• unlimited access with print and download
    $ 37 00
  • read full document, no print or download, expires after 72 hours
    $ 4 99
More info
Unlimited access including download and printing, plus availability for reading and annotating in your in your Udini library.
  • Access to this article in your Udini library for 72 hours from purchase.
  • The article will not be available for download or print.
  • Upgrade to the full version of this document at a reduced price.
  • Your trial access payment is credited when purchasing the full version.
Buy
Continue searching

Academic qualifications, faculty development, and self-efficacy of new community college faculty

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 2009
Dissertation
Author: Michele Marie Body
Abstract:
The 2008 Strategic Plan for the California Community College System listed two primary goals: (1) college awareness and access as well as (2) student success and readiness. A listed sub-goal of student success and readiness was supporting effective teaching and learning. However, the community college system does not have a universal policy for the induction and training of new faculty to ensure these goals. Instead, the system has set minimum academic qualifications and allows districts and individual instructors to utilize a variety of professional development options. Yet it is unknown whether the minimum academic qualifications and professional development activities of new community college faculty are adequate to ensure optimal student achievement. A mixed-method study using an online survey and face-to-face interviews was conducted to measure the self-efficacy of new community college instructors and to identify variables associated with these self-efficacy scores. Quantitative analyses included One Way ANOVAs and General Linear Model ANOVAs. Qualitative analysis was completed using data reduction (coding, identifying themes), data display (assembling information), and conclusion drawing and verification. Although the original research questions did not show any statistically significant relationships, qualitative inquiry revealed self-motivation and peer support to be important themes concerning professional development for new faculty members.

viii TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem .............................................................................1 Background ..................................................................................................2 Minimum Academic Qualifications for Faculty ....................................6 Faculty Development for New Instructors .............................................7 Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................9 Definition of Terms......................................................................................9 Research Questions ....................................................................................10 Significance of the Study ...........................................................................11 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .................................................................13 Overview ....................................................................................................13 Self-Efficacy ..............................................................................................14 Effective Practices in College Instruction ..................................................17 Faculty Development in Community Colleges ..........................................26 Considerations for Effective Faculty Development .............................29 Barriers to Effective Faculty Development .........................................34 Institutional Barriers ............................................................................35 Individual Barriers ...............................................................................37 III. METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................40 Review of the Research Questions ............................................................40

ix Overview and Rationale for Methods ........................................................41 Sample and Population ..............................................................................41 Instruments .................................................................................................42 Data Collection ..........................................................................................46 IV. RESULTS ........................................................................................................49 Review of the Study ...................................................................................49 Survey and Interview Respondents ............................................................49 Survey Respondents’ Demographics ...................................................51 Interview Volunteers’ Demographics ..................................................54 Data Analysis .............................................................................................56 Findings......................................................................................................58 Qualitative Analysis ...................................................................................64 Flex Days Not Well Respected ............................................................65 Not Enough Funding ...........................................................................66 Time Constraints ..................................................................................67 Mentors ................................................................................................67 Ongoing Collaborative Programs ........................................................69 Peer Support/Interaction ......................................................................70 Self-Motivation ....................................................................................72 Quantitative Analysis .................................................................................77 Under-Prepared Students .....................................................................82 Know Students Individually ................................................................83

x Textbooks .............................................................................................85 Relating Family to Work .....................................................................86 Definition of Diversity .........................................................................87 Summary ....................................................................................................88 V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ...........................................................90 Review of the Study ...................................................................................90 Limitations .................................................................................................90 Discussion ..................................................................................................92 Recommendations ......................................................................................99 Research Methods ................................................................................99 Flex Days ...........................................................................................100 Informal Peer Network ......................................................................101 Instructors with No Previous Teaching Experience ...........................102 Comparison of Groups with Minimum Academic Qualifications .....102 Conclusions ..............................................................................................103 References ..................................................................................................................105 Appendices .................................................................................................................115 A. Northern California District Flex Day Offerings ...............................................116 B. Northern California District New Faculty Orientation ......................................118 C. Focus Group/Interview Questions .....................................................................119 D. Email Survey and Focus Group Solicitation. .....................................................120 E. Online Survey ....................................................................................................121

xi F. Consent for Focus Group ...................................................................................134 G. Consent for Interviews .......................................................................................135

