community college professoriate grew not only more diverse but also more disparate since 1975, when a similar survey was undertaken. Survey data showed that faculty differed significantly on a wide variety of measures according to their personal and professional characteristics, including their instructional practices, levels of professional involvement, and use of professional reference groups. Some groups, most notably full-timers and doctoral seekers, demonstrated higher degrees of commitment to teaching, to their profession, and to their institution. However, these same groups also reported closer ties with four-year colleges and universities, a finding that contradicts the notion that community college instruction has developed as a professional practice sui generis. In conclusion, the community college professoriate has become increasingly differentiated at the same time the community college mission has grown ever more complex; however, it is not clear that the institutional mission and instructor practice have developed with close regard for one another. (Author/NB) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. A Profile of the Community College Professoriate A Report Submitted to the Small Research Grants Program of the Spencer Foundation Arthur M. Cohen Charles L. Outcalt BEST COPY AVAILABLE June 29, 2001 PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY A. TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES C) INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) *his document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it. 0 Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. Abstract 3 Research Question 4 Relevant Literature 4 Method 9 Obtaining the Institutional Sample 9 Appointing a Local Facilitator 10 Obtaining the Faculty Sample 11 The Survey Packet 12 Timeline 13 Constructs 13 Curriculum and Instruction 14 Institutional Orientation 14 Professional Involvement 14 The Use of the University as Reference Group 15 Limitations 15 Results 17 Demographic Characteristics 17 Table 1: Faculty Gender 17 Table 2: Faculty Race/Ethnicity 19 Table 3: Faculty Age 20 Table 4: Demographic Characteristics by Full-Time/Part-Time Status 22 Table 5: Length of Service as Community College Faculty 23 Table 6: Length of Service as Administrator 24 Table 7: Length of Service as Secondary Instructor 25 Table 8: Length of Service as Four-Year Instructor 26 Summary of Demographic Results 27 Results by Construct 27 Curriculum and Instruction 28 Table 9: Summary of Curriculum and Instruction Scores 29 Table 10: Use of Instructional Time, by Employment Status 31 Table 11: Use of Instructional Time, by Doctoral Attainment 31 Table 12: Use of Instructional Time, by Doctoral Aspiration 32 Table 13: Use of Instructional Time, by Employment Status and Doctoral Aspiration 32 Table 14: Use of Instructional Time, by Instructional Area 33 Table 15: Percent Stating Revised Syllabus in Past Three Years 35 Table 16: Percent Stating Received Award for Teaching 36 Table 17: Percent Stating Taught Honors 37 Table 18: Percent Stating Taught Remedial 38 Table 19: Percent Stating Taught Jointly with Colleagues Outside their Department 39 Table 20: Percent Stating Traveled Off Campus for Conference or Symposium 40 Table 21: Percent Stating Organized Extracurricular Activities for Students 41 Institutional Orientation 42 How does involvement with the institution vary by instructor characteristics? 42 Table 22: Summary of Institutional Orientation Construct Scores 43 Table 23: Percent Rating Relations with Colleagues Excellent or Good 45 Table 24: Time Spent in Informal Interaction with Colleagues 46 page 1 33 Research Question 4 Relevant Literature 4 Method 9 Obtaining the Institutional Sample 9 Appointing a Local Facilitator 10 Obtaining the Faculty Sample 11 The Survey Packet 12 Timeline 13 Constructs 13 Curriculum and Instruction 14 Institutional Orientation 14 Professional Involvement 14 The Use of the University as Reference Group 15 Limitations 15 Results 17 Demographic Characteristics 17 Table 1: Faculty Gender 17 Table 2: Faculty Race/Ethnicity 19 Table 3: Faculty Age 20 Table 4: Demographic Characteristics by Full-Time/Part-Time Status 22 Table 5: Length of Service as Community College Faculty 23 Table 6: Length of Service as Administrator 24 Table 7: Length of Service as Secondary Instructor 25 Table 8: Length of Service as Four-Year Instructor 26 Summary of Demographic Results 27 Results by Construct 27 Curriculum and Instruction 28 Table 9: Summary of Curriculum and Instruction Scores 29 Table 10: Use of Instructional Time, by Employment Status 31 Table 11: Use of Instructional Time, by Doctoral Attainment 31 Table 12: Use of Instructional Time, by Doctoral Aspiration 32 Table 13: Use of Instructional Time, by Employment Status and Doctoral Aspiration 32 Table 14: Use of Instructional Time, by Instructional Area 33 Table 15: Percent Stating Revised Syllabus in Past Three Years 35 Table 16: Percent Stating Received Award for Teaching 36 Table 17: Percent Stating Taught Honors 37 Table 18: Percent Stating Taught Remedial 38 Table 19: Percent Stating Taught Jointly with Colleagues Outside their Department 39 Table 20: Percent Stating Traveled Off Campus for Conference or Symposium 40 Table 21: Percent Stating Organized Extracurricular Activities for Students 41 Institutional Orientation 42 How does involvement with the institution vary by instructor characteristics? 42 Table 22: Summary of Institutional Orientation Construct Scores 43 Table 23: Percent Rating Relations with Colleagues Excellent or Good 45 Table 24: Time Spent in Informal Interaction with Colleagues 46 page 1 3 Table 25: Percent Stating More Interaction with Colleagues or Administrators Would Improve Courses 48 Table 26: Rating Sources of Teaching Advice 49 Professional Involvement 50 How does professional involvement vary by instructor characteristics? 50 Table 27: Summary of Professional Involvement Scores 51 Table 28: Percent Belonging to General Education Association 53 Table 29: Percent Belonging to Community College Specific Association 54 Table 30: Percent Belonging to Disciplinary Association 55 Table 31: Percent Belonging to Any Type of Education Association 56 Table 32: Mean Number of General Education Journals Read Regularly 57 Table 33: Mean Number of Community College Specific Journals Read Regularly 58 Table 34: Mean Number of Disciplinary Journals Read Regularly 59 Table 35: Professional Association Attitudes and Hours 60 University as Reference Group 61 Table 36: Summary of University as Reference Group Scores 62 Table 37: Correlations with the University as Reference Group 63 Table 38: Percent Stating They "Strongly" or "Somewhat" Agree that Most Important Ideas Originate in University 64 Table 39: Percent Finding Faculty Position at Four-Year College or University Attractive 65 Table 40: Percent Finding University Professors Useful or Quite Useful Sources of Teaching Advice 67 Table 41: Mean Rank of "Preparation for Further Formal Education" in Qualities Students Should Gain from Two-Year College Education 68 Longitudinal Comparisons, 1975-2000 69 Table 42: Curriculum and Instruction, 1975 and 2000 70 Table 43: Percent Stating Use of Selected Instructional Practices, 1975 and 2000 71 Table 44: Selected Measures of Institutional Orientation, 1975 and 2000 72 Table 45: Specific Measures of Professional Involvement, 1975 and 2000 73 Table 46: Selected Measures of the University as Reference Group, 1975 and 2000 74 Conclusions 76