xii LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Feldman’s Characteristics of Good Teaching and Effective Instruction .............18 Table 2. Comparison of Literature Concerning Effective College Teaching Practices .................................................................................................................24 Table 3. Top 10 Professional Development Activities at Participating Community Colleges..................................................................................................................29 Table 4. Comparison of Literature of Top Six Attributes of Effective Professional Development Offerings ..........................................................................................34 Table 5. Student Demographics of Selected Community College Districts, Fall 2007 Semester .................................................................................................42 Table 6. Faculty Demographics of Participating Community College Districts, Fall 2007 Semester .................................................................................................43 Table 7. Pearson's r: Measure of Internal Consistency, Inter-Item Correlation ................45 Table 8.Qualitative Categories of Professional Development ...........................................65 Table 9.One-way ANOVA: Total Self-Efficacy Score versus Type of Faculty Development ..........................................................................................................75 Table 10.One-way ANOVA: Total Self-Efficacy Score versus None or Any Faculty Development .............................................................................................75 Table 11. One-way ANOVA: Total Self-Efficacy Score versus District ..........................76 Table 12.ANOVA for Total Self-Efficacy Score versus District and Professional Development ..........................................................................................................78 Table 13.ANOVA for Total Self-Efficacy Score versus Gender, Full-Time or Part-Time Status, Previous Teaching Experience, and Age ..................................78 Table 14.One-way ANOVA: Total Self-Efficacy Score versus Community College Teaching Preparation ...............................................................................81 Table 15. One-way ANOVA: Total Self-Efficacy Score versus Preparation for Diversity .................................................................................................................81 Table 16. Qualitative Categories Involving Accommodating Learners ............................82

xiii LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Bandura’s Chart of Self-Efficacy Sources .........................................................17 Figure 2. Survey Response and Total Available District Email Addresses of New Faculty Members .......................................................................................50 Figure 3. Survey Respondents’ Full-Time or Part-Time Status by District ......................52 Figure 4. Survey Respondents by District and Gender ......................................................52 Figure 5. Age Distribution of Survey Respondents ...........................................................53 Figure 6. Survey Respondents’ Education Levels .............................................................54 Figure 7. Interview Volunteers and Survey Respondents ..................................................55 Figure 8. Survey Respondents’ Amount of Pre-Service Introduction ...............................59 Figure 9. Respondents’ Introduction to Teaching and Learning by Full-Time versus Part-Time Status .........................................................................................60 Figure 10. Types of Faculty Development Utilized by Survey Respondents ....................61 Figure 11. Type of Faculty Development by Full-Time versus Part-Time Status .............62 Figure 12. Faculty Development Most Useful to Teaching ...............................................63 Figure 13. Faculty Development Most Useful to Teaching by Full-Time versus Part-Time Status.....................................................................................................64 Figure 14. Respondent Self-Efficacy Scores .....................................................................74 Figure 15. Self-Efficacy Scores versus Teaching Experience ...........................................80

1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION “The community college should be the nation’s premier teaching institution. Quality instruction should be the hallmark of the movement.” -- American Association of Community and Junior Colleges (1988, p. 25)

Statement of the Problem The California Community College System is the largest system of higher education in the world. Composed of 72 districts, 109 campuses, and 64 educational centers, the System served nearly 2.75 million students during the 2007-2008 academic year (California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office [CCCCO], 2008a). According to the System’s new strategic plan, “An educated California will advance the state’s economic and political success, and the California Community Colleges are better positioned than any other entity to meet this educational and societal challenge” (CCCCO, 2008b, p. 1). Two primary goals of the strategic plan – (a) college awareness and access and (b) student success and readiness – are the foundation for the System’s commitment. A listed sub-goal of student success and readiness is supporting effective teaching and learning (CCCCO, 2008b). However, the California Community College System does not have a universal policy for the induction and training of new faculty to ensure these strategic goals. Instead, the System has set minimum academic qualifications and allows districts and individual instructors to utilize a variety of professional development options. It is unknown whether the minimum academic

2 qualifications and professional development activities of new community college faculty are adequate to ensure optimal student achievement. As noted above, achievement in the California Community College System is crucial not only for the individual student but for the state’s economic and workforce development. Background The policy of open access has made the California Community College System the initial point of entry for the majority of individuals entering post- secondary public education, with three of four post-secondary students in the state enrolled in community colleges (California Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2008). In 1961, the California Master Plan for Higher Education established, as state policy, that only the top academic one third of high school graduates would be permitted to directly enter the public university system, specifically the top 12.5% to be admitted to the University of California system and the top 33.3% to be admitted to the California State University system. The remaining 66.7% of high school graduates would have access to the community colleges if they wished to attend a public California college. Designed to “offer lower-division instruction that is transferable to a 4-year college, provide remedial and vocational training, and grant associate degrees and certificates,” the admission requirement to the California Community College System is “all persons 18 years or older who can benefit from instruction” (California Legislative Analysts’ Office, 2007a, p. 11). Consequently, 100% of high school graduates are eligible to enter the California Community College System. For

3 individuals wanting non-credit coursework, such as preparation for the General Education Development (GED) test, the high school skills equivalency, pre-colligate “basic skills” instruction (also known as remedial education), or trade and industry courses (e.g., food service or welding), completion of high school is not necessary. A primary mission of the California community colleges is to “advance California's economic growth and global competitiveness through education, training, and services that contribute to continuous work force improvement” (Legislative Counsel of California, n.d.). To achieve this end, the Economic Development Program (EDP) was established in 1991. The role of the community colleges in this effort is to fulfill the vocational education and instructional needs of California business and industry through leadership, communication, and liaisons with the private sector as well as with public sector education and training providers (CCCCO, 2008c). The California Community College System is currently the largest workforce-training program in the state (CCCCO, 2008b). The nurturing and development of this type of training is not only important to community colleges but also to the health and economic vitality of California. There are multiple challenges to providing access and educational services to a large, diverse population. Factors such as technological advances and the globalization of both the economy and the student population place increasing demands on the institutions of higher education in California, particularly at the community college level. The worldwide web has allowed for globalization of the marketplace, breaking the linkage between geography and employment (Little

4 Hoover Commission, 2002). This knowledge-based economy limits the employment prospects of undereducated individuals and increasingly requires them to have education and training beyond high school if they are to compete for the kinds of job that would support a middle-class lifestyle (Little Hoover Commission). Another trend affecting the California Community College System is the globalization of the state’s citizenry (Little Hoover Commission, 2002). The influx of immigrants and refugees, each with separate religions and cultures, is attending community college and seeking the skills needed to succeed in the new economy. According to the California Legislative Analyst’s Office (2007b), it is predicted that California’s Hispanic population will double between 1990 and 2010, and the state’s Asian population will increase by two thirds. The non-Hispanic White population is expected to increase by 13%, while the Black population is predicted to remain the same. This means that by 2010, 54% of California’s citizenry and 67% of school-age children will be Hispanic, Asian, or Black (California Legislative Analysts’ Office, 2007b). The CCCCO’s (2007a) demographics report for fall 2007 noted enrollment of non-Caucasians as 64%, almost two thirds of the student population. Essential to student achievement is effective teaching, which Boyer (1990) defined as “a dynamic endeavor involving all the analogies, metaphors, and images that build bridges between a teacher’s understanding and the students’ learning” (p. 23). According to Adams (as cited in Murray, 2001), effective learning and teaching in classrooms populated by diverse students is dependent on “the flexibility

5 of a college instructor’s teaching repertoire, and his or her readiness to draw on a range of teaching styles for a variety of ends.” Kelley (1992) stated that some cognitive learning patterns, such as processing concepts and synthesizing content, are culturally influenced. According to Morrier, Irving, Dandy, Dmitriyev, and Ukeje (2007), developing culturally sensitive educators who are effective in educating students from minority backgrounds has become increasingly important. Often teachers have a strong mismatch between cultural identity and the emphasis placed on academic achievement in today's educational environments. This tension often results in perceived lower teacher quality and student achievement (Morrier et al., 2007). Community college faculty plays a crucial role in training and educating California’s future workforce. Given the open-access requirements and the increasing influence of globalization on the economy and the student population, these instructors must be able to effectively teach knowledge and skills to academically and ethnically diverse groups of learners. However, a 1997 survey of community college faculty found student under-preparation for college most pronounced at community colleges, and Huber (1998) cited open access as a contributing factor. In addition, many instructors teach the way they learn and may have difficulty understanding students with different styles of learning (Thompson, Orr, Thompson, & Park, 2002). Currently the requirements for teaching at a California community college do not include any prerequisite knowledge of teaching and learning.

6 Minimum Academic Qualifications for Faculty Prior to 1990, a credential system was used for community college faculty qualification. This required a single subject credential in a particular field. However, the passage of AB 1725, the community college reform bill, in 1988 replaced the credential with a set of minimum academic qualifications for credit instructors, counselors, and librarians. The state believes these minimum qualifications serve as “a statewide benchmark for promoting professionalism and rigor within the academic disciplines in the community colleges and a guideline for day-to-day decisions regarding suitability for employment in the system” (CCCCO, 2008d). No difference exists between full-time and part-time faculty in the state-required minimum academic qualifications. Although individual districts may impose more stringent minimum qualifications, they cannot set their standards lower than those mandated by the state. The academic disciplines are divided between two categories: those that require a master’s degree to teach and those that do not. The disciplines requiring a master’s degree specify in which fields of study these degrees must be, and experience in the field (other than coursework) is not necessary. For example, a faculty member in accounting need not have worked at a tax firm to teach tax preparation. For those disciplines that do not require a master’s degree, the minimum qualifications are any bachelor’s degree and 2 years of experience, or any associate degree and 6 years of experience. For these professions, a master’s degree is considered “not generally expected or available” (CCCCO, 2008d). Those fields not

7 requiring master’s degrees are usually associated with vocational training, such as plumbing, welding, food service, and the vast majority of allied health professions. It is possible to have an unrelated bachelor’s or associate degree as long as the instructor has the proper years of experience in the field. There is noticeable difference between the requirements for these two groups. The master’s degree requirement stresses academics in lieu of on-the-job experience, while the non-master’s cohort is concerned with the skill of the trade rather than coursework. Neither group is required to have previous pedagogy knowledge or skills. Major and Palmer (2006) defined pedagogical content knowledge as: A complex concept that includes knowledge of learners, knowledge of subject matter, previous experiences, ideas about pedagogical practice, and contextual cues in a dynamic iterative process and that can be supported and encouraged through institutional intervention (p. 645) For many new faculty without teaching experience, orientation and other professional development activities offered by their institutions may offer an introduction to teaching and learning in a community college. Faculty Development for New Instructors After a 1976 pilot program in six California community colleges, changes in Title 5 legislation (AB 1149) in 1981 allowed all community colleges the option of adopting a flexible calendar program. This legislation permits colleges to substitute up to 15 days of faculty professional development activities for instructional days in an academic year (CCCCO, 2007b). AB 1725, passed in 1988, contained provisions for funding of professional development activities. The 2007 California Education

8 Code (as cited in CCCCO, 2007b) states: “The board of governors shall annually review the need for state funds to carry out the purposes of the fund for instructional improvement and shall include an estimate of this need in its budget for each year” (Section 87154). AB 1725 also shifted the focus of control from a centralized state office to a more decentralized local district control. As a consequence, each of the 72 community college districts decides on the number of faculty development (or “Flex”) days for faculty members and whether or not to include part-time faculty in this program. According to 2004-2005 data from the CCCCO (2007b), there are 103 out of 109 colleges participating in flex days, with a range of 1 to 15 days allowed and an average of 6 days across programs. Individual faculty members have the opportunity to decide which activities are appropriate for their needs. New faculty members may or may not be required to attend orientation meetings, depending on the campus where they are employed. Again it is noted that while pedagogy and classroom skills may be offered, they are usually not mandatory. New faculty orientation may have a component for teaching skills, but any ongoing program would be voluntary on the part of the faculty member. While some campuses have structured centers for excellence in teaching, others have limited resources or provide web links to other sites. Across campuses, there is no systematic preparation or development for new community college faculty members.

9 Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to examine the minimum academic qualifications, professional development, and teaching self-efficacy of new community college faculty at two selected districts. Findings from this study were used to determine the minimum academic qualifications for these new instructors, assess their professional development activities, uncover variables related to teaching self-efficacy, and contribute to the existing literature regarding induction experiences of community college faculty. With the primary goal of professional development at community colleges to enhance instruction and thereby increase student learning, this study focused on one aspect of the relationship, characteristics and perceptions of the instructor. In particular, teacher self-efficacy, a rating of teachers’ confidence in their ability to promote students’ learning, was selected as a measure of teaching effectiveness (Bandura, 1977). It was felt that having new instructors rate their self-efficacy would result in an accurate assessment of personal capabilities and persistence. The benefits of using teacher self-efficacy are discussed in Chapter II. Definition of Terms  Faculty Development (Professional/Personal Development): Any activity approved by a college for faculty to earn continuing education credits.

10  Minimum Academic Qualifications: Academic disciplines requiring a Master’s degree versus those who do not, placing emphasis instead on experience in the field.  New Faculty: Instructors who have been employed as faculty less than 3 years (five semesters, including summer semester) at the community colleges studied.  Self-Efficacy: People's judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances. (Bandura, 1986)  Teacher Self-Efficacy: Teachers’ confidence in their ability to promote students’ learning. (Woolfolk Hoy, 2004) Research Questions Although technological, economic, and demographic changes impact all California community college faculty, this study was specifically designed for new full-time and part-time faculty. It was intended to provide answers to the following questions:  Question 1: What types of professional development, including orientation activities, did new faculty use?  Question 1A : What professional development did they find most beneficial to their teaching?

11  Question 1B : Does a difference exist in types of professional development used by groups with different minimum academic qualifications (i.e., masters’ degree with no professional experience vs. bachelors’ or associates’ degree with experience in the field)?  Question 2: How did new faculty rate their teaching self-efficacy after their initial semesters in the classroom?  Question 2A : Is there a relationship between teaching self-efficacy rating and type of faculty development employed?  Question 2B : Does a difference in teaching self-efficacy exist between groups with different minimum academic qualifications (i.e., masters’ degree with no professional experience vs. bachelors’ or associates’ degree with experience in the field)?  Question 2C : Does a difference in teaching self-efficacy exist between college districts?  Question 3: How is teaching self-efficacy for new faculty affected by minimum academic qualifications, district, and professional development? Significance of the Study As the largest system of higher education in the world and the largest workforce-training program in California, the California community college system needs instructors who can effectively engage, motivate, and teach a broad spectrum of learners. These students vary considerably, both demographically and academically.

12 With no type of systemic induction for new faculty, it is important to examine what types of prerequisites and professional development new faculty find beneficial to improving their perceived ability to reach an increasingly diverse group of learners. Research on novice community college professoriate and their professional development experience is available but somewhat limited. Adding to this literature has the potential to facilitate improvement of instruction and help community colleges meet the increasing needs of both individual students as well as the state’s economy.

13 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Overview The study was designed to examine the perceptions of new community college instructors on teaching self-efficacy and use of professional development. Therefore, it was important to review literature in the areas of self-efficacy, effective instruction, and faculty development to form a comprehensive foundation for the current research. Previous studies involving community college faculty and self- efficacy could not be located. Online literature searches were performed using Google Scholar, the ERIC database, and the Social Science Databases via CSA, with access through the University of California at Santa Barbara’s online library. Terms searched included, but were not limited to, “community college,” “new faculty,” “pre-service,” “induction,” “best practices,” “pedagogy,” “andragogy,” “professional development,” “self-efficacy,” “effective instruction,” “postsecondary education,” “higher education,” “teaching and learning,” “college teaching,” “minimum qualifications,” “orientation,” “flex calendar,” “learning outcomes,” “community college demographics,” “diversity,” “faculty development,” and “orientation.”

14 Self-Efficacy In 1977, Albert Bandura introduced the concept of self-efficacy in the article “Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change” in Psychological Review. Based in social cognitive theory, self-efficacy is situation specific and defines efficacy in terms of judgments of capability to perform specific actions in light of specific goals. Because of this situational specificity, self-efficacy beliefs are assumed to be much more dynamic, fluctuating, and changeable beliefs than the somewhat more static and stable self-concept and self-competence beliefs (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). A RAND (a contraction of the term “research and development”) Corporation study, “Analysis of the School Preferred Reading Programs in Selected Los Angeles Minority Schools,” was the first to identify teacher self-efficacy as being related to student achievement (Armor et al., 1976). As part of an evaluation of K-12 educational programs funded by the 1965 Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, two questions were used to determine teacher efficacy: (1) “When it comes right down to it, a teacher really can’t do much because most of a student’s motivation and performance depends on his or her home environment” and (2) “If I try really hard, I can get through to even the most difficult or unmotivated students.” These questions were scored on a 5-point Likert scale, with the sum total determining self-efficacy levels (Armor et al.). The results of the study showed that the higher the level of teacher self-efficacy (as measured by these two questions), the higher the

15 advances in reading achievement in the students. The statistical association had a significance level of p < 0.05 (Armor et al.). Additional studies since then have shown teacher efficacy to be related to student motivation, teachers’ adoption of innovation, and teachers’ classroom management strategies (Woolfolk Hoy, 2004). When student self-efficacy is measured, it is consistently shown that self-efficacy beliefs of students are related to academic achievement and performance on standardized tests and actual school tasks in addition to self-report measures of cognitive engagement and self-regulated learning (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). Greater efficacy leads to greater effort and persistence, which leads to better performance, which in turn leads to greater efficacy. The reverse is also true. Lower efficacy leads to less effort and giving up easily, which leads to poor teaching outcomes, which then produces decreased efficacy (Woolfolk Hoy, 2004). According to Bandura (1977), self-efficacy is derived from four sources of information: performance accomplishments, vicarious experience, verbal (or social) persuasion, and physiological states. Performance accomplishments are considered to be the most influential source, as they are based on actual experience. Repeated success elevates self-efficacy, while negative outcomes cause a decrease. However, occasional setbacks may actually increase self-efficacy as individuals find that, through sustained effort, obstacles can be overcome. Vicarious experience, relying on inference of social comparison, is not as strong a source of personal efficacy as performance accomplishments and therefore

16 more subject to change (Bandura, 1977). Watching others teach, for example, may allow new faculty members to see that the task can be done, but may not directly impact how that faculty member may feel about his/her ability to do the same task. Verbal persuasion, with no experiential base, is a less powerful influence on self-efficacy. However, people who are persuaded of their capabilities may try harder to accomplish a designated task, providing an interaction with mastery (performance) accomplishments to help elevate self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977). In threatening situations, fear reactions are a negative form of emotional arousal and may affect self-efficacy. By elevating anxiety and stress levels (physiologic states), performance and resulting self-efficacy may be decreased. Simply stated, a positive mood increases self- efficacy, while a despondent mood has the opposite effect (Bandura, 1977). Bandura’s chart of self-efficacy sources is presented in Figure 1. The concept of teaching self-efficacy is constructed of two parts, taken from the two RAND study questions noted earlier. The first question, “When it comes right down to it, a teacher really can’t do much because most of a student’s motivation and performance depends on his or her home environment,” is a belief measure of the power of teaching to reach difficult students; this component of efficacy is called General Teacher Efficacy, or GTE. The second question, “If I try really hard, I can through to even the most difficult or unmotivated students,” is a self-judgment of capability to execute a particular course of action; this is termed “Personal Teaching Efficacy,” or PTE (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998).

17 Figure 1. Bandura’s Chart of Self-Efficacy Sources Source: Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 195.

In her article, “Self Efficacy in College Teaching,” Anita Woolfolk Hoy (2004) described the importance of developing high self-efficacy in new college instructors: The research on self-efficacy development suggests that efficacy judgments are most malleable in the early stages of mastering a skill and become more set with experience, so it makes sense that early teaching experiences would be important shapers of efficacy judgments. If these early experiences are positive, then new teachers are better able to persist in the face of the inevitable disappointments and discouragements of the first attempts at college teaching. (p. 1)

Effective Practices in College Instruction

“An accomplished teacher is a member of a professional community who is ready, willing, and able to teach and to learn from his or her teaching experiences” -- Shulman & Shulman (2004, p. 259).

18 Three studies concerning community colleges and effective instruction were found: One by Guskey and Easton (1982) on urban community colleges, one by Kelly (1992) on vocational programs, and one by McClenney (2006) on benchmarking, including a description of the Community College Survey of Student Engagement. Two other works related to higher education were also reviewed: Feldman’s 1988 meta analysis of 31 previous studies and Chickering and Gamson’s 1999 seven principles for good practice in higher education. Feldman (1988) conducted a literature review of 31 studies where college students and faculty rated characteristics they considered important to good teaching and effective instruction. Across all studies, there was an average correlation of + .71 between faculty and students on 22 instructional components of good teaching (Feldman). Average standardized rank and rank order were both used for comparisons. The top five ranked results are listed in Table 1.

Full document contains 149 pages
Abstract: The 2008 Strategic Plan for the California Community College System listed two primary goals: (1) college awareness and access as well as (2) student success and readiness. A listed sub-goal of student success and readiness was supporting effective teaching and learning. However, the community college system does not have a universal policy for the induction and training of new faculty to ensure these goals. Instead, the system has set minimum academic qualifications and allows districts and individual instructors to utilize a variety of professional development options. Yet it is unknown whether the minimum academic qualifications and professional development activities of new community college faculty are adequate to ensure optimal student achievement. A mixed-method study using an online survey and face-to-face interviews was conducted to measure the self-efficacy of new community college instructors and to identify variables associated with these self-efficacy scores. Quantitative analyses included One Way ANOVAs and General Linear Model ANOVAs. Qualitative analysis was completed using data reduction (coding, identifying themes), data display (assembling information), and conclusion drawing and verification. Although the original research questions did not show any statistically significant relationships, qualitative inquiry revealed self-motivation and peer support to be important themes concerning professional development for new faculty members.